PonyFans.com

Just a thought:
What happened to the old Mavs practice facility at Baylor?

to my knowledge, it wasn't really a "practice facility." it was just a court in a fitness center at baylor that the public can use. the mavs would just reserve it during practice times and the rest of the time the court was open to those at baylor. but, on the same note, i don't know why it would be so difficult to build a facility for men's basketball. smu has more money that it knows what to do with and sharing a court with women's basketball/volleyball is ridiculous.

Because all that 'money' and funding $500 million campaign, (from what I understand) goes towards academic programs and department new buildings rather than athletic facilities or athletic departments.

Considering the reported drop in applications for general students when we lost football in 1987, shouldn't the administration also realize that a jump in football and men's basketball -- meaning vast amounts of newfound exposure and visibility for the school -- would translate to a higher number and caliber of applicants, thereby making a re-direction of funds a wise business decision?

They obviously don't understand that concept for the last 15 years. Good athletics = good PR.

moodymadness wrote:to my knowledge, it wasn't really a "practice facility." it was just a court in a fitness center at baylor that the public can use. the mavs would just reserve it during practice times and the rest of the time the court was open to those at baylor. but, on the same note, i don't know why it would be so difficult to build a facility for men's basketball. smu has more money that it knows what to do with and sharing a court with women's basketball/volleyball is ridiculous.

I was a member at Baylor Fitness Center at the time the Mavs worked out there. Your description is pretty accurate. It is just a pro-style court (at least it was 8 or 9 years ago) in the middle of the fitness center that was closed off during team practice.

Big Easy Pony wrote:Considering the reported drop in applications for general students when we lost football in 1987, shouldn't the administration also realize that a jump in football and men's basketball -- meaning vast amounts of newfound exposure and visibility for the school -- would translate to a higher number and caliber of applicants, thereby making a re-direction of funds a wise business decision?

I've argued with many a professor over this. They don't seem to share our view. Infact, at least one disagreed so much, I had to drop the class to save my gpa.

Pony_Fan wrote:They obviously don't understand that concept for the last 15 years. Good athletics = good PR.

Of course. The academics at SMU stand on their own. Nearly everything about the school is first-rate. But if the resources are spent to make the football and basketball programs good -- I'm not saying national title contenders, just good -- then suddenly we're on TV once in a while, and high school students know us, and know who we are. The local kids already do, of course, but outside of Dallas, what's SMU's reputation? Either we're "a nice school, I think," or we're still known for the athletic scandal of 20 years ago. Make the football team good and get on TV, and kids might watch the games and think "I wonder what it's like to go to SMU." Bingo, applications shoot up, and if nothing else, the admissions can continue to raise the bar when determining the caliber of student. Athletic success can benefit the whole school. The resources should be spent.

What resources?

couch 'em wrote:

Big Easy Pony wrote:Considering the reported drop in applications for general students when we lost football in 1987, shouldn't the administration also realize that a jump in football and men's basketball -- meaning vast amounts of newfound exposure and visibility for the school -- would translate to a higher number and caliber of applicants, thereby making a re-direction of funds a wise business decision?

I've argued with many a professor over this. They don't seem to share our view. Infact, at least one disagreed so much, I had to drop the class to save my gpa.

In 1997, TCU went 1-10 in Football. In each subsequent year, TCU went to a bowl game.

In the 2002-03 academic year, TCU saw an increase in applications from 6,137 to 7,496, an increase of 22%. During the 2000-01 academic year, TCU saw an increase in applications of 18.5%. In short, since 2000, TCU has seen in an increase in applications of more than 48%. To be fair, SMU has itself seen a large increase in applications over the same period of time, albeit not in nearly the same numbers as TCU.

The average SAT score of the 2003 entering class at TCU was a record 1169, up from 1142 the year before (a 27 point increase). Further, the 2002 average SAT score of 1142 was itself a record for TCU, up 12 points from the 2001 entering class, which was itself a record for TCU. In short, since 2000, TCU has seen an increase in the average SAT score of its students of 39 points. For the record, SMU’s average SAT for 2003 was 1200 and has also increased over time.

One of the reasons TCU average SAT score continues to rise is because the increased number of applications has allowed TCU to be more selective. The percentage of acceptances has declined steadily as the number of acceptances at TCU has been capped. Currently, TCU’s acceptance rate is about the same as SMU’s; in years past, however, TCU was much less selective.

Further, “yield” as used in college admissions circles continues to climb at TCU. “Yield” is the percentage of acceptances that enroll in the university. TCU’s yield is currently 38%. In contrast, SMU is 34%.

Sources available upon request.

No doubt that athletic success can improve academics at a school. I have a friend that works in the admissions office at USC and she ssaid that they are way ahead in the number of apps received this year compared to the past few years, and they are coming from quality students. From what I understand, OU has experienced the same situation.

Frankly - OU has only one direction they could go. Also - TCU, from an acceptance rate standpoint, was really poor a few years ago and although better, is pretty poor still. The thing helping them (and us frankly) is the 10% rule which is pushing good suburban students out of UT into other alternatives.

that said - there is no question our apps go up and our acceptance rate gets better (more selective) if our sports get better - acceptance rate is one of the areas we MUST improve to move up in national rank - also it is imperative if we want to get the overall school bigger - which is also a goal I believe.