PonyFans.com

A few weeks ago, the IPF was approved by the board, but in a new position and a much reduced version. There was some semi-heated discussion of people complaining about the IPF now that it will be built (allegedly, we've heard this one before). After sitting a bit, I still have significant reservations and feel that we should discuss this, not only because of the IPF, but because I think this subject touches on a much bigger issue SMU is having as well.

I heard to responses to my concerns regarding the IPF. The first, and most reasonable is that "don't worry, it'll be as good as TCU's or Texas's." Of this I have little doubt. I'm sure it will be a lovely red brick Georgian building and facility-wise comparable to other Texas schools. Unfortunately, I don't believe that is going to be enough. If it is comparable to those at Texas or TCU, that will be great, but then if you can get the same facilities at Texas and TCU, wouldn't it stand to reason that athletes would rather go to schools with he same facilities, but better conferences that play to larger crowds? The one that they touted for the Big 12 wasn't an SEC palace, but the program showed that the university was willingly to "pony up" and make a serious commitment to football and athletics. It had a campus location that made sense, had the wow factor we need and showed planning, thought and financial commitment. Throwing up a scaled-down IPF on Bishop does none of those things and simply demonstrates our "good enough" approach, which all factors being equal, we lose.

Which brings me to the "Spending other peoples money/can't raise the money issue." I'm asking why are we bothering to do this because I'd rather not spend other people's money frivolously, and if the IPF won't be a significant weight on the scales, then that is exactly what it is, a waste of money. And if the administration/Board cannot find the money to make the serious commitment, then why are they not reviewing our continued participation at this level of football? Being a tread-water program in a second tier conference in a city that clearly doesn't care about college football can't be helping the university's image. With this facility, SMU has a chance to make a statement of commitment to the athletic program to good conference, to the community and to ourselves. If we're just going to half... um... measure it, then we simply won't be getting ROI, and we should spend the money elsewhere.

Please don't get me wrong. I do want us to have a healthy competitive D-1 top-level football program. I think it does help the university and would expand our presence with the local community and raise our profile nationally as well, and I do believe an IPF would help that. Yet again, we seem to only do just enough to stay in the game, and that's not how you win. It's how you agonizingly bleed away resources as things slide down the drain. I'd recommend we take the money and spend it elsewhere, but...

The way the IPF has been handled is indicative of the larger SMU administrative community, whether it be the Executives or the Board, where we take good ideas and half-measure them through lack of resourcing or lack of ultimate direction. Residential commons? Great idea. Implementation? Nice new buildings, but otherwise half-measured, and looks it and feels it. Presidential center? Beautiful building. Academic support and community/media outreach? Nearly non-existent (and understanding that W is/was a controversial president). The list goes on and on. We tout that Dallas is the 4th largest metro area with the third most fortune 500 companies, yet out endowment is sinking and falling behind peer institutions, much less our "aspirational" ones and our fundraising efforts, while looking good on paper, pale in comparison to other "peer institutions" in less well-heeled and allegedly financially lucrative areas. We have floated in the high-50's and low 60's in academic rankings for the better part of three decades now; and we lack a true identity as a university. We have no direction, our branding is poor, and our public relations in the media and reputation in the academic community is nowhere near what it could or should be. My firm works with a number of academic institutions and our rep is largely "meh" or because of our approach, lack of academic production and that we do far less with far more than comparable institutions.

Again, to be clear, I bleed Harvard red and Yale blue. I give what I can every year; sometimes it's car payment, sometimes it's a mortgage payment. I want SMU to be successful academically and athletically. We should be mentioned in the same company as USC, Northwestern, Vandy, etc. I mean no ill will, am not trolling or out to anger anyone. I'm just really not sure how the IPF is being handled in a way that isn't a waste of our time and resources, and I significantly lack confidence in our leadership to get this (and increasingly anything) right to propel us to where we should be.

Oh and PS- we have an IPF approval without a plan? Seriously? We finally get an approval but we don't know what has been approved?

I think this IPF was a reactionary, “must-have-now” project due to NTCC building one themselves. While we can’t compete with P5 but building something similar to that level would keep players from joining lesser teams like the aforementioned one.

http://www.dentonrc.com/sports/mean-green/2017/12/12/unts-key-rival-smu-plans-break-ground-indoor-facility-spring

Just finding out that there is a lack of direction and leadership? What has been the constant for the past, almost three decades? Who anointed our president for life? Get 40 mirrors out and call a special board meeting!

we wouldn’t be able to compete with UT in recruiting if we built the best IPF in the country. Having an IPF on par with Big 12 schools would show a huge commitment IMO.

