PonyFans.com

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/educatio ... facilities

I still don't understand why we don't have one built on Petus for cheap or across the highway by the "East Campus". Instead of raising $150 million, build one for 20 million and put brick and columns around it--its going to be ugly one way or another. Once we become good, then we can build the 150 million dollar one.

The basketball practice facility cost around 10 million. If this was the football program, they would want it built for 60 million.

My high school had an IPF since 2003. It's a steel container with a football field. Serves its purpose so we can practice when it rains.

UT has a bubble. I know we don't want to destroy the look of the campus, but building a cheap IPF in brick and columns doesn't cost $150 million. I wonder which alum is going to get the building contract. It just sounds crazy for the product I have viewed.

This cost Oregon 68 Million.

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blo ... ducks.html

150 is for a lot of stuff in addition to ipf. Phase 1 which is just ipf and soccer stadium and an indoor track, all of which are included and a must, is 50 million.

@u2_marathon @coachchadmorris @dallasnews @AD_RickHart Will an IPF keep you from being destroyed by Memphis and navy? If so I am all for it

RGV Pony wrote:150 is for a lot of stuff in addition to ipf. Phase 1 which is just ipf and soccer stadium and an indoor track, all of which are included and a must, is 50 million.

Isn't the new swimming facility also included in that $150 mil total?

I do not think so

IPC....get with the program

We are now a tennis / equestrian / golf school and Gerald Ford is sick of funding everything football.

Building it on Petus is not a bad idea. What's the negative of that?

I have toured Oregon's football facilities. They are on another planet compared to what we have.

#ponyUpTempo #callSherwoodOrBuildOnPetus

Charleston Pony wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:150 is for a lot of stuff in addition to ipf. Phase 1 which is just ipf and soccer stadium and an indoor track, all of which are included and a must, is 50 million.

Isn't the new swimming facility also included in that $150 mil total?

NO. The new swim complex is under construction in a rat hole area between SMU BLVD, North Central and Greenville in the "east campus".

Long live Jacks Pub and Volleyball.

mtrout wrote:We are now a tennis / equestrian / golf school and Gerald Ford is sick of funding everything football.

Building it on Petus is not a bad idea. What's the negative of that?

I have toured Oregon's football facilities. They are on another planet compared to what we have.

#ponyUpTempo #callSherwoodOrBuildOnPetus

I'm assuming it's being funded by Mr Knight and the Gang over at Nike?

mtrout wrote:We are now a tennis / equestrian / golf school and Gerald Ford is sick of funding everything football.

Building it on Petus is not a bad idea. What's the negative of that?

I have toured Oregon's football facilities. They are on another planet compared to what we have.

#ponyUpTempo #callSherwoodOrBuildOnPetus

No, the NCAA is a tennis/equestrian/golf organization. If you want the ability to build football facilities without paying for those sports then take it up with Emmert and company.

And Oregon's facilities are on another planet compared to most everybody, save Alabama and such. Phil Knight donated $90M for that specific purpose - billionaires don't grow on trees and they happen to have one who made it on athletic apparel. Go figure.

smupony94 wrote:http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/2017/01/report-unt-athletics-finished-with-a-20-million-deficit-in-2016.html/

So over the 4-year period a typical undergrad attends school, NTSU, UTEP and UTSA will lose a combined $200M. And still UTA wants to bring back FB.

College FB programs are like banks in America.....there are too many of them.

What makes you think SMU is any different-in fact there is a huge difference-we don't have 20,000 or 30,000 students to charge a student athletic fee to fund the athletic program. We the SMU alumni get to do that instead ourselves

"SMU expects to spend $34.8 million on athletics in 2016, according to a recent report from the All University Finance Committee. This spending, which amounts to 7.5 percent of the university’s $462 million operating budget, exceeds athletic revenue by $10.1 million. The $10.1 million deficit does excludes athletic scholarships—“grants in aid”—of $19.7 million, which pushes SMU’s total athletic deficit to $29.8 million.

http://www.smudailycampus.com/news/smu-athletics-the-business-of-sports

Stallion wrote:What makes you think SMU is any different-in fact there is a huge difference-we don't have 20,000 or 30,000 students to charge a student athletic fee to fund the athletic program. We the SMU alumni get to do that instead ourselves

"SMU expects to spend $34.8 million on athletics in 2016, according to a recent report from the All University Finance Committee. This spending, which amounts to 7.5 percent of the university’s $462 million operating budget, exceeds athletic revenue by $10.1 million. The $10.1 million deficit does excludes athletic scholarships—“grants in aid”—of $19.7 million, which pushes SMU’s total athletic deficit to $29.8 million.

http://www.smudailycampus.com/news/smu-athletics-the-business-of-sports

We have legal eagles like you keeping us afloat