More Ford Improvements

by **Water Pony** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:28 pm

CoxMustangFan wrote:Schools with limited financial resources need to elevate sports that create the most excitement and fan interest. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that what's lost in the discussion many times is the idea of project return on investment. For example, would it be a better investment to take $2 million and make a small cosmetic upgrade to the "top sport" vs. using that money to make a major upgrade to a sport a little lower in the "fan deck". I personally believe the best investment should get the money; I'm just not always convinced that some funded projects are the best investment. I'm sure this probably isn't a problem at SMU, but...

Leaving aside that Title IX makes this virtually impossible, non-revenue would never make your "ROI" criteria. Taken to the logical conclusion, you would left with premier facilities for FB and BB and sub-standard ones for all others. You could also make the point that collegiate athletics have never been viewed solely by the 'fan deck'.

by **Monkeystang** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:43 pm

It never hurts to make a few updates.

by **Water Pony** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:10 pm

CoxMustangFan wrote:
Water Pony wrote:Leaving aside that Title IX makes this virtually impossible, non-revenue would never make your "ROI" criteria. Taken to the logical conclusion, you would left with premier facilities for FB and BB and sub-standard ones for all others. You could also make the point that collegiate athletics have never been viewed solely by the 'fan deck'.

WP, you certainly may be right, but I actually see some cases where I can challenge you a bit. Fan bases all across the nation get behind non-revenue sports all the time. Whether you're talking about baseball at Wichita State, women's basketball at Tennessee, women's soccer at UNC, etc., there are cases all across the nation--in every sport--where the programs are elevated in terms of fan interest (what I call the fan deck). In each of these cases it would have certainly been an option to continue extra funding for "revenue" sports (although, no football at Wichita State) and abandon building non-revenue sports.

All I'm saying is that sometimes I wonder if it's not worth making a giant leap in a non-revenue sport instead of a tiny incremental step in a revenue sport. In the case of SMU, I would say an IPF should come before a new swimming facility, but a new swimming facility should come before a new "wine and cheese" pavilion like they're building for TCU football. You can certainly argue against my position, but as a fan I would MUCH rather have a top 10 swimming program instead of wine and cheese room in Ford (not that I could afford to get in anyways!).

Although an IPF will be built first, I am sure, due to dominant role of FB @ SMU and the fact that it would certainly cost less than a new Natatorium, the idea that an IPF is a higher priority over an new Aquatic Center is a sad commentary for me. But, it is my burden to bare as a second class citizen.

by **Dooby** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:17 pm

Water Pony wrote:Although an IPF will be built first, I am sure, due to dominant role of FB @ SMU and the fact that it would certainly cost less than a new Natatorium, the idea that an IPF is a higher priority over an new Aquatic Center is a sad commentary for me. But, it is my burden to bare as a second class citizen.

Don't think of yourself as a second class citizen. It is more like serfdom. You are free, but you can't ever leave.

by **Water Pony** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:35 pm

Dooby wrote:
Water Pony wrote:Although an IPF will be built first, I am sure, due to dominant role of FB @ SMU and the fact that it would certainly cost less than a new Natatorium, the idea that an IPF is a higher priority over an new Aquatic Center is a sad commentary for me. But, it is my burden to bare as a second class citizen.

Don't think of yourself as a second class citizen. It is more like serfdom. You are free, but you can't ever leave.

Now that is funny (but true)! :lol:

by **Sasser Rules** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:41 pm

Sadly, that's true. The IPF will be built first, even though the argument can be made that every other sport needs an upgrade in facilities. Tennis has brand-new courts, but I gather a new indoor/outdoor facility is on the way in the old Mrs. Baird's space, even though the current courts are what, 2 years old? 3?

