Page 3 of 14
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:01 pm
by PerunaPunch
The point I was trying to make is that we have too few opportunities to compete on a level playing field with P5. This is one of those opportunities.
Also, overlooking men's track could prove to be shortsighted. If we ever want to move to a P5, you might want to have a facility where your men's track team could train. You might also want a facility that would appeal to potential multi-sport athletes like Margus.
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:03 pm
by smupony94
PerunaPunch wrote:The point I was trying to make is that we have too few opportunities to compete on a level playing field with P5. This is one of those opportunities.
Also, overlooking men's track could prove to be shortsighted. If we ever want to move to a P5, you might want to have a facility where your men's track team could train. You might also want a facility that would appeal to potential multi-sport athletes like Margus.
Yeah, the original version was $160,000,000. Too many damn cheapskates on here for that kind of project
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:29 pm
by mustangxc
As a track & field letterman I am glad that the multi-purpose facility is not being built. That facility involved razing the 400m outdoor track in favor of a 300m indoor track. In Texas it is much more important to have an outdoor track than an indoor track. Imagine training with A/C all year long and then having your athletes compete in the Texas heat in late May and June. That is really a non-starter. My vision for SMU Track & Field is to eventually build an indoor/outdoor complex on the other side of Central. While many P5 schools have 300m indoor tracks, I would rather have a world class facility like Arkansas has that is 200m banked track and the facility is exclusive to track. The facility being built will help eliminate the IPF as a reason/excuse for not recruiting better athletes in football and in Texas that is pretty much what it is about.
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:50 pm
by mtrout
smupony94 wrote:PerunaPunch wrote:The point I was trying to make is that we have too few opportunities to compete on a level playing field with P5. This is one of those opportunities.
Also, overlooking men's track could prove to be shortsighted. If we ever want to move to a P5, you might want to have a facility where your men's track team could train. You might also want a facility that would appeal to potential multi-sport athletes like Margus.
Yeah, the original version was $160,000,000. Too many damn cheapskates on here for that kind of project
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:32 pm
by RGV Pony
Yes it's convenient when you can count the cost of a whole new stadium in the #
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:06 pm
by mtrout
Well like it or not Houston is #leftlane #hammerdown and passing us by in the sports arms race like TCU did a decade ago.
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:26 pm
by Black Horseshoe
mtrout wrote:smupony94 wrote:PerunaPunch wrote:The point I was trying to make is that we have too few opportunities to compete on a level playing field with P5. This is one of those opportunities.
Also, overlooking men's track could prove to be shortsighted. If we ever want to move to a P5, you might want to have a facility where your men's track team could train. You might also want a facility that would appeal to potential multi-sport athletes like Margus.
Yeah, the original version was $160,000,000. Too many damn cheapskates on here for that kind of project
They took on massive amounts of debt banking on the Big 12 invite that didnΓÇÖt come
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:21 pm
by skyscraper
Dear lord some of you are fools.
I'm sorry the $30M IPF that has been incessantly demanded for almost a decade now isn't fancy enough for you.
What shoddy building has SMU constructed in the past two decades of campus growth? None.
You can't claim we need an IPF or we're going to fall behind and then get and say, well we need the one with the changing lights and the rims and the lifts.
A good thing is happening. Stop projecting your other issues with the AD or university onto a positive development.
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:27 pm
by gostangs
skyscraper wrote:Dear lord some of you are fools.
I'm sorry the $30M IPF that has been incessantly demanded for almost a decade now isn't fancy enough for you.
What shoddy building has SMU constructed in the past two decades of campus growth? None.
You can't claim we need an IPF or we're going to fall behind and then get and say, well we need the one with the changing lights and the rims and the lifts.
A good thing is happening. Stop projecting your other issues with the AD or university onto a positive development.
Ding ding ding......we have a winner!
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:37 pm
by PonyKai
mtrout wrote:Well like it or not Houston is #leftlane #hammerdown and passing us by in the sports arms race like TCU did a decade ago.
Right except for the part where they openly say they canΓÇÖt afford to keep spending at current levels, nailed it.
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:40 pm
by SMU89
RGV Pony wrote:Anyone notice that the streets and parking spots in Lubbock are a lot bigger than they are in the Park Cities?
There are cars in Lubbock?
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:43 pm
by NTXCoog
Black Horseshoe wrote:
They took on massive amounts of debt banking on the Big 12 invite that didnΓÇÖt come
Part of the UH stadium and basketball arena used some debt and student fees for financing (naming rights paid for much of them) but everything other building was donated.
The IPF (which an AAS reporter said was better than UT's when UT practiced there for their bowl)
The Football Operations building
The Basketball Practice Facility
The Track upgrades
The Baseball stadium upgrades
The Baseball development facility
The tennis upgrades
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:02 pm
by East Coast Mustang
PonyKai wrote:mtrout wrote:Well like it or not Houston is #leftlane #hammerdown and passing us by in the sports arms race like TCU did a decade ago.
Right except for the part where they openly say they canΓÇÖt afford to keep spending at current levels, nailed it.
Mtrout is one of the most ill-informed trolls on here (not a compliment)
And yes, HoustonΓÇÖs chancellor literally said they cant sustain this level of spending without a P5 invite.
ΓÇ£It's a practice that UH apparently realizes it cannot keep up. Chancellor Renu Khator wrote as much in an email obtained by the Houston Chronicle. If UH does not get into a major conference soon, "it will be difficult for us to sustain it," she wrote in 2014 to a UH professor who sent her an article about college athletics spending.ΓÇ¥
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/ho ... 125669.php
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:06 pm
by East Coast Mustang
skyscraper wrote:Dear lord some of you are fools.
I'm sorry the $30M IPF that has been incessantly demanded for almost a decade now isn't fancy enough for you.
What shoddy building has SMU constructed in the past two decades of campus growth? None.
You can't claim we need an IPF or we're going to fall behind and then get and say, well we need the one with the changing lights and the rims and the lifts.
A good thing is happening. Stop projecting your other issues with the AD or university onto a positive development.
This.
If anyone is seriously complaining about the quality of the IPF being planned- please step up and write your eight figure check ASAP while plans can still be modified.
Re: Ruminations on our IPF
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:50 am
by Greenwich Pony
The point is, why are we throwing more money down the toilet on it? If it's "as good as" then it is merely staving off the inevitable. It won't help us with a new conference and won't really show serious commitment to anyone. If "as good as" was good enough, I think concerned members of this board would be thrilled. However, yet again, we are years late, dollars short for us to have it do the good it needs to. All this demonstrates is that we as an administration or as a university cannot or will not compete at this level seriously and we're just throwing money away that could be spent improving the university where we can and should be competing. As good as tech, tcu , texas, baylor, then it loses it's recruiting pull because those schools play in bigger stadiums to larger crowds and at least on paper with a chance at a national title. This will be an expensive missed opportunity to compete in one of the few places where we can, facilities.
Aside from the IPF which, I agree, is not a huge deal though potentially a waste of $30 million (which is a pretty big deal), the way it has been done is illustrative of the bigger problems with the current leadership in all areas. Even the way it was done smells of a bait-and-switch from the B12 plan (which had a whiff of fraud about it to begin with) and when they did get approval, there was no fanfare or explanations and designs to get behind to encourage us to stroke checks.