Well gang, it's been...

[Charleston Pony]

these "costs" are somewhat inflated because they include the cost of the athlete's scholarships. Granted, the room and board costs are legitimate, but what does an extra body in the classroom really cost? The figures we are reading about also include the costs of funding women's "equivalent" programs, so while the "real" number might not be $1M per year, even deducting tuition costs this move will result in significant savings...but as we are being told...there isn't going to be any real savings. The budget apparently will remain at about $18M with costs simply reallocated.

What this Athletic Dept really needs to be "successful" is 30,000 paying customers at Ford Stadium and 8,000 at Moody every night out. If tickets were tough to come by, Mustang Club donations might dramatically increase (biggest donors get the best seats). We aren't like Big State U that can draw 80,000 for football and actually use footbal to fund a good portion of the athletics budget. That's part of why we aren't playing with the big boys.

[PonySnob]

The reason that we are not competing with the big boys is that the administration at SMU is not committed to fielding competitive teams in football and basketball. They haven't been ever since the spring of 1987. It is a shame that SMU has been passed by TCU and UNT in terms of athletic success. What did TCU do that has turned them into a consistent top 25 football team that goes to bowl games every year? Why can't SMU do the same thing? Even UNT is now winning their conference and going to bowl games. UNT might be playing in a worse conference than we do, but after watching the truly pathetic performance in football the last two years, we would be a bottom rung Sun Belt team as well.
It is very evident that we caught both Texas Tech and Purdue at the right time of the season as there is absolutely no way that SMU could beat either one of those teams today. It will be interesting to see if the win that TCU had over a top 10 team last week, helps in getting their basketball team going in the right direction just as that Sun Bowl win over USC helped turn their football program into one that SMU fans and alumni can only dream about having. Clearly something over on the Hilltop needs to change if SMU is to ever have teams that its few fans can be proud of.

[PK]

That savings is not just the expenses of the track and field programs, but the additional cost associated with adding 2 to 3 new women's sports to meet Title IX requirements. But just for a starter, 19 people on full scholarship alone is in excess of $380,000 a year plus the expense of a coach's salary plus equipment plus travel expenses for meets that last over a several day period which means hotel rooms and food and as noted above recruiting expenses.

Aside from the 1500 minus 2, SMU "fans" are not a loyal group. it's sort of a reflection on the Dallas sports mentality...if you ain't winning, we don't want anything to do with you. Sad indeed.

[Stallion]

when you start blaming the consumer for a pathetic product you know your Model has failed.

[Charleston Pony]

PK; you're right about Dallas in that the city has proven it will support a winner. I'm not sure SMU has done even that. Ask those who played for those top 10 football/bball teams in the 80's. I lived in Dallas and was one of the 1500 in those years and I remember plenty of games played in front of 20,000 and 2,000 crowds...despite the products that were on the field/court.

PonySnob's name says it all. The average Joe in Dallas has a hard time identifying with this little rich kids' school. It appears we can't even count on our own alumni to support the program (I have very few classmates who attend regularly). Those who knock the marketing dept don't appreciate their challenge. If you can't get your alumni to support our programs, how do you convince Dallas to do so?

[PK]

Stallion, I think it has already been documented that the SMU fan loyalty as demonstrated by game attendance was less than stellar even prior to the implementation of the PYE model though it has probably hit an all time low. That in no way deminishes the drastic consequences of the PYE model. The "consumers" as you call the fans are still a part of the problem as well as the model. A true alumni type fan, while not necessarily happy with the "product" should still support the program while trying to improve the methods by which the "product" is produced. We have a vested interest in our sports programs the random casual "consumer" does not have. We aren't selling Widgets here.

[Stallion]

as the excuses keep coming and coming. I've grown tired of the of the inaccurate conventional wisdom. The fact is that even after Russ Potts left and SMU discontinued ALL of the free giveaways SMU never averaged in the 1980's less than the SEATING CAPACITY for Ford Stadium-and they didn't have the benefits of a brand new on campus stadium and the Boulevard either. In fact the average in the post Potts years was approximately 37,000. Notice those numbers compare favorably over a longer period of time than TCU today and is really all that could be expected from a small private school whose fan bases with always be smaller. Once again we see apologists explain away what essentially would be more than a 100% increase of present attendance levels. The fan base for SMU is presently no more than 12,000, masked by large contingents of visiting fans from Tech, Oklahoma St and TCU, and for anybody to suggest that is not a huge loss in the traditional SMU fan base is simply making excuses for a MONUMENTAL failure in the athletic Model. And don't bother offerring EXCUSE NO. 2 that those number are unfairly inflated due to attendance by large SWC state schools. The facts are that the average attendance in those years in the SMU-Rice and SMU-TCU series were about 2-2.5 times the attendance last year and that includes the huge contingent of Froggies who disguised the complete apathy and disinterest by SMU's traditional fan base. The real attendance disparity in the traditional SMU fan base is more in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 times present day attendance. And yet we have an AD in Big Jim Copeland who doesn't understand why there is no loyalty in the SMU fan base. Well Jim its like this-you put a pathetic product on the field. Instead of winning 15 in a row against TCU, the new SMU Model has won only 4 out of 15 games. Instead, of 9 in a row against Rice, the new SMU Model has won 3 out of 15. Instead of a 100% winning record against two traditional dormats, SMU's new model has accomplished less than a 25% winning percentage against Rice and TCU for god sakes.

[PK]

Stallion, you make me laugh. Typical lawyer trying to obfuscate the facts when they don't meet your needs. All those large crowds you alude to were when we were in the SWC and were made up mostly of the opposing teams fans such as Texas, Texas A&M and Arkansas...and even all those Baptist when Baylor came to town. Hell, even after the DP we damn near sold out the Cotton Bowl when we played Arkansas and they were mostly razorback fans, not SMU fans. And talk about the 80's all you want, but how about the 60's and 70's after Dallas got a professional football team in town.

