Toledo's Indoor Practice Facility

[SmooBoy]

Is $9 million worth of nice.

[Alaric]

I've been to the U of Akron's indoor facility. Incredible. With their weather, it's indispendable.

[Water Pony]

Both Public Universities in a more challenging climate.

[Samurai Stang]

Both Public Universities in a more challenging climate.

Are you asserting that SMU's athletic budget is smaller than that of Akron and Toledo? I can only assume so, otherwise their being public would not be an issue.

I apologize as these figures are from 2008. SMU's athletic budget has increased a great deal since this time, however, and that is important to keep in mind.

Athletic Budgets as of 2008
72. Southern Methodist $27,708,145
101. Akron $17,792,195
104. Toledo $16,980,819

Clearly, claiming that Toledo and Akron have greater financial capabilities due to their being public institutions is incorrect.

In regards to the climate, it is true that the northern states are subject to harsher winters, but you are ignoring the clear trend across the country that indoor practice facilities are becoming an expected facility for Division One programs. Even UT San Antonio, which you desperately wish to bring into the ranks of CUSA, has one.

The more I read your posts, the more I realize you truly do not understand the business behind the sport.

[Pony_Fan]

and SMU's deficit has grown also

[Samurai Stang]

and SMU's deficit has grown also

Less than ten division one football programs make money, which means that SMU and more than 100 other programs are losing money each year. The vast majority of football programs do not generate revenue in themselves, but instead provide the university with exposure that is worth far more than is spent. Additionally, giving to universities has been shown to go up when a program is winning.

If you believe an increase in spending is a mistake, then you should be consistent and remove Padron as your avatar, for if not for that very increase in athletic spending June Jones would have never come to SMU, and Padron would have never become a Mustang.

[Junior]

are akron and toledo part of that ten?

[SMU89]

Holy Toledo

[CalallenStang]

are akron and toledo part of that ten?

Heck no

Here's a sampling of programs in the "less than 10" category:

Texas
Ohio State
Alabama
Florida

(the others are similar)

[couch 'em]

Are some of you really still questioning the need for an indoor facility? We MUST build one ASAP to not look second-rate.

[PonySnob]

It certainly helped Toledo get ready for their opening game of the season.......

[Water Pony]

Both Public Universities in a more challenging climate.

Are you asserting that SMU's athletic budget is smaller than that of Akron and Toledo? I can only assume so, otherwise their being public would not be an issue.

I apologize as these figures are from 2008. SMU's athletic budget has increased a great deal since this time, however, and that is important to keep in mind.

Athletic Budgets as of 2008
72. Southern Methodist $27,708,145
101. Akron $17,792,195
104. Toledo $16,980,819

Clearly, claiming that Toledo and Akron have greater financial capabilities due to their being public institutions is incorrect.

In regards to the climate, it is true that the northern states are subject to harsher winters, but you are ignoring the clear trend across the country that indoor practice facilities are becoming an expected facility for Division One programs. Even UT San Antonio, which you desperately wish to bring into the ranks of CUSA, has one.

The more I read your posts, the more I realize you truly do not understand the business behind the sport.

SS

Get a life, pal. I only use UTSA as one example, if an extra Texas team might be needed in the future. Your smart a** remarks are childish. As for budgets, the SMU athletic department has lots of capital needs, which for a private university are often met by donations, since we don't have public funds to offset demands for many operating expenses. As for indoor practice facilities, it is not a bad idea. Write the check.

[couch 'em]

I'm confused by this thread. I thought

Both Public Universities in a more challenging climate.

was intended to mean that SMU should have an easier time building one, as a private university. However, later posts imply that Waterpony wanted to say that being public unversities in a challenging climate makes it EASIER to build one.

All I know is, a school able to pull $2 million out of nowhere for a coach and able to get someone to donate 30 million to build a stadium for an amazingly awful team should be able to get a practice facility built easier than Akron or Toledo.

[Samurai Stang]

SS

Get a life, pal. I only use UTSA as one example, if an extra Texas team might be needed in the future. Your smart a** remarks are childish. As for budgets, the SMU athletic department has lots of capital needs, which for a private university are often met by donations, since we don't have public funds to offset demands for many operating expenses. As for indoor practice facilities, it is not a bad idea. Write the check.

You suggested a conference with almost 30 teams, not stating that a team "might be needed," but that if UT San Antonio merely "qualifies" it should be added to your conference. There is a tremendous difference between the two words.

7. If another Texas school, like UT San Antonio qualifies in the future, add them to Central

In regards to the budget, I am not in the least certain what you are trying to prove. SMU has a greater athletic budget, and what losses due occur are factored into the greater budget. Toledo and Akron are not the great benefactors of public funding that you would have them to be.

Lastly, I responded to a post in which you made it seem that SMU could not afford a practice facility and that one should not be built given the weather. Those were your comments, and I responded to them. Now you claim that a practice facility would be "not a bad idea." Not only does this go against your assertion earlier in the thread, it goes against a long pattern of your posting for months.

Until we announce the start of a new natatorium, my enthusiasm is tempered.

The idea we would consider a indoor practice facility BEFORE a new natatorium is amazing.

Until we get a new Natatorium, we shouldn't add another facility of any kind, except the new Band Hall.

You lie about your position regarding UT San Antonio, you continue to not see the truth regarding SMU's athletic budget, you create the silliest conferences I have ever seen, and you will not own up to your belief that an indoor practice facility is so unnecessary that priority should be given to a natatorium.

And you call me childish.

[WSGJ]

There shouldn't even be a debate. There are local 3A high schools that have indoor practice facilities. Recruits expect them. It has to get done sooner rather than later.