|
PonyFans.com •
Board Index •
Around the Hilltop •
Football •
Recruiting •
Basketball •
Other Sports
This is the forum for talk about SMU Football
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
by dr rc » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:46 pm
If it took North Texas getting one for the admin to get their heads out of their asses that's sad and an indication they still don't get it. Over 80 DFW HIGH SCHOOLS have IPFs. SMU not yet having one at this point is pathetic and IMO gave coaches like Morris and even June every right to get pissed and look elsewhere. (though nothing will ever forgive June straight quitting at his job, it's obvious he was sick of being lied to) Reducing the thing in s size and scope is just anther indication that they don't get it. People supporting that and making excuses for it also do not get it. SMU athletics will NEVER get to where you want them to be pinching pennies while holding the attitude of "Well this is good enough". Sorry, not gonna happen.
-
dr rc

-
- Posts: 362
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:06 pm
by mustangxc » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:14 pm
I really don't understand all the complaining. The IPF is a [deleted] measuring contest used for football recruiting. We are making it exclusive to football as opposed to a multi-purpose facility. What is the problem? The IPF is needed in NY, Iowa, Michigan, and other parts of the country but in Dallas not so much. We are building it to check off a box not because we really need it. Spending more than is necessary is an absolute waste of money. If we really do have extra money lying around there are many more important uses for it than a stupid IPF.
-

mustangxc

-
- Posts: 7338
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:57 pm
by Julian Grendel » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:15 pm
Yeah but no horse treadmill
-

Julian Grendel

-
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:10 pm
- Location: West Hollywood/Dallas
by SMU_Alum11 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:29 pm
I re-sum up my opinion on it Pros: 1) Glad that they're getting an IPF so coaches can't whine about losing recruits from it 2) It shows we are still invested in football. Money could have been allocated elsewhere and you can argue over the allocation but the merit is there. 3) Team has a place to work in bad weather, etc. and if Jerry world has another superbowl and there's a random ice problem the NFL team can stay and practice at SMU and not drive to HPHS.
Cons: 1) I didn't like that we put out this lavish and beautiful mock up of the finish product for it only to be secretively downsized to a smaller one 2) It stinks that we had to do something only because NTCC has more football $$ investment and forced our hand to build the smaller one now.
To my Con point 1 - How hard would it have been to put a mock up of a smaller one or not put one at all until the approval had been made. There's no reason to put one out there especially the more expensive one if there wasn't going to be enough funding anyways. It just looks bad. That's my main criticism over the whole thing.
Insert "this is fine" GIF
-
SMU_Alum11

-
- Posts: 3645
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:55 am
by StallionsModelT » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:42 pm
SMU_Alum11 wrote:I re-sum up my opinion on it Pros: 1) Glad that they're getting an IPF so coaches can't whine about losing recruits from it 2) It shows we are still invested in football. Money could have been allocated elsewhere and you can argue over the allocation but the merit is there. 3) Team has a place to work in bad weather, etc. and if Jerry world has another superbowl and there's a random ice problem the NFL team can stay and practice at SMU and not drive to HPHS.
Cons: 1) I didn't like that we put out this lavish and beautiful mock up of the finish product for it only to be secretively downsized to a smaller one 2) It stinks that we had to do something only because NTCC has more football $$ investment and forced our hand to build the smaller one now.
To my Con point 1 - How hard would it have been to put a mock up of a smaller one or not put one at all until the approval had been made. There's no reason to put one out there especially the more expensive one if there wasn't going to be enough funding anyways. It just looks bad. That's my main criticism over the whole thing.
This might be the dumbest post on this board in a year. I knew there was a reason I hardly ever come over here. If you think that NTSU has more financial commitment to football than SMU you are stupid, ignorant, or a dangerous combination of both. Building that junior-high looking IPF in Denton is going to cost about half of what our IPF will cost us to build ours on the main campus. That's not to mention like every other building it will be Georgian bricked and immaculate and won't look like Carrollton Creekview's Freshman B team IPF like that hideous mock up at NTSU. And again, as to financial commitment: Dykes - 2.2M Littrell 1M Lashlee - 550K Harrell - 200K Kane - 450K Reffett - 175K Honestly, don't know why I even bother.
Back off Warchild seriously.
-
StallionsModelT

