no kickoff luncheon?

[Bergermeister]

Word on the street is that there will be a no holds barred, sit-on-the-turf, picnic-style hot dog buffet at the new Center for the Performing Athletics when/if it is completed. Anatole smanatole.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

Word on the street is that there will be a no holds barred, sit-on-the-turf, picnic-style hot dog buffet at the new Center for the Performing Athletics when/if it is completed. Anatole smanatole.

Hot dogs would be better than sandwiches

[soccermom]

Hi smusic00 & CenTxPony, we’ve missed y’all!!

[smusic 00]

Hi, mom!

[PonySnob]

Word on the street is that there will be a no holds barred, sit-on-the-turf, picnic-style hot dog buffet at the new Center for the Performing Athletics when/if it is completed. Anatole smanatole.

Hot dogs would be better than sandwiches

Subs from New York Sub would be okay!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[One Trick Pony]

Hi smusic00 & CenTxPony, we’ve missed y’all!!

We?

[soccermom]

[Puckhead48E]

BS! Our AD hasn't a clue nor the foresight to market the program. We've lost numerous season ticket holders and have gained very few. A major responsibility of the AD is to generate sales, not rely on W-L to fill the stands. It is his responsibility to recognize athletics for what it is a REVENUE opportunity. If he is sitting in his office, waiting for tickets to be sold he simply needs to go. It is his responsibility to not manage to a static revenue line, but to increase revenues. It is very disheartening that that he sees his job as managing a budget instead of managing the top line. He is way over his head needs to go. But, then who else would Turner hire that would be his yes man.

You people are fools if you believe that the head of the Mustang Club didn't bail for a reason!

Wonder why TCU does it and SMU doesn't? Their AD moved on to UT ours didn't even gdet an interview at KU! Little man, with no insight as to how a major program is run and what it takes to increase revenue. Once more, he needs to go, unfortunately no one wants him.

He lectures on diversity and GPA, I told him BS, he had two goals, the Big Xll and an increase in athletic revenues. He has been here what? seven years? Since that time he has never reviewed a coach's performance face to face, there is only one or two coaches still here, he doesn't have the respect of a single head coach, and we've fallen well below 100 on the Director's Cup rankings. We don't have a single member of the Athletic Department that ever coached or played in D-1, not single employee! We don't have a booster club any more and our Letterman's Club is fed up with him. If your guys don't get the fact that the President of the Mustang Club, whose election to the board was made by the administration quits on the program and you guys just go passively on with the same ol,' same ol', no one has a chance! Oh, its OK we no longer have a luncheon to fire up the troops, why not get rid of the cheerleaders and the band, their expensive also.

We have a little man, that has no vision for athletics at this university, a UNC PE major that has no business sense, a little man that is afraid to reveiw his subordinates, a little man that is more afraid of his budget than winning, well boys, adios. You get what you deserve.

If only we knew someone who was on the board at the time Pye was dismantling the schools athletic heart and ripping it from it's chest...someone that could have stood up. I mean, if they were there then they are part of the problem, and should likely be ostracised and kept far from the program. Then again... someone who was there at that time, you'd think humility and a sense of pride would lead them to stay away for the sake of their history...a virtual sepuku for the sake of those who want to grow.

Oh...nevermind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mexmustang]

Sorry that I wasn't in a position to defend my post last week, but now I'm back.

Let's start with these numbers, remember them, No. 29; No. 74 and No. 128. I'll get back to these.

As far as who stopped supporting the luncheon, he most certainly was a past President of the Mustang Club. I tried to find the name of this season's President and board of directors, but the official Mustang Club site hasn't been updated in three years! Some of us assumed it really no longer exists, no annual briefing by the AD, no late night pizza and dialing for dollars, simply put we thought it was now just a name used for athletic donations and no longer a Club per se. But, that's marketing.

I can tell you that a number of us are upset at the football luncheon cancellation, but it really doesn't matter, only one person runs the school. However, it is difficult for us to accept that at $750.00 per table the lucheon lost money. Its also difficult for us to believe a second sponsor to help fund any deficit couldn't have been found. Finally, with the increase in Mustang giving why the school couldn't accept a small deficit. But, then thats called marketing!