Orsini has claimed he wants SMU to be "top 25 in everything we do," but I wonder if he has put top 25 effort into raising money for track and swimming facilities so once-prominent programs can return to their stature among the nation's elite. While they're at it, updating Westcott and finishing the Moody upgrade would be nice.

by **Big Hoss** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:12 am

Dooby wrote:
Water Pony wrote:Although an IPF will be built first, I am sure, due to dominant role of FB @ SMU and the fact that it would certainly cost less than a new Natatorium, the idea that an IPF is a higher priority over an new Aquatic Center is a sad commentary for me. But, it is my burden to bare as a second class citizen.

Don't think of yourself as a second class citizen. It is more like serfdom. You are free, but you can't ever leave.

Kinda like the Hotel California?

by **DiamondM** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:28 am

What exactly is wrong with our 10.5 year old football locker room and reception area? I thought it was a really great facility?

If this is like upgrading from an iPhone 3 to an iPhone4, while the swimmers are still using tin cans and string, it is really embarrassing. At the very least, why not save that 1-2 million for the IPF if that is what we really need? This sounds like an unnecessary waste of 1-2 million in fundraising to me.

by **Dooby** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:14 am

DiamondM wrote:What exactly is wrong with our 10.5 year old football locker room and reception area? I thought it was a really great facility?

If this is like upgrading from an iPhone 3 to an iPhone4, while the swimmers are still using tin cans and string, it is really embarrassing. At the very least, why not save that 1-2 million for the IPF if that is what we really need? This sounds like an unnecessary waste of 1-2 million in fundraising to me.

I have heard for a few years the finishout of those areas was pretty sub-par and that money needed to be put into it, just like they had to redo the coaches' offices. I had thought they might be waiting to move all that stuff to an IPF.

by **Dutch** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:28 am

DiamondM wrote:What exactly is wrong with our 10.5 year old football locker room and reception area? I thought it was a really great facility?

If this is like upgrading from an iPhone 3 to an iPhone4, while the swimmers are still using tin cans and string, it is really embarrassing. At the very least, why not save that 1-2 million for the IPF if that is what we really need? This sounds like an unnecessary waste of 1-2 million in fundraising to me.

i would imagine this is how that is going to work. there's a list ranking priority of the interior improvements depending on what gets raised by a specific deadline, then the balance of improvements can be made over time as money comes available for them - piece by piece.

versus an IPF that the University would get a construction loan for, so if it was a $6MM project, and they needed 30% equity to get the loan, they're just waiting on that one single $2MM check to cover it.

by **ponytailgater** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:31 pm

Non-revenue sport investments unfortunately rely solely on motivated donors who want to donate to specific projects/sports. If the swim team wants new facilities... find someone with deep pockets to fund a fancy new swimming center.

When it comes to $1-2M locker room upgrades... when they coach that get's SMU on TV weekly asks for money vs. the coach that doesn't get SMU on TV, we all know who will win.

If any non-revenue sport deserves some money, my vote would be for men's soccer. Top 5 rankings, only D1 program in Texas... SMU could really be dominant in soccer with the right funding!

by **JackSon 3** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:03 pm

I know I'll take heat for this...but how about the finish out of the band hall?

by **couch 'em** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:11 pm

The garbage that swimming has to work with is shameful, but given the fluid nature of conferences right now and our upward trend, investing in football to get us in a BCS conference is a wiser investment. We could build nice facilities for every olympic sport with the yearly BCS payout.

by **Bergermeister** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:12 pm

JackSon 3 wrote:I know I'll take heat for this...but how about the finish out of the band hall?

I heard the band hall was finished.

by **Water Pony** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:42 pm

DiamondM wrote:What exactly is wrong with our 10.5 year old football locker room and reception area? I thought it was a really great facility?

If this is like upgrading from an iPhone 3 to an iPhone4, while the swimmers are still using tin cans and string, it is really embarrassing. At the very least, why not save that 1-2 million for the IPF if that is what we really need? This sounds like an unnecessary waste of 1-2 million in fundraising to me.

At the risk getting the wrath of Ponyfans, amen.