Greenwich Pony doesn't feel our 'design' is close to equal to that of B12 schools.
It is disappointing to read what is happening. However, this should surprise no one. It was long promised and now is planned to be nothing more than second class.
I wouldn't be shocked if, in the not too distant future, we dropped down to DII. That is the level of commitment we have from this admin. and would fit well into their financial planning for our sports programs.

I wish the IPF would be closer to the stadium and coaches' offices. Otherwise, it seems like a fine IPF. The students probably care more about their lounge and locker rooms than the IPF.

"We should be mentioned in the same company as USC, Northwestern, Vandy, etc."
Why? USC has made a tremendous ranking jump in the last 20-30 years but I hear a lot is due to having a med school and heavily recruiting intl. students. Pepperdine has recruited fully paying intl. students very well also and moved up. SMU isn't in quite the same position to do that but the intl. % has been increasing.

Which are the peers that SMU doesn't fare well against? NY seems more aligned towards big money coastal cities (Stanford/Berkeley, UCLA/USC, Boston and ATL (Emory)) with some traditional schools that recruit NY area students, like UVa, Michigan, Wisconsin, UNC. Then there's the bias towards the Ivies and Patriot League.

What more should be done? It's not easy to even stay ranked in the high 50s to low 60s.

What was second class about the new Commons? They seem solid and fulfill a purpose of boosting retention and grad rates which will ultimately help the rankings.

Space area is simply tooooooooo small for a quality IPF. IPF will ruin the entire look of the campus which needs some breathing room from being congested not to mention space to tailgate. Only suitable space is the strip mall on Mockingbird where there is enough space and the height of the facility will not over power the heart of the campus. I know, they did not raise enough money to take the strip mall and there were concerns about its impact on Mockingbird during construction. My only conclusion is that this is a very ill advised project where pressures by a few will end up destroying the beauty of the entire campus.

I agree with tristate and need a little more insight into the residential commons.
Many of the things Greenwich says I think are right on the money. Others are passing us by because RGT and his hand picked board are having a swell time in their mutual admiration society and hey, we have a beautiful campus with lots of gazebos and water features. I'm thinking that many on our BoT share a passion for Dallas and SMU, with the interest of SMU falling in 2nd place (or equal at best). We haven't had an appetite for pushing hard since the DP. Minding the store and re-applying make-up often doesn't sound far out of line.

I have said this 10 times but...

The original IPF was going to have a competition track and a track straightaway with a force plate in it so our world renown SMU biomechanist Peter Weyand (https://www.smu.edu/News/Experts/Peter-Weyand) could conduct unique research on speed. Right now he works out of a building about the size of my living room that includes a *drumroll* horse treadmill.

Between that and indoor track meets you would have thousands of kids (ie: football players) from all around the south on your campus multiple times per year. You could use that as part of football camps to provide an experience unique to SMU that basically no one else in the country would have. That would give you a marketing and recruiting bump.

As it stands now now, we will have have a brick building with 80 yards of field turf and an event center. No weight room, no track. A UNT-level facility plus an irrelevant-to-athletes Miller-event-center-esque area.

This is big12 level commitment: Texas Tech. These photos do not do it justice.
http://texastech.com/galleries/?gallery=6514

I wonder how much it would have cost to have a relationship that allows us to practice at the Star when necessary, and how that would have impacted recruiting?

Greenwich Pony wrote:A few weeks ago, the IPF was approved by the board, but in a new position and a much reduced version. There was some semi-heated discussion of people complaining about the IPF now that it will be built (allegedly, we've heard this one before). After sitting a bit, I still have significant reservations and feel that we should discuss this, not only because of the IPF, but because I think this subject touches on a much bigger issue SMU is having as well.

I heard to responses to my concerns regarding the IPF. The first, and most reasonable is that "don't worry, it'll be as good as TCU's or Texas's." Of this I have little doubt. I'm sure it will be a lovely red brick Georgian building and facility-wise comparable to other Texas schools. Unfortunately, I don't believe that is going to be enough. If it is comparable to those at Texas or TCU, that will be great, but then if you can get the same facilities at Texas and TCU, wouldn't it stand to reason that athletes would rather go to schools with he same facilities, but better conferences that play to larger crowds? The one that they touted for the Big 12 wasn't an SEC palace, but the program showed that the university was willingly to "pony up" and make a serious commitment to football and athletics. It had a campus location that made sense, had the wow factor we need and showed planning, thought and financial commitment. Throwing up a scaled-down IPF on Bishop does none of those things and simply demonstrates our "good enough" approach, which all factors being equal, we lose.

