PonyFans.com

Are SMU's cuts consistent with sports offered by the other 10 CUSA schools (especially those that maintain the NCAA D-1A minimum)?

From the C-USA official web site:

Conference USA sponsors 19 sports - baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, soccer, tennis, and track and field (indoor and outdoor) for men and basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, softball, swimming, tennis, track and field (indoor and outdoor), and volleyball for women. The league's championship competition is enhanced by NCAA automatic bids in volleyball, men's and women's basketball, men's and women's soccer, men's and women's tennis and baseball.

Just noticed that there is no men's swimming listed, though that is not to say some of the other schools don't have it.

Made a check and found that Rice only has women's swimming, but both mens and womens track and field and Tulsa has no swimming teams at all, but both women's and men's track and field.

If we had to delete a men's sport, did we get the wrong one? Actually I hate it that we deleted one at all.

PK, perhaps the question of whether we cut the wrong program is appropriate, but it begs the bigger question of whether the "student athlete" model I support and love is under assault. You can guess that I was a Mustang Swimmer from my handle.

I support Track & Field for Men and Women and all Olympic sports for that matter. I joined and support the Mustang Club and Letterman's Association and buy season tickets to FB (despite living in Illinois).

I am afraid that focusing on revenue sports at the expense of Olympic and Non-revenue sports is wrong. Perhaps eliminating the 85 scholarship consumed by FB needs to be put on the table. Then the Title IX question is moot. Lose revenue yes, despite the deficits recreated rom lack of support.

If Track goes, what is next. I say Football which is the 800 pound gorilla. BCS is the problem for Mid-Majors and our situation is defined by the current, broken sports model in college.

Water Pony, I knew my comment would not sit well with you, and it shouldn't...I don't like having to cut any of our sports programs. However, it does beg the question...what happens to the men's swiming and diving teams? Do they compete in the future as independents or join another conference as men's soccer has had to do over the last several years?

IF beautiful Ford Stadium wasn't on the Hilltop and the Mustangs were still renters at the Cotton Bowl, a (very frustrated) sliver of the SMU community might be arguing that SMU should have dropped football instead of highly successful programs like men's track and field and cross country to gain immediate Title IX compliance and greatly reduce athletic department costs.

SMU is in Texas where football is king and SMU has a proud (past) football history. SMU desires the attention and revenue that winning football and men's basketball teams often bring.

SMU Football isn't going anywhere, but costs from Title IX and general athletic's expenses are continually increasing.

SMU like most other schools wants to earn meaningful revenue from its athletics program. Only football and men's basketball (women's basketball at a few schools like UConn, Tennessee, etc.) are potentially capable of paying all or a large part of the overall athletic department bills.

SMU has to help those teams succeed and attract paying spectators.

While at SMU I attended several exciting swimming meets in Perkins Natatorium. The aquatic ponies were and are a group to be proud of. They are tremendous athletes, winners, superior students and good campus citizens.

I'm guessing that the only way to ensure the long-term future of SMU's championship swimming program is to build (infrastructure investment) a new competitive state-of-the-art aquatics facility on campus. Water Pony's previous posts indicate that the subject isn't even being discussed by the administration.

As far as I know, SMU's varsity aquatics program isn't in any jeopardy. But, there will be very few sacred cows in the SMU athletics department (like at many schools) while football and men's basketball revenue and attendance figures are low.

To PK and Cheesesteak:

Thanks for both posts. You sense my frustration.

I accept that FB and BB are the center of the universe for a Texas University and I want both teams to succeed, if no other reason to be proud of my school where ever I am or traveling to.

To your questions, Swimmng is probably not a risk to be cut. Swimmers are pretty active supporters and fund raisers, including having one former swimmer as a Board Trustee at the moment. I have been active with others to get a new facility on the table but the decision to spend $3m for a student-only facility, as part of the new Dedman Recreaton Center, appears short-sighted because it reduces the probablities of pursing a better option of a competitive facility, expanded to serve both the Men's and Women's teams as well as the student needs.

I don't blame Title IX, if it improves access and funds for Women but sacrificing Track & Field and Cross Country is just wrong. BCS schools funding of their programs forces Mid-Major to balance their budgets with eliminating sports while not improving the model. FYI, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, Illinois, UCLA, etc. all have dropped Men's Swimming. Wrestlers have been screaming all over the countryon their team reductions as well.

In the end, revenue sports pay for our model and when they don't generate the money, we have to drop sports and/or add Women's teams. Economics just aren't there.

The loss of Olympic sports is damaging in other dimensions. When I think of the role of athletics in the development of young Men and Women, I think of the personal sacrifice and training that, when added to the academic goals, helps advance their lives in all areas. Being well rounded isn't a nice to have, but at the center of personal development. I'd include music or a foreign language to the list as well. Track & field, like swimming, is a team sport is how we train and compete. But, it rewards personal effort, talent and sacrifice. Stop watches or measuring tapes are cruel but fair ways to compare. If you aren't 6'3 +, you have opportunities, especially if you are dedicated. I respect runners, throwers and jumpers. They are sole mates to Olympians around the world.

In the end, I challenge an athletic model balanced on two ends of a continuum with Men's Football and Basketball on one side and all Women's sports on the other. Some schools then add Men's Soceer or Swimming with Golf and Tennis teams with their small rosters to provide Men some consoliation. But in reality, it is primarily FB and BB balanced with a equal number of women athletes. It doesn't achieve what is needed or desired; competitive opportunities for all students even when combined with Intramuals and Club Sports opportunities.

As I see it, the remaining Men's sports (except FB and BB) should remain nervous and probably won't get sufficient funding necessary to compete for national championships or facilities, even with the recent success of Men's soceer. SMU isn't unique in these areas.

I wish I heard a game plan that made sense economically. I have to say the decision by Vanderbilt to eliminate the athletic department would make sense if everyone did it. Unilaterally disarmament is too risky now, but NCAA and college Presidents need to change the way the game is played and paid for. Our options are too limited, ex: drop a Men's Sport.