AQ conference doesn't mean financial stability

Dutch · Post by **Dutch** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:49 am

The good thing for us is we have already cut those programs that Md is cutting. It led to us finding our Estonian kick blocker, winning football, getting an AQ invite and substantially increasing our revenue.

2ndandlong · Post by **2ndandlong** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:03 am

SoCal_Pony wrote:
GiddyUp wrote:I would have no problem dropping men's swimming, equestrian, rowing. No reason to even have those sports. (sorry Water Pony)

GiddyUp,

Swimming is one of the few sports were we can truly become a consistent Top 10 program, I wouldn't write them off so quickly.

We're already top 10 in equestrian!

GiddyUp · Post by **GiddyUp** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:06 am

SoCal_Pony wrote:
GiddyUp wrote:I would have no problem dropping men's swimming, equestrian, rowing. No reason to even have those sports. (sorry Water Pony)

GiddyUp,

Swimming is one of the few sports were we can truly become a consistent Top 10 program, I wouldn't write them off so quickly.

kind of tough when you have the oldest pool in america. do you invest in that? not worth it to me

2ndandlong · Post by **2ndandlong** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:20 am

GiddyUp wrote:
SoCal_Pony wrote:
GiddyUp wrote:I would have no problem dropping men's swimming, equestrian, rowing. No reason to even have those sports. (sorry Water Pony)

GiddyUp,

Swimming is one of the few sports were we can truly become a consistent Top 10 program, I wouldn't write them off so quickly.

kind of tough when you have the oldest pool in america. do you invest in that? not worth it to me

We would only have seen a new natatorium depending on how Dallas' 2020 Olympic bid played out. However, the IOC recently announced that the USOC confirmed that the US would not bid which is utterly [deleted].

I now guess that 2024 is the only chance for new swim facilities.

MustangSTATS · Post by **MustangSTATS** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:33 am

2ndandlong wrote:We're already top 10 in equestrian!

With only 23 NCAA teams total, we are always guaranteed to be top 25

Water Pony · Post by **Water Pony** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:53 am

GiddyUp wrote:
SoCal_Pony wrote:
GiddyUp wrote:I would have no problem dropping men's swimming, equestrian, rowing. No reason to even have those sports. (sorry Water Pony)

GiddyUp,

Swimming is one of the few sports were we can truly become a consistent Top 10 program, I wouldn't write them off so quickly.

kind of tough when you have the oldest pool in america. do you invest in that? not worth it to me

I have had to bite my tongue [deleted] this thread. The casual elimination of non-revenue sports at the alter of $ and to a complete surrender to FB and BB. It appears GiddyUp does not speak for many, but the expression hurts all the same. Leaving aside the Women's teams are legally required and a women's team needs a competitive pool, what sports would remain? SMU can hardly be viewed as a national university with BCS aspirations with so few sports. Perhaps the term student-athlete is a joke or misnomer, but non-revenue sports have been part of the fabric at SMU and other universities for the last century. I hated the loss of baseball and men's track & field/CC. Eliminating more men's sports and a few women's sports to balance a budget, while pursuing FB and BB with a "cost is no object" attitude will recast SMU is a light even more negative, i.e. a weak FB factory. We are not a state university, but an attractive private university in a major metropolitan center with strong academics and a growing national reputation for our graduates.

I'll stop here. My next comments would not be kind.

2ndandlong · Post by **2ndandlong** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:55 am

MustangSTATS wrote:
2ndandlong wrote:We're already top 10 in equestrian!

With only 23 NCAA teams total, we are always guaranteed to be top 25

yeah, just glaze over that part. :lol:

Nacho · Post by **Nacho** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am

correct me if i am wrong but i think we are down to the minimum requirement for d-1 in terms of number of sports, ie we can't throw anymore out. we are doing a pretty good job of starving swimming.