What's even funnier is that I agree with you about the ridiculous PYE model and it's affect on our athletic programs and you ignor THAT in order to try to defuse the part of the blame the "loyal (lol)" SMU fans have in the financial problems our athletic department has to deal with since that doesn't fit the your "everything is SMU's fault" argument.

You lose credibility when you don't acknowledge when someone is AGREEING with you just so you can make some other dearly loved argument.

[Charleston Pony]

There's no question we had better attendance in the old SWC days when we were at least competitive; and yes, we did average more than Ford's 32,000 capacity in those years...but take a closer look at those numbers and it's easy to see we've never had much support.

I assume Russ Potts' giveaways were discontinued after the '79 season because our average home attendance dropped from 55,758 to only 36,773 in 1980 (that was the Dicker-James year of the classic Holiday Bowl loss against BYU). Even as SWC Champs with a gaudy 10-1 record, we averaged only 33,325 in 1981...and that number was bolstered by the 60,777 that came out to see our only home loss that year... against guess who? Yep..the Texa$ Longhorn$. In defense of the argument that winning brings fans, we did draw 28,750 against Rice that year. Haven't done anything near that since the death penalty. That 1981 average was also hurt by games against UTA and NTSU (drew 20,130 and 20,400 respectively) Actually, those latter two games are probably more respresentative of how few really loyal supporters SMU had...you know, the kind who will travel to road games whenever possible and attend home games no matter who the opponent.

The point is that even when we were reasonably competitive and playing in the SWC, we still laid some eggs attendance wise. We drew only 24,410 against TTech in 1981, only 28,712 for Arkansas in 1984 (we were SWC Co-Champs that year), 20,014 for Rice in 1985, 25,967 for Houston in 1986, etc, etc, etc... Actually, the UTEP game in 1985 offers an interesting comparison for today. We beat them 35-23 in front of 24,611 that year and it was opening day! Granted, we were playing at Texas Stadium and not on campus...but I think the point in this whole discussion is that our weak fan base (and Rice's and TCU's and Houston's) has as much to do with the reak up of the SWC as anything. The fact is that the larger state schools just got tired of carrying us...and they had been for years.

When I was at SMU, we played in the Cotton Bowl and Hayden Fry was coaching us. We averaged 31,602 my frosh year thanks to OU drawing 51,909 opening day, 29,251 my soph year (only 18,128 for rival TCU), 25,648 my junior year (a whopping 18,035 for Baylor that year) and 19,956 my senior year. That year, we played more games at Texas Stadium and drew only 13,997 for Santa Clara, 13,683 for Virginia Tech and 19,575 against Missou. At the Cotton Bowl, we drew only 18,712 for Arkansas and 18,572 for TCU

Attendance for SMU football has been a problem for a long, long time. Ford Stadium is perfect for this program. If Bennett can build a winner, I would expect us to draw 20,000 no matter who we play and top opponents should bring crowds close to capacity...but I don't think I will see Ford expanded in my lifetime. I will be thrilled when SMU plays a meaningful game against a top 25 program or a game with conference championship implications and Ford is packed with students sitting in the grassy south end zone. That much I do expect.

[PK]

Cute Stallion...real cute going in and editing your post to add "And don't bother offerring EXCUSE NO. 2 ..." to make it look like I can't freaking read a post. Thankfully this board documents those edits. If it make you feel any better...you still make me laugh.

[NavyCrimson]

look guys - stallion is right...

but consider this too - so what if we were 'inconsistent' with our attendance prior to '87...if we had consistently won year in & year out - we'd definitely be averaging 40K+ & more but we just got the engine rolling for several yrs then things began to fall apart in '85 & '86 when we started struggling again with some 6-5 seasons...besides - that's the norm for a big-city college teams anyways...let's take a look...look @ miami's attendance in their off years...also consider their attendance when they're winning like they are now - even when they play a rotten school - its 20K to 35K ... & even now when they've been winning 20+ yrs ...hell - just a couple of yrs ago when usc was struggling they had 18K in the 100K+ coliseum with oregon st was in town & not much better when several other doormats came to los angeles...

sooo - let's put things in perspective...consistently is the key & if we did THAT - we'd be there too....yes - the model has cost us dearly!

go get 'em stallion!

[Stallion]

are you are "conspiracy theorist"? I didn't know it was a crime to amend a post and it certainly was done before I read yours-and by the way I noticed you could come up with no response to my argument.

[PK]

are you are "conspiracy theorist"? I didn't know it was a crime to amend a post and it certainly was done before I read yours-and by the way I noticed you could come up with no response to my argument.

Am I a "conspiracy theorist?" What conspiracy? I believe it takes more than one person ranting to constitute a conspiracy. I will, however, give you the benifit of the doubt. In rectrospect, you probably could not have read my post and then typed your edit in the time difference noted. My post was a response to yours prior to your edit. As for responding now...I think CP did an excellent job refuting your general points.

LET ME REITERATE, I AGREE with your position on the abject horror of the PYE model. However, we are no longer operating under that model. We may still not be totally on a level playing field with our peers, but we ain't far off. I also believe that our alumni are part of the problem, because it takes money to compete for recruits and coaches and by withholding that finacial support it makes it that much harder to level the playing field.

Have a good day.

[CA Mustang]

...hell - just a couple of yrs ago when usc was struggling they had 18K in the 100K+ coliseum with oregon st was in town & not much better when several other doormats came to los angeles...

Where did you find that figure? USC's smallest home crowd for OSU in recent history was just under 44K in '99. To find smaller crowds than that, you would have to go back to the early 60's.