Athletic program cuts

[Dooby]

Bully for UCLA, Tulane, and everyone else who has eliminated sports programs. It doesn't change the fact that this is indicative of mismanagement.

I thought we were boo-hooing SMU athletics in general and that eliminating men's track was proof that we are a perpetual failure and that we all needed to drop to a division where even the FIJI's and LXA's would be competitive playing football and basketball.

I am saying that this is not just an SMU problem.

[MustangSally]

People always make fun of SMU for not having baseball, but i stood up for us stating that we have just about every other sport. It pisses me off to see that now SMU is going to have to cut the 'minor' sports out to make room financially.

On a bigger scale, however, since TCU dropped its soccer team two years ago, SMU has fielded the only Div I men's soccer team in the state of Texas. That's right, UT, ATM, Baylor, none of them have had men's soccer for at least a few years. This whole thing is gettin out of hand.

I am a football apologist and will stick up for the football team 8 days a week, but I was really upset when I found out why we don't even host home track meets anymore. When they built Ford Stadium, they had to shorten the sprint lanes, making them useless in a competitive setting. I don't like to pit one of our teams against the other, but that's what the media and other voices are going to be saying: "Football spends X, yet we're cutting our awesome track team..."

ARGH! This whole situation makes me uneasy, I wish I could do something about it (financially).

Hey, look on the bright side. Since I've been here I've been able to witness the inaugural seasons of both the women's rowing and equestrian teams! I remember seeing sidewalk chalk adverstisements on the ground outside Umphrey-Lee stating "Wanna join the new varsity rowing team? Meet at...." Hmmm, something's not right about that.

[Hoop Fan]

Dooby, this chicken little realizes that many other schools have cut programs. The difference is many of those schools have done what they can possibly do to compete in the revenue sports. Thats where SMU has no leg to stand on. When Copeland cites a lack of a fan base, I don't think he means a fan base for track, he means the revenue sports. The implication is that if SMU would support the revenue sports more, then this wouldn't be necessary. Damn right it wouldn't be, if we gave our alums something to be proud of. The money is there if this university would get off of its [deleted] and win a game that means something to the alums once in a while. This didn't have to happen here. SMU already skimps on sports like baseball. This University is penny wise and pound foolish. There is nothing wrong with a little outrage either.

[Dooby]

Even the great TCU has eliminated some sports? I guess they are just mismanaged.

I know I am coming across as an SMU apologist, but please remember that I have in the past called for the firings of Cavan, Dement and Copeland; demanded bringing in jucos and starting athlete-friendly majors.

[Dooby]

Dooby, this chicken little realizes that many other schools have cut programs. The difference is many of those schools have done what they can possibly do to compete in the revenue sports. Thats where SMU has no leg to stand on. When Copeland cites a lack of a fan base, I don't think he means a fan base for track, he means the revenue sports. The implication is that if SMU would support the revenue sports more, then this wouldn't be necessary. Damn right it wouldn't be, if we gave our alums something to be proud of. The money is there if this university would get off of its [deleted] and win a game that means something to the alums once in a while. This didn't have to happen here. SMU already skimps on sports like baseball. This University is penny wise and pound foolish. There is nothing wrong with a little outrage either.

Fair enough points. But the truth is the money isn't there right now. I'd rather have a men's track team than a women's equestrian team, but that is not to be.

[SoCal_Pony]

Scattershooting while reflecting on the loss of one of our few nationally recognized athletic programs:

I do not like the speed by which we dismantled our track team. Was it really so urgent that we shut it down today? I wonder how our other ‘non-revenue’ athletes are feeling about now, especially the men.

The athletic department owes it to all of us to tell us exactly how much money we are saving annually by cutting our track team. If someone on ponyfans is probing, please ask this question and report back to all of us.

I wonder how the loss of our track team will affect our Sears rankings, which IMO matters.

I think it is fitting that MM65/PK posted the football attendance records of all the major colleges. At 101, do you realize there are 4 schools that average more fans in a SINGLE game than we have in an entire season? And we’re suppose to compete against that????????

[OldPony]

OP has been an SMU fan and supporter for many, many years. It has just become too painful. See you guys around. Hopefully I'll have reason to return someday but the lack of communication from the school re this type of action and the unwillingness to compete have finally driven me away. I am now part of the problem that someday, someone might want to solve. Good luck to all.

[Water Pony]

I agree. The decision to drop Men's Track is not a good thing. Unfortunately, this problem is not unique to SMU. As a non-revenue sports guy, this trend is the results of:

- The budget, number of scholarships and administrative attention showered on FB and to a lesser degree, Basketball.
- The need to elevate Women Sports, which I support, at the expense of Men's Sports, which I disagree with.
- The nature of a Private School with a smaller enrollment.
- Smaller alumni and fan base
- The money machine of the BCS and the large state schools, which will bury the smaller budgets and capacity of non-BCS schools.
- The role of sports in colleges and universities which is bi-polar. e.g. the traditional role of the student athletes VS the unoffical minor league status of FB and BB teams, which on the men's side, must absorb so much of the funds, energy and attention of administration, students, alumni, media and fans.

This trend jeparodizes all sports, which I strongly believe have a key role in the development of men and women. The system is broken!

[Hoop Fan]

reconsider that OP. Don't do it. Withhold your money, more of your time listening to games, cut back on Ponyfans.com, whatever. But why go cold turkey on an institution? SMU is more than Gerald Turner, Jim Copeland or any particular set of trustees. I won't give up until they shovel the last load of crap on my grave. Giving up says more about me than any administrator's decision. Come on back and talk hoops one day soon. We don't always agree, but I like your style.