I'm glad so-called donations are up. But, we all know that the major increase was effectively the result of increasing season ticket prices for basketball. This year's reseat wasn't really an increase in ticket prices, it was jury maindering what qualifies as a donation. In past years many donations to the univeristy were restricted donations to athetics or buildings, or scholarships or endownment and not unrestricted donations to athletics, as Mustang Club donations used to be. Many donors oomplained that because their donations weren't through the club they didn't count for seat assignments. So, they simply changed the definition. Was the increase in athletic donations real or simply repricing or redefining the definition? Really doesn't matter, my comments had to do with W-L's and football marketing, not Mustang Club donations, whatever the source.


Yes, our former luncheon sponsor was a past Mustange Club President, he was also on the Letterman's board. The question is what happened? What upset him, what upset us? Two things, when we went searching for Chad's replacement, the so-called search committee didn't contain as single person ever involved in Mustang football or any football program. The feeling is that Sonny was hired because he was cheap, as Cal was going to pay a majority of his salary for the next few years, and not because he was the best candidate. Question, who else made the short list? I hope Sonny does the job, but the so-called "search' was pretty amateur and those SMU alumni and donors with football backgrounds weren't involved.

Secondly, our esteemed President recently addressed a group of Dallas businessman. He shared his vision for SMU. His model is Emory University. Not Vanderbilt, or Northwestern, or Stanford, but Emory. Famous for its med school and infamous for D-3 athletics. You know, the programs that give no athletic scholarships They play with the University of Chicago and other D-3 programs well below the level of even the Ivy League. Pretty disappointing to a number of us who simply don't share this vision. After all, the next new Med school in Texas is going to some school in Fort Worth, but then they still play football.

Now, let's get back to my complaints. Our AD is over his head. He hasn't done anything to address the husband-wife conflict in compliance and athletic admittance, and he has replaced just about every coach on his staff, many by early promotion of their assistants or a less experienced assistant than our dismissed head coach. Again, it appears he is managing to a budget not the top line. Replacing higher priced head coaches with lower priced assistant coaches.Or worse he simply won't tolerate any coach that tries to defend their program and might disagree with his opinions.

I'm glad the Richards Group was mentioned as having volunteered to help in footbaal marketing. Unfortunately, according to my contacts there, our AD simply has no vision. One of their major suggestions was to agressively market to visiting schools such as SFA, schools that have major alumni bases in the Metroplex I don't recall the number of alumni, but they were on our schedule at the time and it was felt if we could at least get severval thousand visitors in the stands, more Mustang fans would come, simply because the staduim would have more energy, more excitement. Our AD's response, "we can't do that, what if their fans our number ours?". The professionals just rolled their eyes and left the rooom shaking their heads! But, if you guys think a billboard showing women's basketball or volleyball is going to get buts into Ford, your mistaken. Once more, there is no marketing of football being done by our AD.

Now, let's get back to those three numbers I mentioned earlier.

Number 29. Ten years after the death penalty under Jim Copeland, SMU was ranked number 29 amongst all D-1 schools in the Director's Cup, which ranked not just football and men's basketball, but all intercollegiate sports.

Number 74. This was the ranking in Orsini's last full year. The year he received a five year contract extension and a bonus for getting SMU intor the Big East. We actually out ranked all our peers in the future ACC and far ahead of many majors.

Number 128. This is SMU's rating as of June 30. 2018. The Director's Cup rating of all athletic programs under our current AD. 128! 128! If any of you care to, look at the list of schools ahead of us. I guarantee you'll find at least 50 or more schools ahead of SMU that you either forgot existed or never heard of before. Do any of you realize how bad this is? This is how bad all our sports programs have become as we trade down in terms of head coaches and endure a complete lack of support within the department. If Sonny were to go 0-10, for the next five years would you be happy? Wouldn't you be calling for a new coach. Well boys, this is where our sports programs have fallen under the directions of Ricky boy. We are essentially last amongst all our peers and last amongst the majors One final time, he doesn't promote football, he doesn't know the meaning of marketing and his leadership of our minor sports is admismal!

[Bergermeister]

Welcome back.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

We can argue why all day and point fingers but the plunge in the Director's Cup rankings is fact and it is just disgusting.

To be fair, the P5 schools will naturally gravitate to higher rankings purely on the money they have to invest in their programs, but with all of our new facilities it is inexcusable for us to be in the 100s.

