UP/HP: Anti-SMU?

[McClown27]

quit blaming the park cities for the problems of SMU. they are totally unrelated, and SMU's budget problems go way deeper than UP not letting them host a few high school football games. do you really think $10k/weekend is going to make up a $3.5MM defacite? guess you were a student in the Meadows School of Arts & Crafts (obviously no business acumen).

Deficit?

How does it help SMU when rich people do not allow events to occur in Ford? Why is Jerry Jones so stupid to allow high school football to be played in Cowboy Stadium? I think you are the one in need of a (pretty simple) business lesson.

[DallasDiehard]

.... As for bashing Meadows, I think that's also out of line. I'm a proud Meadows graduate and my checkbook balances just fine, thanks.

Well said, KAY. Absolutely no reason to bash an outstanding school like Meadows.

[SMU Football Blog]

Stop this talk about the deficit. It is on paper only.

[McClown27]

Stop this talk about the deficit. It is on paper only.

I have always been confused by your claims about the deficit. Yes, the money simply comes out of the general fund, and as have you stated it is only 1-2%. I think everyone knows that the athletic department does not take out loans on the deficit, which is what I think you sometimes seek to clarify. But, how could you possibly think it is a good thing? The ideal would clearly be an athletic program that is--at least--self supportive.

You are right, it is only be on paper and the general fund pays for it. The problem is that University President's and A.D.'s care tremendously about it. One way to help create more revenue is to take advantage of Ford Stadium.

The point of SMU general fund is ideally not to subsidize football.

[SMU Football Blog]

I don't suggest it is a good thing. I would love for SMU athletics to be self-sustaining. I just don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. To be clear, the deficit is less than 1%, not 1% to 2%.

[McClown27]

I don't suggest it is a good thing. I would love for SMU athletics to be self-sustaining. I just don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. To be clear, the deficit is less than 1%, not 1% to 2%.

The problem is when you try to get changes made to the Pye model. Some academic departments at SMU run on less than a million dollars, and all of those people know about the athletic deficit. Due to envy or some other emotion, they try to hurt the program. If athletics were revenue neutral or close, Bennett could start sneaking some kids through admissions (like Notre Dame does). When there is a deficit, the faculty watches the athletic department like hawks. That is why greater student involvement is so necessary, and SUPPORT from the local community.

[EastStang]

The problem is of course scholarships. Our bookkeeping for scholarships, room and board skews the numbers to a degree. What is the real cost of adding 170 extra students to the school. Is it the real price of tuition, room, and board? Or is it just a cost of the room and board. The professors don't get paid per student. The classrooms have a so many seats in them and if one is empty what is the cost to fill it? Do the athletes take away space that could be "sold" to an otherwise deserving student? The room and board costs something to the school. Take away the tuition cost, and I suspect that the real deficit is closer to $100,000.

[McClown27]

The problem is of course scholarships. Our bookkeeping for scholarships, room and board skews the numbers to a degree. What is the real cost of adding 170 extra students to the school. Is it the real price of tuition, room, and board?

It is the way every program budgets. It is the reason why tuition is so much, without subsidies and money from the state government it is difficult for private universities to compete.

I really like your reasoning though. It helps to explain why large universities can dominate college football. With bigger facilities, the relative cost per student--of course--is decreased. Therefore, it is easier for UT to have 200 athletes. 150-200 athletes at SMU is a much larger percentage of non-contributing students than at UT, FSU, or Flordia.

[SMU Football Blog]

McClown27: I know people on the faculty on a personal and professional level. If SMU athletics were revenue neutral, they would still [deleted] about it incessantly. They did not go to athletic events when they were students. They don't go now. They really hate athletics. I expect the same is true for most universities, I expect. The difference between SMU and most universities is the incredibly weak state the SMU athletic department was put in as a result of the death penalty. I have a friend that is a big Baylor football booster (and an adjunct professor); the one piece of advice I gave him during the basketball scandal was to do everything possible to keep the faculty out of the athletics as much as possible.

[OC Mustang]

Alright, I am weighing in on this "athletic deficit" thing. It is indeed on paper only. And yes, even though it is on paper, it is true that were we to live in perfect world, it would be preferable to not have it.

But here is the deal in as plain a way as I know how to say it.

Athletics (swimming, track (oops), soccer, basketball, football, diving, whatever) is generally considered a SUNK COST, meaning that it provides very little benefit monetarily, but without it, the effect to the revenue side would be even greater. In short, with it, we lose money. Without it, we'd wouldn't have as much to start with. Net, net, we are better off with it.

The idea that somehow SMU would be the beneficiary of some windfall if we ditched Div1A athletics is nuts. And so is the notion by some who believe if the AD made money, or at least broke even, that some professors would have no leg to stand on, and therefore, not complain.
Uh, no. This is a philosophical thing. The numbers don't change their minds any more than they change ours minds.

So enough already....

[McClown27]

I primarily agree with both of you. I would also like to see only four sports (2 men, 2 women).

The thing is that those academics are also at USC, Notre Dame, Miami, and every private school that plays football. The athletic deficit gives them real leverage, whether you like it or not. It cuts into the educational mission of the school; which, I think we all believe is the primary function of the university.

Also, not all the faculty members hate sports.

[Higher Authority]

True, but isn't it safe to say that there are those who resent the attention and money spent on athletics? I don't think that's even debatable, is it?

[Kappas Are Yummy]

I primarily agree with both of you. I would also like to see only four sports (2 men, 2 women).

The thing is that those academics are also at USC, Notre Dame, Miami, and every private school that plays football. The athletic deficit gives them real leverage, whether you like it or not. It cuts into the educational mission of the school; which, I think we all believe is the primary function of the university.

Also, not all the faculty members hate sports.

Like most of your posts, McClown, this one leaves me torn. First of all, I don't know what you mean by limiting us to two sports for each gender. I assume this means football and soccer for the men, tennis and basketball for the women? I need you to delve into this further.

As for not all faculty members hating sports, I agree with you vociferously. I know a number of professors that are rabid sports fans. For some posters to denegrate our university staff with some sort of jocks vs. nerds argument is juvenile and I'm glad you pointed that out.

[SMU Football Blog]

No. Not all faculty hate sports. That was proven a couple of weeks ago in a letter to the DMN by a faculty member. Collectively, however, I believe they do, and the ones I know personally, do. I am not sure saying so denegrates them, but that doesn't really matter.

And if we really want to start eliminating things from the general school budget that are not part of the educational mission of the university, the list will get pretty long, quickly.

[Hoofprint]

.... I assume this means football and soccer for the men, tennis and basketball for the women?

so you're dismissing the other sports, including women's soccer and swimming? The whole idea of going to a format of two sports for each is silly, but even under this proposal, why automatically overlook two of the best teams on campus? Is the women's tennis team good? I don't know. I do know, however, that the women's soccer and swim teams are terrific.