Headline in Houston regarding Big East move

by **Junior** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:40 pm

redpony wrote:RE- I will respect your judgement but I lived in both Houston and Dallas. My opinion was that Houston was more supportive- at least they were more open about supporting UH. IMO it was more of a community thing than a university thing.

GO PONIES!!!

I've lived in both as well, and I too disagree with your assessment. Just like in Dallas, most of the support is for the larger state institutions (UT & A&M). But i do feel that beyond that, SMU garners more support in Dallas than UH does in Houston.

by **redpony** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:47 pm

Stallion- I've known John and Becky Moores for over 20 years- unless he died in the last week or so he is still very much alive. However, much less wealthy due to his (pending?) divorce. The divorce and the potential settlement is why he sold the Padres.

GO PONIES!!!

by **CalallenStang** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:56 pm

Moores is still alive. Stallion is thinking of John O'Quinn.

SMU gets a heck of a lot of support from the Dallas business community.

by **leopold** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:14 pm

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/ ... on-looming

ESPN reporting Villanova has the votes to make the jump.

by **PonyKai** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:18 pm

Then CUSA remains a stronger non-AQ with UCF and Houston.

by **ponyscott** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:51 am

gostangs wrote:The UH business community is not UH oriented - UH is irrelevant in the world of Houston. and UH does not deliver the Houston market - we are closer the delivering Dallas then they are to delivering Houston. SMU is not where we should be, but we are much more relevant to Dallas business then UH is to Houston business. For starters - their school is not very good - its fourth tier. Business likes to be associated with successful enterprises.

And the complaint about GT on business and community support is silly - if there is ONE thing you would praise him for it would be that. We are 400M into a 770M capital compaign - ahead of schedule in the toughest economic environment since the depression. We have doubled our endowment in record time and academically moved from 90 something rankings to just outside the top 50 in the country. Access to money is not our issue. Sports-wise - lack of bodies are our issue and we cant fix that - but it will get better as we get better. If TCU, USC, Duke, Northwestern and Vandy (small privates in mid to large markets) can pull off BCS sports of relevance, we can too.

ALL good points!...the improvements on Campus are striking and impressive and directed by GT...the $$ are there and maybe the advertising isn't where it should be but unfortunately it doesn't equate to butts in seats...they have tried the advertising thing, except for the massive Mustang Mania campaign in the 80's, it just doesn't work so well.

by **1983 Cotton Bowl** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:16 am

It was much easier to sell Mustang Mania in an era where the schedule featured UT, A&M, Arkansas, Tech, and Baylor. Even during the height of SMU football in the early 1980s, attendance wasn't blowing anyone away. While watching the 1982 SMU/Arkansas game on ESPN recently, I was struck when the announcer made the comment that "Mustang Mania has been a tough sell in Dallas until recently." I think he was commenting that the Arkansas game was the only sellout for SMU at Texas Stadium that year.

by **Stallion** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:26 am

Mustang Mania essentially ended in 1981. I think Brad Thomas was still there but Bob Hitch defunded it when Russ Potts left because he wanted full paying customers,. The Hey Day of Mustang Mania was really 1976-1980

by **Mexmustang** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:19 pm

Have to agree. Gerald has done a great job in fundraising and improving the campus. Although having four successive children at SMU and watching the tuition increase constantly one wonders what all these new buildings are for if the enrollment is held constant.
I still don't believe that he sees the link between successful college athletics and a successful university. Much of our improvement in the rankings is an improvement in the perception of high school applicants and the student body directly ties to a winning athletic program. His response at having applications up 50%, "Well,these aren't the students we want anyway!" I think his time has passed.

by **NickSMU17** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:23 pm

Mexmustang wrote:Have to agree. Gerald has done a great job in fundraising and improving the campus. Although having four successive children at SMU and watching the tuition increase constantly one wonders what all these new buildings are for if the enrollment is held constant.
I still don't believe that he sees the link between successful college athletics and a successful university. Much of our improvement in the rankings is an improvement in the perception of high school applicants and the student body directly ties to a winning athletic program. His response at having applications up 50%, "Well,these aren't the students we want anyway!" I think his time has passed.

+1

by **Pony!Poni!Pone'!** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:57 pm

Mexmustang wrote:Have to agree. Gerald has done a great job in fundraising and improving the campus. Although having four successive children at SMU and watching the tuition increase constantly one wonders what all these new buildings are for if the enrollment is held constant.
I still don't believe that he sees the link between successful college athletics and a successful university. Much of our improvement in the rankings is an improvement in the perception of high school applicants and the student body directly ties to a winning athletic program. His response at having applications up 50%, "Well,these aren't the students we want anyway!" I think his time has passed.

Very well put id say

by **lwjr** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:00 pm

Mexmustang wrote:Have to agree. Gerald has done a great job in fundraising and improving the campus. Although having four successive children at SMU and watching the tuition increase constantly one wonders what all these new buildings are for if the enrollment is held constant.
I still don't believe that he sees the link between successful college athletics and a successful university. Much of our improvement in the rankings is an improvement in the perception of high school applicants and the student body directly ties to a winning athletic program. His response at having applications up 50%, "Well,these aren't the students we want anyway!" I think his time has passed.

If he really said that,then:

Spoken like a true "Holier than thou" academia intellectual jerk....

by **couch 'em** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:13 pm

That statement is always the response of profs when you point out admissions going up.

Just like when you point out schools with top academics AND athletics they downplay that schools academics.

When you then point out that said university has a higher rated department than the department said professor is the dean of, you are strongly encouraged to change majors