PonyFans.com

Can you imagine the Park Cities [deleted] if we put up a shed like UH or UAB-there is no way either would get approved by the City Council anyway

RGV Pony wrote:...aaand we still owe 4 million on the tennis facility and 3.8 on the natatorium

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

RGV -The reason that those sums are owed on those two facilities is because SMU has a very generous policy of beginning construction of buildings when 80% of the cost has been committed. (Other universities have more strict policies of requiring 100% of the cost committed.) The same 80% standard applies to the IPF facility, with any more generous changes to enhance the chances of reaching the required 80% level. So, if the IPF is built, money will still likely need to be raised to close the 20% gap. The IPF is no different than the tennis and swimming facilities. Thus, I do not understand the point of your post.

Also, Stallion is spot on when he says the supporters of the swimming and tennis programs stepped up to reached the required 80% commitment level to construct those facilities. Thus, I do not understand the continued reference to those facilities when football supporters need to complete the commitments required to begin construction of the IPF. It is an entirely separate issue.

Also, I think it is helpful to keep in mind that the tennis team had no on campus practice facilities for at least two years, and the swimming teams have been practicing in out dated facilities for the last 30 years, and with no permanent indoor practice facilities for the past 3 seasons.

Who's RVG?

One Trick Pony wrote:Who's RVG?

Corrected. Thanks.

mtrout wrote:This is a reminder. It's not 1983 anymore.

Yes - They now have a beautiful indoor facility and have been virtually irrelevant since Shula left.

When the IPF gets funded and prioritized, it will happen. We could still be irrelevant once we get it. We could also be relevant without it (we saw some success under June - until he gave up).

I still think SMU could raise the money for the IPF if done properly but maybe I am wrong.

kc711 wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:...aaand we still owe 4 million on the tennis facility and 3.8 on the natatorium

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

RGV -The reason that those sums are owed on those two facilities is because SMU has a very generous policy of beginning construction of buildings when 80% of the cost has been committed. (Other universities have more strict policies of requiring 100% of the cost committed.) The same 80% standard applies to the IPF facility, with any more generous changes to enhance the chances of reaching the required 80% level. So, if the IPF is built, money will still likely need to be raised to close the 20% gap. The IPF is no different than the tennis and swimming facilities. Thus, I do not understand the point of your post.

Also, Stallion is spot on when he says the supporters of the swimming and tennis programs stepped up to reached the required 80% commitment level to construct those facilities. Thus, I do not understand the continued reference to those facilities when football supporters need to complete the commitments required to begin construction of the IPF. It is an entirely separate issue.

Also, I think it is helpful to keep in mind that the tennis team had no on campus practice facilities for at least two years, and the swimming teams have been practicing in out dated facilities for the last 30 years, and with no permanent indoor practice facilities for the past 3 seasons.

I'm aware of the 80% rule. The point of my post is..we still need to come up with sums mentioned.

RGV Pony wrote:...aaand we still owe 4 million on the tennis facility and 3.8 on the natatorium

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You have to admire a school like SMU.

They just dropped over $40M on Swimming & Tennis facilities (I am assuming land costs do not factor into the 80% rule).

To put some perspective on this, there are 3 schools in the AAC that have total endowments under $200M.

You have to admire SMU for building up the country club sport facilities.

They won't build the IPF. They'll redirect the funds to other parts of the facilities/football master plan. Real talk.

They are being built by donations. Write the check for the IPF and I bet they would break ground as soon as it cleared.

This is kinda like when you fall short of your goal selling girl scout cookies. Instead of getting the ipad, you get the backpack.

SoCal_Pony wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:...aaand we still owe 4 million on the tennis facility and 3.8 on the natatorium

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You have to admire a school like SMU.

They just dropped over $40M on Swimming & Tennis facilities (I am assuming land costs do not factor into the 80% rule).

To put some perspective on this, there are 3 schools in the AAC that have total endowments under $200M.

If the land cost is not included in the "cost" numbers, it should be. The school committed valuable land next to Central Expresway & a DART station. If that land had been sold, it could have funded much of the cost of an IPF.

How about we stop picking on the swim team? Their building was literally condemned and they've been using the outdoor pool for a few years now while their new facility got funded and is finally getting built.
If football can't get the necessary funds, that's on football and its boosters. The swim team has been trying for two decades to get a new facility, and hating on them isn't going to get the IPF done.

If we can't keep the rain off their heads while they practice.........the cost of one hundred or so Brock-o-Brellas should be in the operating budget. Hint.......get them in Yale blue and Harvard red mixed colors.

You just made PFS