[Stallion]

PK - the fact is that 15 years of being pathetic is EXPENSIVE. Its always been a part of my argument although I haven't always emphasized it that the Ken Pye Model was eventually too expensive because of the lack of competitive program. Lack of conference revenues, lack of bowl game revenues , Lack of TV revenues, lack of sponsorship revenues(see TCU's ESPN deal), lack of gate revenues AND LACK OF ALUMNI FINANCIAL SUPPORT. Its is the MODEL not the alumni who do not share Ken Pye ridiculous dream that has caused these problems. Either compete on an equal basis as our natural or traditional rivals or find enough alumni who feel strongly enough about supporting that defective Model to allow it to survive. The lack of financial support is in essence a NO CONFIDENCE decision by SMU's alumni.

[PK]

I really do agree with most of what you say, Stallion, and we have all endured much too long the horrendous results of Pye's experiment, but having said that, I believe we are making strides in the right direction. The improvements are way late in coming and the results thereof seem still just beyond our grasp...but coming I believe all the same. It is for that reason that I think it is important that now more than ever we need to provide the financial support we can to allow our programs a chance to take advantage of the model changes that have taken place. I am just as frustrated as anyone is with the last 15 years of misery we have endured, but I will not give up my support for the athletic programs of my alma mater and I hope most of my fellow ponyfans are like minded.

[couch 'em]

Hey, look on the bright side. Since I've been here I've been able to witness the inaugural seasons of both the women's rowing and equestrian teams! I remember seeing sidewalk chalk adverstisements on the ground outside Umphrey-Lee stating "Wanna join the new varsity rowing team? Meet at...." Hmmm, something's not right about that.

Funny thing is, they still recruit for rowing the same way. If you are female and enroll in the university, you are invited for the team. Title 9 is sickening, we lose olympic caliber athletes so we can field more teams made of random people who just want scholarship money. (no offense to rowers - I know many of you are very committed)

[Charleston Pony]

This is obviously a difficult issue; one that brings out a lot of emotion and is clearly one of the tougher parts of Jim Copeland's job. Much easier to fire a coach than shut down an entire program for budgetary reasons. As someone who has seen his job eliminated and been in the position of having to eliminate others' jobs, I know how tough this is for everyone involved. Those who blame Copeland for "mismanagemnt" would be wise to educate themselves. He didn't create Title IX, which no matter how anyone spins this story, is very much at the heart of this move.

Those of you who are so disgusted you are going to withdraw your support...what level Mustang Club member are you? Do you realize that if each and every living SMU alum was giving at the mere Pony level ($250), we'd still need another $10M to compete on a par with even the successful "mid-major" programs? We won't even talk about competing on the level of Texa$ or A$M. One of our problems is that only about 5% of our alumni support our athletic programs through donations to the Mustang Club. You can argue that support would be stronger if we fielded top 25 programs and I'd like to think that would be true...but history doesn't support that argument. The truth is that Mustang Club donations weren't significantly better during the payroll days on the early 80's.

Why men's track? Well, I'd be surprised if this isn't a defensive move to reduce exposure to claims via Title IX, but it's also due to the inability of our "revenue" sports to generate any revenue. For those who are outraged that they've chosen one of our more competitive programs, just be thankful it wasn't men's soccer that was targeted. Do you realize that the wealthy and powerful SEC doesn't sanction a men's soccer championship? That's the sport most schools use as a 1st step in balancing Title IX concerns. With few exceptions, it's easy to offer women the same opportunities as men (track, soccer, baseball/softball, tennis, golf, basketball, etc...) Football IS the major exception and most schools start there in trying to balance the numbers. Soccer is the women's equivalent of football, but doesn't carry the same numbers so typically wrestling or men's teams like track & field, gof, tennis, etc...are the ones eliminated while volleyball, rowing and equestrian programs are added.

It would have been nice if Title IX carried some exceptions and that "king football" could be one in college athletics, because most of those same SEC schools who do not sponsor mens soccer programs have football programs who are more than self sufficient...they in fact, along with very active booster clubs, help fund many of the other sports at those schools. For schools like SMU, and most of those who compete at Division I-A, football is the biggest financial burden and without generous alumni support, something's gotta give in the rest of the athletics dept because football remains the most visible sport in the entire athletic program.

I wish I could give more but I can't. For those who react by saying they intend to withdraw their support...all I can say is that by doing so, you are simply compounding the problem. But that's O.K. If everyone gives up and stops supporting SMU athletics, SMU will eventually become a nice little regional liberal arts college that competes at Division III (that's NO scholarships, folks). We will at least have the nicest football/basketball facilities of any school competing at that level. I have to say I haven't kept track of that Division in Texas. Who will we be competing against then?

[Diehard Pony]

I spoke with a member of the Athletics Council today who told me that this decision was totally a Title IX issue. Without the elimination of men's track, we would have had to add two new women's sports. With this decision, they end up with two less non-revenue sports so that Football and Men's Basketball can be given the maximum funding.

We also discussed the effect of footballers who like to participate on the track team. He told me it was a rarity today, unlike the 70's and 80's because of the earlier and more extended Spring workouts, and the influx of foreign talent to track.

I hate that we have to do it as much as anyone, but given the alternative (i.e., cutting into the two revenue sports) I am supportive of this one. As we all know, this is much the function of Title IX and not being a member of a BCS conference. Winning in the two big sports would have helped, but these are desperate times that require measures to assure we survive, and hopefully thrive in Football and M Bball. Hopefully, some day we can add track and baseball back.

[Dooby]

Out of solidarity with the men's track team....

Kathy is back.