[Arkpony]

You mean our outstanding tennis facility (it's that thing across Mockinbird) didn't pull us into at least 99?!

[RGV Pony]

Sorry that I wasn't in a position to defend my post last week, but now I'm back.

Let's start with these numbers, remember them, No. 29; No. 74 and No. 128. I'll get back to these.

As far as who stopped supporting the luncheon, he most certainly was a past President of the Mustang Club. I tried to find the name of this season's President and board of directors, but the official Mustang Club site hasn't been updated in three years! Some of us assumed it really no longer exists, no annual briefing by the AD, no late night pizza and dialing for dollars, simply put we thought it was now just a name used for athletic donations and no longer a Club per se. But, that's marketing.

I can tell you that a number of us are upset at the football luncheon cancellation, but it really doesn't matter, only one person runs the school. However, it is difficult for us to accept that at $750.00 per table the lucheon lost money. Its also difficult for us to believe a second sponsor to help fund any deficit couldn't have been found. Finally, with the increase in Mustang giving why the school couldn't accept a small deficit. But, then thats called marketing!

I'm glad so-called donations are up. But, we all know that the major increase was effectively the result of increasing season ticket prices for basketball. This year's reseat wasn't really an increase in ticket prices, it was jury maindering what qualifies as a donation. In past years many donations to the univeristy were restricted donations to athetics or buildings, or scholarships or endownment and not unrestricted donations to athletics, as Mustang Club donations used to be. Many donors oomplained that because their donations weren't through the club they didn't count for seat assignments. So, they simply changed the definition. Was the increase in athletic donations real or simply repricing or redefining the definition? Really doesn't matter, my comments had to do with W-L's and football marketing, not Mustang Club donations, whatever the source.


Yes, our former luncheon sponsor was a past Mustange Club President, he was also on the Letterman's board. The question is what happened? What upset him, what upset us? Two things, when we went searching for Chad's replacement, the so-called search committee didn't contain as single person ever involved in Mustang football or any football program. The feeling is that Sonny was hired because he was cheap, as Cal was going to pay a majority of his salary for the next few years, and not because he was the best candidate. Question, who else made the short list? I hope Sonny does the job, but the so-called "search' was pretty amateur and those SMU alumni and donors with football backgrounds weren't involved.

Secondly, our esteemed President recently addressed a group of Dallas businessman. He shared his vision for SMU. His model is Emory University. Not Vanderbilt, or Northwestern, or Stanford, but Emory. Famous for its med school and infamous for D-3 athletics. You know, the programs that give no athletic scholarships They play with the University of Chicago and other D-3 programs well below the level of even the Ivy League. Pretty disappointing to a number of us who simply don't share this vision. After all, the next new Med school in Texas is going to some school in Fort Worth, but then they still play football.

Now, let's get back to my complaints. Our AD is over his head. He hasn't done anything to address the husband-wife conflict in compliance and athletic admittance, and he has replaced just about every coach on his staff, many by early promotion of their assistants or a less experienced assistant than our dismissed head coach. Again, it appears he is managing to a budget not the top line. Replacing higher priced head coaches with lower priced assistant coaches.Or worse he simply won't tolerate any coach that tries to defend their program and might disagree with his opinions.

I'm glad the Richards Group was mentioned as having volunteered to help in footbaal marketing. Unfortunately, according to my contacts there, our AD simply has no vision. One of their major suggestions was to agressively market to visiting schools such as SFA, schools that have major alumni bases in the Metroplex I don't recall the number of alumni, but they were on our schedule at the time and it was felt if we could at least get severval thousand visitors in the stands, more Mustang fans would come, simply because the staduim would have more energy, more excitement. Our AD's response, "we can't do that, what if their fans our number ours?". The professionals just rolled their eyes and left the rooom shaking their heads! But, if you guys think a billboard showing women's basketball or volleyball is going to get buts into Ford, your mistaken. Once more, there is no marketing of football being done by our AD.

Now, let's get back to those three numbers I mentioned earlier.

Number 29. Ten years after the death penalty under Jim Copeland, SMU was ranked number 29 amongst all D-1 schools in the Director's Cup, which ranked not just football and men's basketball, but all intercollegiate sports.

