CUSA here we come

by **DallasDiehard** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:12 pm

Wouldn't a successful football team raise the number of applicants .... and then enrollment .... and therefore the number of students who want to be cheerleaders, bandmembers, etc.? If Ford Stadium suddenly is THE place to be each Saturday, the number of students going out for such activities would increase, I'd assume.

by **Diehard Pony** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:59 pm

DallasDiehard wrote:Wouldn't a successful football team raise the number of applicants .... and then enrollment .... and therefore the number of students who want to be cheerleaders, bandmembers, etc.? If Ford Stadium suddenly is THE place to be each Saturday, the number of students going out for such activities would increase, I'd assume.

That was clearly the case in the '80s DD. A point that was made on numerous occassions and documented in the venerable DMN (yes, back then the DMN actually covered us pretty well....too well in '86-87).

by **Dutch** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:53 pm

Wouldn't a successful football team raise the number of applicants .... and then enrollment .... and therefore the number of students who want to be cheerleaders, bandmembers, etc.? If Ford Stadium suddenly is THE place to be each Saturday, the number of students going out for such activities would increase, I'd assume.

that's exactly what's happened in Ft.Worth. The number of applicants went up significantly after they started winning and has since translated to a more selective academic university. Our teaching faculty has yet to realize this. Good football team will translate to better overall student population.

by **that's great raplh** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:45 pm

hey - if it weren't for smu's lax admission standards....i would not be a pony

by **DiamondM75** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:24 pm

Diehard Pony wrote:
EastStang wrote:Man, I'm beginning to show my age here. We used to have 96 band members, last time I saw the band it looked about half as big, hence the 50 number.
For decades it was 98 guys and a doll. The decline in the size of the band seems to parallel our decline in sports.

Actually is was 96 guys and a doll. The marching membership has to be divisable by 8. It has to do with the fact that the Mustang Band is based on squads of 8 members. Each squad actually performs its own drill and does not collide with other squads or members, except during rehearsals.

I want to thank the ponyfan members that went to the Diamond M Club web site and made a pledge. We will return the band to 96 with your help and support.

For those of you that missed it, the URL is:

www.diamondmclub.org/membership.htm

by **White Helmet** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:59 am

Sadly it is now divisible by 4 not 8. I blame the director...and Copeland he seems to be responsible for everything bad.

by **couch 'em** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:12 pm

I guess technically it would be divisible by 1 with 3 man squads and such.

by **Dooby** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:44 pm

Phil_Bennett's_Mustache wrote:
Wouldn't a successful football team raise the number of applicants .... and then enrollment .... and therefore the number of students who want to be cheerleaders, bandmembers, etc.? If Ford Stadium suddenly is THE place to be each Saturday, the number of students going out for such activities would increase, I'd assume.

that's exactly what's happened in Ft.Worth. The number of applicants went up significantly after they started winning and has since translated to a more selective academic university. Our teaching faculty has yet to realize this. Good football team will translate to better overall student population.

Generic SMU Faculty Member:

No. No. That not true! That's impossible!!!

by **couch 'em** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:06 pm

Nah, professors just resort to "well, we are a different situation" when you bring up schools like TCU that athletics have helped. I once spent 45 minutes arguing with Dr. Coan of the physics department about this, and when I got so angry at him countering my TCU example with "TCU is totally different. Nobody on OUR academic level chooses their school based on sports teams" that I said a few things about the physics department that I shouldn't. It was just downhill from there.

by **Dutch** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:02 pm

it's like having a discussion w/ a wall. a dumb wall at that.

by **Stallion** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:16 am

my all time favorite was during the All-University Debates concerning the future of Football at SMU circa 1991 - Professor Jim Hopkins a great guy and great teacher- wistfully recalled his days at Oxford and suggested that the SMU football program be eliminated and replaced with a rowing team. I can see it we could all go out to the Trinity River with our Picnic baskets and bottles of champagne and watch the exciting rowing match as we all sing Varsity!!!! Believe me I know these guys-used to go to the Faculty Club with my Mom and eat lunch with Top Administrators, department chairs and committemen. They all had nothing but disdain for the Football program and their stated goal was to emasculate it in any way they could

by **gostangs** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:28 pm

A certain percentage do care about sports when they select a college - but TCU's applicant rise has more due to UT and A&M's top ten percent rule. You can spot the beginning of their trend the same year that rule went in place. It helped SMU as well, but not as much because we are over half out of state, and TCU is more in state. The wealthier kids who used to count on UT now look at TCU because they can get in. For example -look at the number of kids from HP who went to TCU 5 years ago vs today. Then look at the number from HP that went to UT 5 yrs ago vs today - there is your cause and effect.

CUSA here we come

Who is online