aus10fromhous10 wrote:Glad people enjoyed the tweets from the NYC event last night. There were a few comments/points made on the earlier thread "A. Kilgore at the NYC Meeting now"
http://www.ponyfans.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69584 that I want to follow up on for clarity's sake, as well as provide some additional insights from the event that I couldn't condense into 140 characters:
IPFfeelthehorsepower wrote:Inverted priorities. Football should be first.
Per Hart, the Moody upgrades, tennis center and golf complex are all a part of the current facilities master plan. Hart said that the next master plan is coming out soon and includes the IPF. Hart said this new plan is for 2015 and beyond. (It wasn't clear, but the impression that I got was the current planning only ran until 2015.)
So the IPF is a component of the 2015 master plan. But it can't/won't get built until Moody, tennis and golf are sufficiently funded. Moody is not fully funded (he didn't say how much more was needed) and the fundraising for the golf project is just now ramping up.
fifty wrote:I have a hard time believing they can't get a lead donor for an IPF but they're good on an $18mil tennis complex and golf.
PerunaPunch wrote: PAYING for the Tennis Center is a priority because it looks to be about 50% complete.
CalallenStang wrote:Tennis Center is a priority because we currently have no tennis courts at all. The SMU Boulevard Courts were demolished for the Bush Library and the courts by Dedman Center were demolished for new dorms. So the courts are a need, rather than a "nice to have"
There is not a lead donor for tennis. Per Hart, the university allowed the project to commence without the requisite 80% funding commitment usually imposed for other projects.
And Calallen is correct, tennis facilities are a must-have, not a want, because the old facilities were torn down to make room for the library.
Also, funding an IPF will be more involved than just paying for that one structure. Hart said there is not enough space on the site of the current outdoor fb practice field (west of the stadium on the SE corner of Mockingbird & Bishop Blvd.) to build an IPF. So Westcott Field will have to be demolished, and those facilities relocated to the current outdoor practice field. The IPF will go where Westcott currently is located.
JJ's Contract StatusWe were told June couldn't get a flight up to NYC, a claim that I find dubious. It's not like this event hasn't been on the calendar for at least a month. However, a Mustang Club rep said that there's a private event that JJ is scheduled to attend (can't remember if she said it was Thursday or Friday), so perhaps that complicated travel arrangements.
Still, I wouldn't read anything contract status-related into June's absence from the NYC event. And we knew Hart wasn't going to say anything substantive about the status of his contract that wasn't already public knowledge.
Following the formal remarks, I asked him how long they're expecting it to take to get the football coaching plans resolved. I tried to get him to give a timeframe of this week, next week, or longer, and all he would say is soon.
The issue at hand, Hart said, is that there needs to be a plan in place that shows stability in the program. A coach with only one year left on his contract is detrimental to recruiting, he said. What I took from those comments was that if June is the coach in 2014, it will be with an extended contract.
He added that it was important to "get it right," even if that takes a little bit longer. But he qualified that statement by adding that it's important to get the contract resolved quickly to alleviate uncertainty about the future of the program. What I inferred from those comments is that June's future has not been determined and it's still possible that he will not be the coach next year (though I highly doubt he won't be back next year).
Uniforms ponysnob wrote:So no more blue jerseys????
Hart did not say the blue jerseys weren't coming back, but he did not offer any insight into when they might be worn again.
Two sets of jerseys have been ordered for 2014: red (home) and white (away). Aside from the primary color, they will have a similar (if not identical) layout to the 2013 blue jerseys — meaning no more stripes on the shoulders and the "SMU" lettering will replace the mustang logo over the number on the front.
Hart said the goal for football uniforms is to have a lot of pieces that can be mixed and matched. This year, football had one style of pants and one helmet. They're going to add a second pair of pants in a different color. Hart said options being considered include red, blue and gray, but nothing was decided. I (sort-of jokingly) replied to that statement with something along the lines of, "So Coach Jones hasn't already picked black for the second pair of pants?" and Hart rather definitely that black was not being considered for the pants.
Currently, the team only has one helmet that the players wear for both practice and games. They want to up that to two helmets next year. When they did the red helmets this year, they used some sort of wrap cover (probably something similar to this:
ttp://youtu.be/dYd2KZpZRik) and the equipment guys were working overtime that whole week to get them ready, which meant that not everyone was wearing the same helmet design during practice that week.
The overall approach to uniform design is that they want enough pieces available so that they can mix and match different looks. Hart said variety is just as important as having a signature look for impressing recruits and current players.
After the formal comments, I asked Hart about the designs that SMU1523 created:
http://www.ponyfans.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69151&hilit=uniform+leviasAnd that Hart posted on his blog:
http://www.smumustangs.com/genrel/112813aab.htmlMy question was whether these designs could even be considered for production since they were created by someone outside of SMU/Nike. Hart said that they could, and that it wasn't an issue. If they were to use something along those lines, SMU would most likely cover their bases by getting some sort of written release from SMU1523.
Athletics FundingA common theme to just about everything he said was tied back to funding. As I mentioned in one of my tweets, conference TV/marketing revenue was projected to be around $10 million when we were supposed to be in the Big East. Under the American banner, that figure is about $3 million. As a result, the department has had to significantly alter its spending plans.
Something else that Hart mentioned after his formal comments was in regard to the perception that SMU has more than enough big-money donors to cover the athletic department's needs. In reality, he said, that's not the case because the money that other schools and conferences are getting from TV deals far outpaces the level of funding that can be generated from donors.
Misc.Following the formal remarks, I asked Hart about the Gosselin DMN column that (among other things) suggests academic requirements are still a barrier to recruiting:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/columnists/rick-gosselin/20131205-gosselin-smu-is-lucky-to-have-june-jones--he-s-going-to-win.eceIf SMU is competitive with its peer and benchmark institutions regarding academic requirements for athletic recruits, why not make that clear to the DMN? I suggested that Hart should be giving interviews with the paper to get the message out there and correct the misperception.
Hart's response was that "They [the DMN] already know what they want to say" and that "it's not good for the program" for him to respond to the paper's opinion columnists when they make claims of that nature.
As a journalist, I have mixed feelings about Hart taking that position. On one hand, if you don't like what's being said about you in the press, you've got to change the conversation. If a columnist writes that an already-resolved issue persists, Hart should be out in front of those guys setting the record straight.
But on the other hand, I agree with Hart/SMU's decision not to comment on Bill Nichol's story that quotes June saying he has a contract extension. You don't want to negotiate a deal in the public.
The approach should be nuanced, depending on the circumstances of a particular article, rather than taking a blanket position that the AD isn't going to engage with the paper.
Lastly, there were some comments on this board from people who were dissatisfied with the quality of the questions/answers provided at the event. While I'm disappointed that JJ didn't attend the event and that more information wasn't provided, I have a hard time being terribly upset about it.
Keep in mind that it's a booster event, not a press conference. The SMU staffers who make the time and financial resources available to come up here for this event every year are really under no obligation to do so. And as a private event, they could have very easily not let me attend, or impose other restrictions around disseminating details from the event to the public. In other words, you gotta take what you can get.
Sorry for such a long post. If you're still reading all of this, thanks, and I appreciate the support on the tweets.
