It's about MONEY

[BUS]

I wish our history could carry the day for SMU to end up in a better conf. Lets be real, its about MONEY. BCS money, TV money, sport jersey-hat-shoe MONEY.

With SMU's low alunmi base and lack of winning seasons in football - we have not shown the numbers. That was the past -

LOOK at the new stadium, the now somewhat equal admittance standards and recruiting hoops that Turner ( and ADM. Staff ) have removed.
We are not kidding ourselves anymore. WIN, Win now.
Winning equals MONEY, both from SMU donors and TV, Bowl Games.

I just wish we had moved a few years earlier in the direction I see now.

[Charleston Pony]

right you are, BUS. We will be lucky if we don't end up in the lowest rated conference, but anyone who is being honest about our situation has to admit we will get exactly what we deserve. The ray of hope is that, at least for now, we are committed to competing at I-A. If we end up in the new SWC with the last bunch of "hangers-on", we had better win and find a way to put butts in the seats of Ford and Moody. Otherwise, it won't be long until Ken Pye's vision of D-III athletics is a reality on the Hilltop.

[EastStang]

You know a while back someone humorously mentioned that we just ought to walk in with a huge bankroll and try and buy our way into BCS. You know the old joke, a guy offers a woman $1 Million dollars to sleep with him, she says of course, he then says well how about a dollar. What do you think I am? He says, we've already established that we're just negotiating about the price. We've established the BCS schools are all about money. Could we dangle enough money under their noses to make a conference go, hmmm, we could use that scratch? Food for thought.

[cowboypony]

Let's carry this discussion a little further. And please, for all the naysayers out there, this post is merely for discussion purposes and I'm not viewing this as reality - at least not yet.

I've often wondered, in our modern era of sports, why we couldn't "buy" our way into a better conference. I think we all agree that Division 1 sports is ENTIRELY about $$$. So, with that in mind, what would $50 million paid over 5-10 years get us? While I'll admit that there must first be an open spot for us somewhere, I'm somewhat serious about this question. Now, let's assume there is some legitimacy to our offer. What would this mythical conference get by letting us buy our way in? Well, first of all they get a very reputable academic institution with some history of success. They get the opportunity to get both the Dallas market and trips to Dallas in each sport. While I'll agree that SMU cannot "deliver" the Dallas market; however, if SMU is playing Iowa, Iowa St., Mizzou, etc., and it's a conference game, the Dallas market is substantially more interested, thus, more $$. If SMU ever got into such a conference, we have just as much opportunity to compete as other schools such as Iowa St., TT, Georgia Tech, etc. In my opinion, the ability to compete almost completely is related to the conference you're in. With no disrespect, there is no reason that TT, Iowa St. etc. should be better than SMU in anything. However, they have the power and luxury of the Big XII behind them. Now, let's carry this scenario further. Has any school every tried to buy their way into a conference - literally? I'm not suggesting that this has a high percentage chance of working. What I am suggesting is that it is a potential that should be explored by our leadership.

While I am truly sickened by the position we find ourselves in, I can also freely admit that we caused it ourselves. Having said that, when we compare our school to the likes of: SJSU, Nevada, Boise, NTSU, etc., we have SO SO much more potential. All I'm suggesting here is that we exhaust every possibility before we are forced to throw in the towel.

On another topic, we often talk about our lack of numbers when it comes to students and alumni. With all the focus on UT and A&M not being able to admit students because of overcrowding, budget, etc., why is our undergraduate cap not raised? Yes, I realize that our facilities and infrastructure has a limit. However, can anyone answer whether or not we have the ability to add another 500-1,000 freshmen per year? Over time, this adds more fan and alumni base. To me, private schools such as SMU should really be capitalizing on the inability of so many talented students not being able to get into the 2 big state schools. Again, all I'm suggesting is to think outside the box.

I, like everyone on this board, love SMU and only want to be a part of the dance. I just want to know at the end of the day that we've done everything that is possible to be invited.

[EastStang]

I think $50 Million is probably too much but then again, the BCS schools see themselves more in the call girl category than street walker.

[Hoop Fan]

Absolutely, buying your way in is no joke. It might not take an entry fee of $50 million but you probably would have to put that much in combined investment in your program and entry fees. Heck, Uconn just built a stadium for $90 million, we got a bargain at $60 million I guess. Cmon Lamar, sell the Chiefs and save the Mustangs.

[Nacho]

Cowboy I think we are at our limit as far as freshmen admitted. If we accepted any more they would have to live off campus which is not an ideal situation for freshmen, although it is done at some of the big state schools (I think TCU does this also or at least has done it in the past). We may see the caliber of our class go up since many of these rejected students have good-great academics but don't fit into the insane top 10% rule in Texas.