-
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:46 pm
- Location: Dallas, Texas
by SMU_Alum11 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:24 pm
StallionsModelT wrote:SMU_Alum11 wrote:I re-sum up my opinion on it Pros: 1) Glad that they're getting an IPF so coaches can't whine about losing recruits from it 2) It shows we are still invested in football. Money could have been allocated elsewhere and you can argue over the allocation but the merit is there. 3) Team has a place to work in bad weather, etc. and if Jerry world has another superbowl and there's a random ice problem the NFL team can stay and practice at SMU and not drive to HPHS.
Cons: 1) I didn't like that we put out this lavish and beautiful mock up of the finish product for it only to be secretively downsized to a smaller one 2) It stinks that we had to do something only because NTCC has more football $$ investment and forced our hand to build the smaller one now.
To my Con point 1 - How hard would it have been to put a mock up of a smaller one or not put one at all until the approval had been made. There's no reason to put one out there especially the more expensive one if there wasn't going to be enough funding anyways. It just looks bad. That's my main criticism over the whole thing.
This might be the dumbest post on this board in a year. I knew there was a reason I hardly ever come over here. If you think that NTSU has more financial commitment to football than SMU you are stupid, ignorant, or a dangerous combination of both. Building that junior-high looking IPF in Denton is going to cost about half of what our IPF will cost us to build ours on the main campus. That's not to mention like every other building it will be Georgian bricked and immaculate and won't look like Carrollton Creekview's Freshman B team IPF like that hideous mock up at NTSU. And again, as to financial commitment: Dykes - 2.2M Littrell 1M Lashlee - 550K Harrell - 200K Kane - 450K Reffett - 175K Honestly, don't know why I even bother.
Lol SMT. If my post was the dumbest, you just superseded it easily with this careless post. Rather than putting something of valuable in the post, you took the childish name calling approach. Good job! You can win at something i guess. I know I need to help you out so let me put it out as simple as possible: I put a link out from Denton chronicle mentioning that NTCC had already put into motion their facility before ours. --> This led us to say "Oh [deleted], we need to build one before they do." --> Led to my comments about the admin having a reactionary response. Also, do you have the confirmed number that's what we are paying for Dykes, because I don't see it anywhere like we announced with Morris. The assistants sure but not that huge amount. NTCC sadly has been doing the billboards and other marketing resources far more than we are. We just started last year. So while my comment was a bit exaggerated, it doesn't take away from the merit of the initial comment of being reactionary to their IPF. Like most people have said in response to the smaller IPF, it's checking the box. So NTCC was going to check theirs and therefore we needed to make sure we did too. "Honestly, don't know why i even bother" then don't, please! 
Insert "this is fine" GIF
-
SMU_Alum11

-
- Posts: 3645
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:55 am
by skyscraper » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:35 pm
We've been fundraising for years, but because someone saw something in the Denton paper in November we all of a sudden got serious about building the IPF and miraculously raised the 80% needed in a matter of weeks? Your premise is flawed.
-

skyscraper

-
- Posts: 5471
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:46 pm
- Location: Dallas
by Bergermeister » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:37 pm
mustangxc wrote: Spending more than is necessary is an absolute waste of money.
If we've got Randy Cody heading up this project, he'll bring it in under budget and we'll have dollars left over for some "extras". We needs to get that ground broke.
-

Bergermeister

-
- Posts: 7131
- Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2002 3:01 am
- Location: University Park
by SMU_Alum11 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:45 pm
skyscraper wrote:We've been fundraising for years, but because someone saw something in the Denton paper in November we all of a sudden got serious about building the IPF and miraculously raised the 80% needed in a matter of weeks? Your premise is flawed.
Respectfully disagree, when I searched online the estimate cost of an IPF is 10-20 million. Assuming that a multi-sport facility, that rendering maybe was $30 million, which would require $24 million down. Let say we were at $16 million for funding, we then could easily say we want the IPF to cost 20 million (smaller) and we could put a shovel in the ground right now. Like others have said, it was a check the box kind of thing, and we didn't want NTCC to have the ability to say they have that over us to current and future recruits. So yeah, I have to think it was because NTCC announced that we needed to do as well to stay competitive.
Insert "this is fine" GIF
-
SMU_Alum11

-
- Posts: 3645
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:55 am
by StallionsModelT » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:05 pm
SMU_Alum11 wrote:skyscraper wrote:We've been fundraising for years, but because someone saw something in the Denton paper in November we all of a sudden got serious about building the IPF and miraculously raised the 80% needed in a matter of weeks? Your premise is flawed.
Respectfully disagree, when I searched online the estimate cost of an IPF is 10-20 million. Assuming that a multi-sport facility, that rendering maybe was $30 million, which would require $24 million down. Let say we were at $16 million for funding, we then could easily say we want the IPF to cost 20 million (smaller) and we could put a shovel in the ground right now. Like others have said, it was a check the box kind of thing, and we didn't want NTCC to have the ability to say they have that over us to current and future recruits. So yeah, I have to think it was because NTCC announced that we needed to do as well to stay competitive.
More outright lunacy. Oh, and we never publicly revealed how much we were paying Morris. SMU is a private institution and doesn't have to disclose that information. We've committed to paying 2M since June. We haven't backed down one bit from that. In fact, we've doubled the pool for assistants from Morris to Dykes thus being able to lure two experienced coordinators and not promoting a GA to OC and a life long position coach to DC. Just use common sense. As to the IPF you've lost your mind if you think NTSU had anything to do with our facility. Its worth the $10/month to avoid this site but you also get information like the IPF well in advance of a press conference and a shovel in the dirt. If we wanted to build a junior high facility ala NTSU renderings it would've been done six years ago. Our facility will end up costing us twice what NTSU is spending on theirs. Just stop.
Back off Warchild seriously.
-
StallionsModelT

