Interesting June Jones quotes

by **SMU 86** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:33 pm

Stallion wrote:I've always maintained the lifeblood of a program is recruiting. Facilities sell recruits. I think Ford screams OUTSTANDING small-time non BCS facilities. It doesn't scream SHOCK and AWE to the top recruits we want who see big time stadiums across the Southwest. I think Ford is great for SMU now-I wished from Day 1 it was bigger.

I agree facilities do sell recruits and one type of facility is an indoor practice facility. TCU just built their indoor practice facility and they have started landing 4 star recruits (I am told they are really selling it to the recruits). Let's full up Ford on a consistent basis before we start expanding. I am just saying the need is for an IPF is now.

by **couch 'em** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:33 pm

I'd like to hear the opinion of some football players on this issue. I've always thought that Ford felt small-time inside, but I'm not sure that filling in the bowl would feel all that bigger.

by **Stallion** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:34 pm

Here's an article on Big 12 facilities including some costs listed. The Costs can range well from about 4 Million (in 2008) to about 30 -40 Million or more(Michigan is also building one). I'll bet you that University Park is not approving a Bubble-type facility which is the least expensive.

http://newsok.com/article/3257394

by **SMU 86** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:41 pm

I imagine it will be comparable to TCU's. They have the 70 yarder, not the full 100 yard facility. Again, facilities like indoor practice facilities do sell recruits.

by **Stallion** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:44 pm

I believe TCU's cost about 7 Million and was built in 2005-2007 time period. Its ugly-and since SMU does not do ugly ours would be more expensive.

by **Nacho** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:47 pm

Put the indoor facility under the library. All they have to do is dig a bigger hole.

by **SMU 86** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:49 pm

Stallion wrote:I believe TCU's cost about 7 Million and was built in 2005-2007 time period. Its ugly-and since SMU does not do ugly ours would be more expensive.

I have not seen it but if they can sell 4 star recruits with ugly, just think what we could do with decent.

by **Stallion** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:53 pm

Again I have no problem building one if some alumnus wants to pay for it. I'd rather spend it on 1) Moody 2) expanding Ford. Let June decide since he has mentioned both.

by **couch 'em** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:53 pm

We could put it across 75 or on the Mrs. Bairds site and make it as ugly as we want. If we end up with a big bubble type roof, it better be white with a huge red pony painted on it, so it can be seen from airplanes.

by **RedRiverPony** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:54 pm

Nacho wrote:Put the indoor facility under the library. All they have to do is dig a bigger hole.

Screw that - build it instead of the W bookmobile.

by **ThadFilms** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:55 pm

Stallion wrote:Its ugly-and since SMU does not do ugly ours would be more expensive.

The exterior of the "new" Meadows Museum is the closest thing SMU has come to ugly. I'd rather they would have (a) gone completely modern as a counterpoint to the surroundings, or (b) figured out a better way to stick with the red brick look.

by **Stallion** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:55 pm

Here's picture of TCU's facilities-fits in perfectly with the rest of the campus.

http://gofrogs.cstv.com/facilities/tcu-07-ipf.html

by **SMU 86** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:56 pm

couch 'em wrote:We could put it across 75 or on the Mrs. Bairds site and make it as ugly as we want. If we end up with a big bubble type roof, it better be white with a huge red pony painted on it, so it can be seen from airplanes.

Agreed!

by **Nacho** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:19 pm

Has anyone ever seen one these indoor practice facilities. They are HUGE. They are like airplane hangars only bigger. A&M has 2 of them side by side. Even on that campus they look big. No way will HP allow one of those things on the SMU campus. It would take something like Ford to get approval, where it is put below ground level.

by **Garret** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:21 pm

Nacho wrote:When exactly did Ford help recruiting Oh great one. It is only now that recruiting is improving. PB did have a nice initial class but after that recruiting tapered off. Reinbold may turn out to be the best recruiter we have had since Meyer. Ford helps if you have coaches who can win. Ford Stadium by itself can't recruit. Why the hate Stal ol pal. I always said that coaches were the most important thing. Looks like I am being proved right once again.

One point that nobody has mentioned--one huge recruit that Ford attracted was JJ. I've read several interviews where JJ talked about how great Ford was and how he wished that Hawaii had a facility like Ford, some of those comments by JJ were well *before* he actually was looking to leave Hawaii for another coaching job.

If SMU had a stadium deal like Hawaii does--far off campus, no concession or parking revenue, the Athletic Department actually pays the Stadium a fee to play there, all of the revenue from the permanent ads in the stadium goes to the stadium and not the school--then the SMU job would have had far less appeal to JJ. The fact of the matter is that I've followed hundreds of coaching searches and facilities (especially the football stadium when it is a football coaching search) makes a HUGE difference in whether a coach is attracted to a job or not.

My opinion (and I've followed JJ since before he even went to Hawaii to coach) is that without Ford SMU would not have JJ right now. Of course, if Hawaii hadn't had an incompetent AD then none of that would have mattered, but if JJ had been on the market and SMU had a stadium deal like Hawaii has now, then Duke would have JJ.

Interesting June Jones quotes

Who is online