[cowboypony]

Nacho, thanks for the response. That's pretty much what I've always heard. I guess my thought is: why does it matter it some % of Freshmen have to live off campus? I understand the reasons for having them all on campus; but, on the other hand, most schools allow off-campus living for those who don't get into the dorms.

To me, it's all about increasing our exposure. More people with SMU attached to their name means more exposure. More exposure means more fans, money, etc. While there is clearly a limit as to how many students we have, I think this is a golden opportunity to increase our total undergraduate enrollment. We should at least be the size of Baylor (I think I'm correct that their undergraduate population is slightly larger than ours).

Again, all I'm suggesting is that we maximize every opportunity to make ourselves better.

[Nacho]

Cowboy I get what you are saying but SMU is a small private school. That's what we are and should be. That's why total cost now is slightly over 30k/yr. Why would a parent send a kid to SMU if it is nothing more than a very expensive big state school? IMO we don't need more students; we need more students involved in supporting football and basketball. That will come when we win and when we play schools that these kids want to see, eg OSU, TT, Baylor, etc.

[cowboypony]

What I'm suggesting does not change who/what we are. I'm not saying we need 25,000 students. Yes, this would change who/what we are. What I'm asking is our ability to be slightly larger (like Baylor). To answer your question about why a parent would pay $30K to go to SMU is simple. The competition for our kids to do anything in this world (ie: t-ball, cheerleading, debate team, golf, basketball, etc.) has become unmanageable. All of these articles lately about the pressures of getting our kids into UT and A&M just emphasize to me what an asset we have in SMU. Most parents I know are prepared to do whatever it takes to improve their kids position in this world. SMU is a commodity. Why not see if we have a little (emphasis on the word "little") room to grow to take advantage of the undeniable demand that exists today. SMU is in a wonderful position to take advantage of the legal restrictions that are imposed on UT and A&M.

All I'm saying is that if SMU has 6,000-7,000 undergraduates right now (I don't know what the real number is), can we expand it to get closer to 9,000-10,000? I can only see that this would help us in the long term and not change the make-up of who/what we are.

[Nacho]

Cowboy there is no way that SMU can get to 10k undergrads. Even 6-7 would bust it at the seems. 10k is the total enrollment now for undergrads and grads (5k each). We are pretty well land-locked in UP. Not much room to grow. I agree totally--SMU indeed is a very special place.

[PonyPower]

Re: "busting it at the seams...."

Is there any plan to build more dorms? Before you laugh at the idea, remember that the school said at the completion of its capital campaign last year that the buildings currently under construction are the last the school will build for a while. Yet just yesterday the school announced the receipt of a $7.5 million gift for the construction of another new engineering building (after they just built one building for electrical engineering). And, keep in mind, that SMU owns many of the little houses between the campus and Central Expy on Yale (errr .... "SMU Blvd."), as well as many of the University Gardens condos on Dublin. Do we believe they really want to own these homes and operate a real estate rental business? Or are there plans underway to rip down some of them in order to expand for more campus buildings?

If that's the case, maybe another dorm or two might be added, in which case, cowboypony's idea of 9,000-10,000 undergrads might not be that far-fetched, after all.

[cowboypony]

Nacho, do you know what our current undergrad enrollment is? I didn't really mean for this post to get this detailed in the enrollment issue. I was mainly posting about the possibility to pay $$ to improve our position.

As for the enrollment issue, my belief is that we can grow some. If we're only at around 5,000, then I agree with you that 10,000 is impossible. I do believe that a 15-20% growth over a period of time is attainable. And why not, there is clearly a demand out there. I also agree that we can't house all of these people on campus. We do, however, have the facilities to educate this type of increase.

In the long run, I think we should seize this opportunity. It puts more people running around town with SMU on their shirts, car windows, caps, etc. This whole Division 1 thing is about $$ and exposure. While my suggestion on enrollment is a minor piece of the puzzle - it should not be dismissed.

What I'm more curious about is the real possibility of putting down a huge chunk of cash.

[Water Pony]

Expansion for SMU is difficult and adding only 1,000 undergrad's would be a stretch. The needs for the campus also include more intramual fields (I can't believe we have so few and club sports like Lacrosse,etc. are desperate), one new dorm, the new building of the new Recreation Center next to Moody(which is a hellva of marketing tool by the way) and, of course, my personal and most important addition, a competitive 50 meter indoor pool to maintain the performance of the Women's Swim & Dive Team and return the Men's program to the Top Ten.

Adding 500 to 1,000 new undergrad's would be max, but perhaps doable. Sounds like we have to take over the own properties to address these demands

[Nacho]

I think that as someone who is not in administration I have gone as far as I can. Maybe someone who knows all the details can post.