Which brings me to the "Spending other peoples money/can't raise the money issue." I'm asking why are we bothering to do this because I'd rather not spend other people's money frivolously, and if the IPF won't be a significant weight on the scales, then that is exactly what it is, a waste of money. And if the administration/Board cannot find the money to make the serious commitment, then why are they not reviewing our continued participation at this level of football? Being a tread-water program in a second tier conference in a city that clearly doesn't care about college football can't be helping the university's image. With this facility, SMU has a chance to make a statement of commitment to the athletic program to good conference, to the community and to ourselves. If we're just going to half... um... measure it, then we simply won't be getting ROI, and we should spend the money elsewhere.

Please don't get me wrong. I do want us to have a healthy competitive D-1 top-level football program. I think it does help the university and would expand our presence with the local community and raise our profile nationally as well, and I do believe an IPF would help that. Yet again, we seem to only do just enough to stay in the game, and that's not how you win. It's how you agonizingly bleed away resources as things slide down the drain. I'd recommend we take the money and spend it elsewhere, but...

The way the IPF has been handled is indicative of the larger SMU administrative community, whether it be the Executives or the Board, where we take good ideas and half-measure them through lack of resourcing or lack of ultimate direction. Residential commons? Great idea. Implementation? Nice new buildings, but otherwise half-measured, and looks it and feels it. Presidential center? Beautiful building. Academic support and community/media outreach? Nearly non-existent (and understanding that W is/was a controversial president). The list goes on and on. We tout that Dallas is the 4th largest metro area with the third most fortune 500 companies, yet out endowment is sinking and falling behind peer institutions, much less our "aspirational" ones and our fundraising efforts, while looking good on paper, pale in comparison to other "peer institutions" in less well-heeled and allegedly financially lucrative areas. We have floated in the high-50's and low 60's in academic rankings for the better part of three decades now; and we lack a true identity as a university. We have no direction, our branding is poor, and our public relations in the media and reputation in the academic community is nowhere near what it could or should be. My firm works with a number of academic institutions and our rep is largely "meh" or because of our approach, lack of academic production and that we do far less with far more than comparable institutions.

Again, to be clear, I bleed Harvard red and Yale blue. I give what I can every year; sometimes it's car payment, sometimes it's a mortgage payment. I want SMU to be successful academically and athletically. We should be mentioned in the same company as USC, Northwestern, Vandy, etc. I mean no ill will, am not trolling or out to anger anyone. I'm just really not sure how the IPF is being handled in a way that isn't a waste of our time and resources, and I significantly lack confidence in our leadership to get this (and increasingly anything) right to propel us to where we should be.

Oh and PS- we have an IPF approval without a plan? Seriously? We finally get an approval but we don't know what has been approved?

Wow - you draw way too much importance into the construction of an indoor practice field. Very overly dramatic.

The original was 50M (!!!). Fortunately some sane people got involved and we figured out how to do this without moving the soccer field (10M) and then removed the track which we don't need to be in an IPF (another 10M). The result is a facility that is appropriately sized and located, and is 30M. Nicer than almost anyone's in the state of Texas, and we still have whiners wanting to spend 20M of someone else's money on junk we don't need.

Spend the 20M on Cox or Lyle scholarships where is it more needed.

And by the way - I spend a great deal of time with academics and business recruiters and leaders, and you assessment of SMU as drawing a "meh" is just incorrect for those that know the facts. Our student quality has risen dramatically, and the rankings will follow since they are running 5 yr averages. We are higher on standardized test than anyone else in the state except Rice. Do we have work to do - yes - for sure, particularly without a medical school to help with research dollars. But lets not run ourselves down falsely.

Why do people think it will be nicer than almost anyone's in TX when there are no designs publicized?

I guess the "b12" facilities master plan is now totally changed as well. Very little light shed on all of this.

Can we at least delete the outdated master plan pages off our website?

http://smumustangs.com/news/2016/7/26/g ... jects.aspx

It's not about drama, or really importance. I'm not sure the IPF is important at all at this point unless it makes a real splash, and certainly I'm not sure we should spend the money. My point is that it's indicative of the larger problem. The current administration/BoD is rudderless, or at least it appears that way externally which is the same difference. We are not up-and-coming, or even seen as up-and-coming by the media, by other academic institutions, or by corporations (or at lest those in finance, technology and entertainment, which is the nexus where I work) and my point is we should be and with direction and some leadership in the PR/Branding side of things, we could be.

Greenwich Pony wrote:It's not about drama, or really importance. I'm not sure the IPF is important at all at this point unless it makes a real splash, and certainly I'm not sure we should spend the money. My point is that it's indicative of the larger problem. The current administration/BoD is rudderless, or at least it appears that way externally which is the same difference. We are not up-and-coming, or even seen as up-and-coming by the media, by other academic institutions, or by corporations (or at lest those in finance, technology and entertainment, which is the nexus where I work) and my point is we should be and with direction and some leadership in the PR/Branding side of things, we could be.

Ding ding ding.

Man, there is no shortage of stupid in this thread