-
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:46 pm
- Location: Dallas, Texas
by NTXCoog » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:14 pm
RE: UNT's practice facility: HubbaHubba wrote:Gawd, that's fugly!
I've also seen many comments about how ugly UH's IPF is. So can you give me an example of an attractive IPF? Are all of them ugly except the one SMU had planned to build?
-
NTXCoog

-
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Aubrey TX USA
-
by footballdad » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:42 pm
StallionsModelT wrote:SMU_Alum11 wrote:skyscraper wrote:We've been fundraising for years, but because someone saw something in the Denton paper in November we all of a sudden got serious about building the IPF and miraculously raised the 80% needed in a matter of weeks? Your premise is flawed.
Respectfully disagree, when I searched online the estimate cost of an IPF is 10-20 million. Assuming that a multi-sport facility, that rendering maybe was $30 million, which would require $24 million down. Let say we were at $16 million for funding, we then could easily say we want the IPF to cost 20 million (smaller) and we could put a shovel in the ground right now. Like others have said, it was a check the box kind of thing, and we didn't want NTCC to have the ability to say they have that over us to current and future recruits. So yeah, I have to think it was because NTCC announced that we needed to do as well to stay competitive.
More outright lunacy. Oh, and we never publicly revealed how much we were paying Morris. SMU is a private institution and doesn't have to disclose that information. We've committed to paying 2M since June. We haven't backed down one bit from that. In fact, we've doubled the pool for assistants from Morris to Dykes thus being able to lure two experienced coordinators and not promoting a GA to OC and a life long position coach to DC. Just use common sense. As to the IPF you've lost your mind if you think NTSU had anything to do with our facility. Its worth the $10/month to avoid this site but you also get information like the IPF well in advance of a press conference and a shovel in the dirt. If we wanted to build a junior high facility ala NTSU renderings it would've been done six years ago. Our facility will end up costing us twice what NTSU is spending on theirs. Just stop.
If it costs twice as much, that would be the outright lunacy you scream about. It's a steel box with a football field inside. No weight room, track, etc,etc. Twice as much for some fancier bricks and window dressing. Right
-
footballdad

-
- Posts: 2356
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:42 pm
by SMU_Alum11 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:53 pm
StallionsModelT wrote:SMU_Alum11 wrote:skyscraper wrote:We've been fundraising for years, but because someone saw something in the Denton paper in November we all of a sudden got serious about building the IPF and miraculously raised the 80% needed in a matter of weeks? Your premise is flawed.
Respectfully disagree, when I searched online the estimate cost of an IPF is 10-20 million. Assuming that a multi-sport facility, that rendering maybe was $30 million, which would require $24 million down. Let say we were at $16 million for funding, we then could easily say we want the IPF to cost 20 million (smaller) and we could put a shovel in the ground right now. Like others have said, it was a check the box kind of thing, and we didn't want NTCC to have the ability to say they have that over us to current and future recruits. So yeah, I have to think it was because NTCC announced that we needed to do as well to stay competitive.
More outright lunacy. Oh, and we never publicly revealed how much we were paying Morris. SMU is a private institution and doesn't have to disclose that information. We've committed to paying 2M since June. We haven't backed down one bit from that. In fact, we've doubled the pool for assistants from Morris to Dykes thus being able to lure two experienced coordinators and not promoting a GA to OC and a life long position coach to DC. Just use common sense. As to the IPF you've lost your mind if you think NTSU had anything to do with our facility. Its worth the $10/month to avoid this site but you also get information like the IPF well in advance of a press conference and a shovel in the dirt. If we wanted to build a junior high facility ala NTSU renderings it would've been done six years ago. Our facility will end up costing us twice what NTSU is spending on theirs. Just stop.
Being committed to $2m since June is not a good thing. Have you ever heard of inflation? That's why when you go over to Gerald J Ford's Wiki page and it says $42 million ($59.7 million in today's $). I'm assuming we were able to double the pool because we aren't paying Dykes as much because he is already being subsidized by Cal. Common sense. You can get all upset with not understanding simple math, but it sure looks that way. You can say whatever you want but timing is impeccable. Have you seen the new renderings of the smaller IPF? They're not disclosed anywhere that I can find. Hey if you are so confident that it's going to be "twice as much", please share. I'm curious.  Stop ranting and actually come up with something of value to this conversation. All I see is a whiny baby that feels insulted that one suggests that there's an unusual timing of the announcement with another school.
Insert "this is fine" GIF
-
SMU_Alum11

-
- Posts: 3645
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:55 am
by footballdad » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:58 pm
He just makes stuff up, while complaining on this board.........about the fact that he should just avoid the board. 
-
footballdad

-
- Posts: 2356
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:42 pm
by StallionsModelT » Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:35 pm
Gee I wonder if it is more expensive to build in University Park than Denton? Hmmmm.......
We're paying Dykes top five G5 head coach money. In addition, we've doubled the pool for assistants meaning we will have one of the highest paid G5 coaching staffs in the country (higher than some P5's). We have two experienced coordinators and not a GA and position coach that are both in over their heads. None of this is difficult to get but hey...this is PF.
Back off Warchild seriously.
-
StallionsModelT

-
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:46 pm
- Location: Dallas, Texas
Return to Football
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 30 guests
|
|