Page 8 of 10

Re: Building....?

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:24 pm
by couch 'em
Please elaborate on IPF plans that make it nicest in the country

Re: Building....?

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:03 pm
by mrydel
It will include puppies.

Re: Building....?

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:19 pm
by gostangs
not just puppies - cocker spanial puppies

Re: Building....?

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:27 pm
by Silk
gostangs wrote:a few corrections:

1) there will be no structures at Pettus - it will stay a field and is not big enough for soccer
2) we are currently raising money for 5-6 major projects - so the IPF/soccer relocation/natatorium are all in the "next wave" .
3) soccer will go across central in nice new facility. IPF will go on current westcott and will be the nicest in the country - and will include track and field facilities
4) we are forever done with baseball. it aint coming back. we can stop talking about it. Lacrosse is much more likely
I hope you're right on a lot of this, but what makes you say all of this?

Hart says money isn't in place for IPF (yet), and if soccer was headed somewhere else, why would he have said it probably will go where Pettus is? In that case, wouldn't he just say something about how "we don't know yet where it will go"?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65610

Re: Building....?

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:35 pm
by NavyCrimson
Hate to see baseball go 'by-by' but whatever. I can understand the limited $$$ & available space but at least the sport brings in dollars & cents vs. lacrosse & the other olympic sports which are nil.

Screw Title IX.

Re: Building....?

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:36 pm
by SMU2007
gostangs wrote: IPF will go on current westcott and will be the nicest in the country - and will include track and field facilities
I have a hard time believing this. Is there any truth to this claim?

Re: Building....?

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:03 pm
by Water Pony
SMU2007 wrote:
gostangs wrote: IPF will go on current westcott and will be the nicest in the country - and will include track and field facilities
I have a hard time believing this. Is there any truth to this claim?
I agree that it is hard to believe. Having the nicest in the country would require funding we apparently will struggle to find, especially for a private university.

Re: Building....?

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:04 pm
by fifty
It will be the nicest in the county. In all seriousness though, it sounds nice. Everyone thinks SMU is a bunch of rich kids. Might as well live up to that and build something awesome.

Re: Building....?

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:41 pm
by gostangs
it will happen - its just going to take awhile. we have a ton to raise with what is right in front of us - most of which is under construction.

Re: Building....?

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:46 pm
by CalallenStang
ponyscott wrote:
Mexmustang wrote:Big time programs wouldn't have set themselves up for failure by having the non-conference schedule we had. The real question for [deleted] Hart is why he caved into A&M and instead dropped the home game against Baylor. We had a replacement game for them at JerryWorld against Louisville. I guess that makes A&M the one "afraid" to compete! It also questions the backbone of our AD!
Is that true? I thought Louisville wouldn't agree. Our AD seems like THE worst choice to navigate the difficult waters we find ourselves in. He doesn't appear to be a strong enough personality to lead SMU IMHO.
Louisville did not agree to the date A&M needed that game to fall on.

Re: Building....?

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:35 am
by ponyboy
SMU2007 wrote:
gostangs wrote: IPF will go on current westcott and will be the nicest in the country - and will include track and field facilities
I have a hard time believing this. Is there any truth to this claim?
I won't comment on how nice it will be or whether track and field will be included, but it's been the talk for a long time about the location of the IPF, i.e. at current Wescott.

Re: Building....?

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:35 am
by Water Pony
ponyboy wrote:
SMU2007 wrote:
gostangs wrote: IPF will go on current westcott and will be the nicest in the country - and will include track and field facilities
I have a hard time believing this. Is there any truth to this claim?
I won't comment on how nice it will be or whether track and field will be included, but it's been the talk for a long time about the location of the IPF, i.e. at current Wescott.
Imagine an indoor 400 meter track surrounding the artifical field. Impressive combination for all student athletes. Break ground on the new Natatorium at Perkins site and the resulting athletic complex would be impressive.

However, this first requires relocating Track & Field and Men's and Women's Soccer somewhere. It will need to be east of North Central Exway near SMU Boulevard or south of Mockingbird near Glencoe Park.

Re: Building....?

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:43 am
by CalallenStang
Water Pony wrote: Imagine an indoor 400 meter track surrounding the artifical field.
Outdoor Track and Indoor Track are separate sports. So even if we did have a full-length indoor track, we would still need an outdoor track complex (unless we are going to drop outdoor track for indoor track)

Re: Building....?

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:43 am
by couch 'em
Water Pony wrote:
ponyboy wrote:
SMU2007 wrote: I have a hard time believing this. Is there any truth to this claim?
I won't comment on how nice it will be or whether track and field will be included, but it's been the talk for a long time about the location of the IPF, i.e. at current Wescott.
Imagine an indoor 400 meter track surrounding the artifical field. Impressive combination for all student athletes. Break ground on the new Natatorium at Perkins site and the resulting athletic complex would be impressive.

However, this first requires relocating Track & Field and Men's and Women's Soccer somewhere. It will need to be east of North Central Exway near SMU Boulevard or south of Mockingbird near Glencoe Park.
Nice but hardly qualifies as "nicest in the country". More details?

Re: Building....?

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:46 am
by Roach
CalallenStang wrote:Louisville did not agree to the date A&M needed that game to fall on.
That's what I heard, too. Louisville said no, and no other FBS team was willing to play A&M, making it impossible to get out of our game with them.