SMU_Alumni11 · Post by **SMU_Alumni11** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:50 am

Water Pony, I dont think you have anything to worry about. SMU is well funded instititution. If anything they want to brand their name out, and I imagine swimming can help in its own way. If we were in some financial distress, they would be cutting Blvd (or asked to be privately funded), and stop having handymen out to make sure the lawn is perfect twice a week, and such.

mathman · Post by **mathman** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:19 pm

GrapevineMustang wrote:That's great ... depending on where the money goes.

1. Athletic marketing department -- create one
Seriously. Other schools do it. They want their cities to know they have games.

2. Indoor practice facility
This goes without saying. Every day practice gets rained out or the guys have to practice in crazy cold (pre-bowl games) is inexcusable.

3. Soccer facility
The current playing surface is pretty nice, but the seating and lighting are atrocious.

4. New natatorium
This has been needed for decades, and the fact that it hasn't been addressed already is embarrassing.

5. Track
Coach Wollman has done a heroic job with fewer resources than the intramural department.

6. Support staff
There are so many people behind the scenes (there once was a day when SMU even marketed its athletic department ... it was incredible) who need more staff, better salaries and more resources for their departments.

7. More marketing

Excellent post. Agree with all of that.

MustangSTATS · Post by **MustangSTATS** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:41 pm

In general, as budgets get tighter and tighter all unprofitable sports will get reexamined. There have been several economic studies showing that the vast majority of D1-FBS athletic departments as a whole are unprofitable with many FB programs also just scrapping by. Lots of schools are already getting around female athlete requirements by having giant CX teams with ghost athletes and counting male students on practice squads of female teams. If you are a fan of a sport, expect to be out their championing your team to help it survive.

SMU is more well positioned financially than most, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do some "house keeping" and drop a few costly programs since other schools already are and would cause less of an uproar now given the current times. Not sure why we don't drop Equestrian (and possibly rowing) and replace it with something potentially cheaper like LX when we join the BE.

Water Pony · Post by **Water Pony** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:52 pm

"Unprofitable sports?" I assume that was an attempt at humor. BB on its best day is break even and no other sport than FB would potentially qualify. Then the logical conclusion is you eliminate all men's sports, except FB and BB and simply add up the number of athletes on the roster. Then tell the AD to match it with any number of women participants in sports that use the least amount of resources, i.e. money.

Done. Happy?

GiddyUp · Post by **GiddyUp** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:12 pm

Sorry Water Pony, it's a tough road ahead in athletics to keep financially afloat and some of the top swimming programs in NCAA's have been dropped in the last few years.

Why do schools need so many sports? I am speaking for all schools, not just SMU.
Just seems like a drain. I like horses but Equestrian - really?
Surprised we don't have a ping pong or women's badminton team.

Water Pony · Post by **Water Pony** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:23 pm

GiddyUp wrote:Sorry Water Pony, it's a tough road ahead in athletics to keep financially afloat and some of the top swimming programs in NCAA's have been dropped in the last few years.

Why do schools need so many sports? I am speaking for all schools, not just SMU.
Just seems like a drain. I like horses but Equestrian - really?
Surprised we don't have a ping pong or women's badminton team.

I understand, but there are two competing issues. First Title IX requires comparable (actually equal) participation for Men and Women. Second, a NCAA FCS school has to have a minimum of sports teams. We are close to the minimum. The secret sauce for Athletic Departments is to have Women's sports that have large rosters. Surprisingly, rowing and equestrian require large numbers due to number of boats, level (such as a Advanced, Intermediate, Novice, etc.) and so on.

If we go BE, I am serious in suggesting LAX for Women. Big teams with a eastern orientation.

smustatesmen · Post by **smustatesmen** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:39 pm

[quote="GiddyUp"]I would have no problem dropping men's swimming, equestrian, rowing. No reason to even have those sports. (sorry Water Pony) [quote]

I always thought swimming + equestrian = water polo. Make it unisex by gelding the horsies. :idea: