O.T. 80M in facilities upgrades???

by **couch 'em** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:41 pm

I'd rather have lacrosse. Lock down an up and coming sport.

by **cheesepony** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:58 pm

Back in the 80's, ALL our sports were clicking on ALL cylinders and the University attracted students who thought athletics were an important part of the college experience. We had great football, good basketball, LOTS of Olympic gold medalist swimmers, BIG TIME track and tennis athletes, and an up and coming soccer program. WE WENT TO ALL THESE EVENTS because we loved athletics..... the student body at SMU seems far different today - I consider them apathetic and relatively disinterested in athletics as a whole (and perhaps rightly so given the dismal performance of some of our teams). It will take 3-5 years of consistent winning in the revenue sports to get students back on campus who are truly interested in a TOTAL college experience, including athletics.

by **SMU Hockey 2010** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:04 pm

Your mom's interested in a TOTAL college experience...

by **Water Pony** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:39 pm

East Coast Mustang [/quote]But seriously, swimming and track and soccer are all well and good, but no one really gives a rat's [deleted] about them in the long run. Football and basketball is where it's at, and college baseball is coming on as well. NEVER in my four years at SMU have I ever heard of anyone going to a swimming meet. To put money into that "program" before Moody renovations is ludicrous. I don't even know one person on the swim team. If it wasn't for this board, I wouldn't even know the swim team existed. No disrespect, I'm just being realistic here. If we want our athletic program to raise the school's national profile, then pouring money into a new swimming stadium, or natatorium, or whatever the hell they're called, isn't the best start. Likewise for soccer, and I know we have a top-ranked soccer program, but people just don't get that excited about it. [/quote]

Hard to let such a sophomoric comment go unanswered, but my reaction is pity. College days exists for more than FB and BB. The whole idea of a college athletes is to further the development of the student and prepare him/her for leadership in their choosen field. Soccer, swimming, track & field, etc. serve that objective well. Wish I could be as generous to you. Being small minded with not serve you well.

As for attending a swim meet or a soccer match, both have seen more than a thousand for big events. BTW, if you don't know a swimmer, a soccer player, runner, etc. it is your lost. Enjoy the [deleted] tube.

:cry:

by **gostangs** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:05 pm

I never knew any swimmers that wern't drunk 24/7. Who knew they were sensitive under all that liquor.

by **couch 'em** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:13 pm

Water Pony wrote: Enjoy the [deleted] tube.

I have to ask..... what got deleted?

by **smu diamond m** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:28 pm

gostangs wrote:I never knew any swimmers that wern't drunk 24/7. Who knew they were sensitive under all that liquor.

They drink like fish!

by **abezontar** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:39 am

couch 'em wrote:
Water Pony wrote: Enjoy the [deleted] tube.

I have to ask..... what got deleted?

[deleted]? b00b

by **East Coast Mustang** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:30 am

Water Pony wrote:College days exists for more than FB and BB. The whole idea of a college athletes is to further the development of the student and prepare him/her for leadership in their choosen field. Soccer, swimming, track & field, etc. serve that objective well.

Maybe in Division III, but D1 athletics should be about raising the university's profile nationwide, as well as about turning a profit at many top-tier athletic schools (although not SMU). They don't sign multimillion dollar TV deals to "further the development of the student and prepare him/her for leadership in their choosen field." It's about money and exposure. I can tell you from growing up in North Carolina that many people don't even know what SMU is outside of Texas, thus we still have a ways to go in that department. So to suggest that our swimming program should receive funds before the much needed renovations at Moody? That's small minded. No disrespect to the swimming program, but it's not a premier college sport, never has been, and probably never will be...so why should it receive funding for facilities before our programs which can make money for the school and enhance the school's exposure through TV appearances and the like?

by **Water Pony** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:00 am

East Coast Mustang wrote:
Water Pony wrote:College days exists for more than FB and BB. The whole idea of a college athletes is to further the development of the student and prepare him/her for leadership in their choosen field. Soccer, swimming, track & field, etc. serve that objective well.

Maybe in Division III, but D1 athletics should be about raising the university's profile nationwide, as well as about turning a profit at many top-tier athletic schools (although not SMU). They don't sign multimillion dollar TV deals to "further the development of the student and prepare him/her for leadership in their choosen field." It's about money and exposure. I can tell you from growing up in North Carolina that many people don't even know what SMU is outside of Texas, thus we still have a ways to go in that department. So to suggest that our swimming program should receive funds before the much needed renovations at Moody? That's small minded. No disrespect to the swimming program, but it's not a premier college sport, never has been, and probably never will be...so why should it receive funding for facilities before our programs which can make money for the school and enhance the school's exposure through TV appearances and the like?

Be careful, your mind is getting smaller and smaller. Pinhead alert

by **NavyCrimson** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:01 am

Cheesepony: "... It will take 3-5 years of consistent winning in the revenue sports to get students back on campus who are truly interested in a TOTAL college experience, including athletics."

You hit the nail on the head.

by **mrydel** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:04 am

UT is getting quite a bit of pub in the Olympics due to their swimming folks, and FWIW, the most exciting sporting event I have ever attended, bar none, was a duel swim meet between SMU and Michigan at Perkins back in approximately 1970. Electric atmosphere. We used to get some pretty good national attention between Heinrich and Lundquist.

by **Water Pony** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:10 am

mrydel wrote:UT is getting quite a bit of pub in the Olympics due to their swimming folks, and FWIW, the most exciting sporting event I have ever attended, bar none, was a duel swim meet between SMU and Michigan at Perkins back in approximately 1970. Electric atmosphere. We used to get some pretty good national attention between Heinrich and Lundquist.

Two great Mustang Olympians, Mrydel. Thanks. When Perkins is packed the atmosphere is electric, but we still need that new Natatorium

Jerry Heidenreich

Steve Lundquist

by **mrydel** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:27 am

Sorry about the spelling on Jerry. Had Mark Spitz not been born, Jerry would be the one they talk about in Olympic history discussions at this time.

by **SMUPhil** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:28 am

I'm with water pony on this one.

And the natatorium was actually the OLD basketball gym, before Moody was built, so that facility is plenty old.

The athletic dept would probably not be around if it hadn't been for our success in soccer, swimming, tennis, golf, etc the last 30 years. Don't forget that during the miserable 90's, we had visibility on a GLOBAL stage with athletes like Ryan Berube winning the GOLD MEDAL at the Olympics.

O.T. 80M in facilities upgrades???

Who is online