PonyFans.com

Have to agree except the NT band was big and loud due to positioning. Putting the smu students and small smu band in that corner can barely be heard. They need to be at the corner where the nt band was because it projects to a larger part of the stadium. Time for the smu band, cheerleaders and other spirit teams to double or even triple in size...they are still in the last century and I mean mid last century. Look no further than what TCU has done and with much less to work with compared to SMU. Must hand it to the dept though for upgrading a few years back from the cheerleader ballerina slippers to the cowboy boots like tcu but that is not enough.

Are you kidding? We don't want to go the way of the TCU band. Bad idea. Terrible too. As others have said before, the size of the Mustang Band could improve. Nothing is wrong with their style. It is classy and unique. I sit in section 104 and could not hear the band at all against Baylor, had no problems hearing them against NTU.

Our demographics just don't support a larger band. Either we buy players to make it worth the time and marginally negative social consequences or we create a new gimmick that makes the band more attractive itself.

The SMU band did this originally with jazz - pop music of the day with matching instrumentation. Everyone else was playing sousa marches.

So now do you add in electric guitars basses and singers? A student DJ station blasting dance music?

How many are currently in the band? Is it still 98 and a doll? If not, would that be enough? I don't think we are talking a huge number increase. Would twenty do it?

smusportspage wrote:How many are currently in the band? Is it still 98 and a doll? If not, would that be enough? I don't think we are talking a huge number increase. Would twenty do it?

So last century sexist.... (sarcasm, insert here)

but, uhhh, accurate?

Anyone know the numbers?

smusportspage wrote:How many are currently in the band? Is it still 98 and a doll? If not, would that be enough? I don't think we are talking a huge number increase. Would twenty do it?

Total Members From Google:
Houston 250 members
UCF 305
Cincinnati 250
ECU 250
Memphis 200+
USF 330
Temple 200
Tulane ??
Tulsa 105
UNT 400
TCU 235
Baylor 340
SMU 90

Now here is # of undergrads per band member. This is a more relevant comparison vs huge state schools:

Houston 94.4
UCF 172.2
Cincinnati 127.9
ECU 89.0
Memphis 86.1
USF 108.7
Temple 142.0
Tulane ??
Tulsa 30.2
UNT 73.7
TCU 36.8
Baylor 40.8
SMU 70.6

So we are lagging vs similar schools. No idea which of these have music schools and if they are required to join the matching band. I suspect both are true at TCU Tulsa and Baylor, which could mean we are not doing bad considering

The number was 96 Guys and a Doll.

The membership has been 80-90 for some time. With additional funding and interest, numbers could potentially grow. Leadership won't turn away quality musicians with a desire to join.

Tulane didn't field a "marching band" for decades although I think they came back a few years ago

Edited to include # of undergrads per band member

So the question still remains. What number should we be shooting for. I would think those in currently in the band or band alumni could help us out with what would be the optimal number.

smusportspage wrote:So the question still remains. What number should we be shooting for. I would think those in currently in the band or band alumni could help us out with what would be the optimal number.

Approximately 125% of the student body.

If everyone who complained donated $100 a year it would make a huge difference. That's all there is to it. When you see the alum band walking around the vard, slip them some dough for the scholarship fund.

I have done my part as far as that goes and I encourage others to do the same. It would be money well spent.

Yes, I just reminded myself to drop a bit in the coffer.

Donate and join the Diamond M Club.

http://www.diamondmclub.org/