Number 74. This was the ranking in Orsini's last full year. The year he received a five year contract extension and a bonus for getting SMU intor the Big East. We actually out ranked all our peers in the future ACC and far ahead of many majors.

Number 128. This is SMU's rating as of June 30. 2018. The Director's Cup rating of all athletic programs under our current AD. 128! 128! If any of you care to, look at the list of schools ahead of us. I guarantee you'll find at least 50 or more schools ahead of SMU that you either forgot existed or never heard of before. Do any of you realize how bad this is? This is how bad all our sports programs have become as we trade down in terms of head coaches and endure a complete lack of support within the department. If Sonny were to go 0-10, for the next five years would you be happy? Wouldn't you be calling for a new coach. Well boys, this is where our sports programs have fallen under the directions of Ricky boy. We are essentially last amongst all our peers and last amongst the majors One final time, he doesn't promote football, he doesn't know the meaning of marketing and his leadership of our minor sports is admismal!

Let's see.

Yes, last year's Letterman's President was at one time MC president. Since then, there have been at least three, each serving two year terms, and myself, in my second year. So, you're talking about almost a decade ago. Oh, and I also share a suite at Ford with the past Letterman's president you mention. We shared several concerns with regard to reseat, ticketing, marketing etc etc with MC staff during the Bahamas tournament.

The AD and RGT addressed the Letterman's and MC board last Friday.

No, we no longer "dial for dollars." For those who still respond to telemarketing attempts for fundraising, maybe we can create an 'opt in.' This change was made about five years ago. When it was changed, some of the old guard reminded admin of the tradition of pizza in the stadium club at Ford, and so a 'kickoff party' was held, very similar to that...and about four people showed.

As for gerrymandering what constitutes a donation and what does not, I would submit to you that such is an example of MC and admin listening to concerns and instituting change that addresses those concerns. Yes, some folks would immediately ask "do I get credit/points/etc" for ____ donation. Logically, they should. So, that was changed. I'm not sure how that is a point of contention. With regard to traditional current use funds, which in the past constitutes what wouldve been raised from the Morgan Campaign dialin' and smilin', this year's total was 6.1mm.

One thing the MC board does is help to engage. Last year for example, roundtables were convened that included a) marketing breakout sessions and b) discussions with those in charge of athletics admissions and compliance [the husband/wife team you reference], among others. One of this year's members - a football letterman, btw, contacted the athletic department then instant he saw FAU's new concessions pricing and guess what-SMU's rolling out family friendly 'value prices' this year.

Off the top of my head, there are four or five football lettermen on the current iteration of the board.

Good catch on that landing page needing updated-that's a quick fix.

As for the search committee "not having anyone with a football background," that's simply not true. At least one (the one who also went to Harvard) played football at SMU. Since the quote given was SMU was "using the same committee that hired Chad," one can also surmise that another played football at SMU (the one whose name is on the football and athletics offices at Ford).

I maintain my agreement with you on the other points, e.g. Director's Cup.

[JasonB]

We dropped because of a big fat 0 in spring sports and only 25 for winter.

After the fall portion, we were #52, thanks to women's cross country, football, and men's soccer. Women's soccer and women's VB both didn't score, those are two sports woe could improve on to get the ranking higher.

After winter, down to 92. We got points for men's swimming. Failed to score in M/W Basketball, W swimming and diving. Underperforming BB caused the drop, along with swimming. With our facilities, I think you will see us do much better in the winter moving forwards.

M Golf, W Golf, Baseball, Lacrosse, Rowing, Softball, Tennis, Track and Field failed to score in the winter. Our golf and tennis should start scoring points with the new facilities.

Dumping T&F hurt our overall Director's cup standings, so I don't think we will get back into the top 25 like we once were. But our continued commitment to football and basketball and our facility improvements in golf, swimming, and tennis will get us back into the 50-75 range in pretty short order. Some of the smaller sports we have invested in, like Equestrian, aren't part of the rankings, so that is an unfortunate mistake.

That said, if we bumped men's lacrosse up to D-1 and invested in women's lacrosse, that would replace the T&F disparity and enable us to compete for the top 25 again...

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

With our facilities, I think you will see us do much better in the winter moving forwards.

That is what I expect as well, and hopefully last year was an aberration.

We really need a bounce back in both basketballs this season in a big way.

Thanks for the analysis.