PonyFans.com

So, we no longer have a Mustang Club, with outside directors and a president? We have a
'fund' without a board, or president. Guess they thought the Club might actually become a booster club with opinions and pressure to get things done. Just why was this necessary? Why couldn't other donations just be included? No, we need a restart. I guess when donations were down last year, from the past two years, they need to change the math so it doesn't look so bad. In other words they paniced

Every day we more and more stupid.

Other schools know that when you deal with a duplicitous, corrupt organization like the NCAA all you have to do is push back.

Let's see, not only did UNC have fake classes, but they had tutors taking the exams of athletes...for 20 years. I guess one on-line high school course is enough to get the worst penalties handed down in 40 years.

Following the out of courst settlement, for cash, with Penn State, the NCAA is about to get its pocket's cleaned by a couple of Ole Miss boosters. Seems like the NCAA investigator and a couple recuits were wiretapped attempting to get the boosters and Ole Miss penalized. My Ole Miss friends say their price tag will be well over $30,000,000.

Yet, here at little ol SMU we self report, we put up a half [deleted] defense of our coaches, we fail to aggressively appeal, all with a corrupt organization. Want to be not one player or school will find itself penalized from this FBI disclosure?

OK guys, time to panic, we have a losing season in basketball, due to our own actions courting the NCAA, what to do? Well, let's raise the prices.

Adious Slick Rick, go back to Chatanooga. Meanwhile, I am outa here. 30 years of inept athetic managment and performance. Why waist another $5,000 when we really don't want to win. We have the worst atheltic performance of any school in D-1, we haven't won a football championship is what? five, six conferences? We are still waiting for our first NCAA basketball tournament vicotry. Oh, Gerald, head coaches are on to your lies, written or verbal. How long will W come to an empty Moody. Tongiht was just the beginning.

I'm gonna miss "my" seats... some great memories there. I'm glad I was able to get my son to a game, even if he was only 3 months old at the time.

On the plus side, I don't need to answer calls from 768 anymore! And if I accidentally do, the conversation will be very short.

Ouch

Mexmustang wrote:So, we no longer have a Mustang Club, with outside directors and a president? We have a
'fund' without a board, or president. Guess they thought the Club might actually become a booster club with opinions and pressure to get things done. Just why was this necessary? Why couldn't other donations just be included? No, we need a restart. I guess when donations were down last year, from the past two years, they need to change the math so it doesn't look so bad. In other words they paniced

Every day we more and more stupid.

Other schools know that when you deal with a duplicitous, corrupt organization like the NCAA all you have to do is push back.

Let's see, not only did UNC have fake classes, but they had tutors taking the exams of athletes...for 20 years. I guess one on-line high school course is enough to get the worst penalties handed down in 40 years.

Following the out of courst settlement, for cash, with Penn State, the NCAA is about to get its pocket's cleaned by a couple of Ole Miss boosters. Seems like the NCAA investigator and a couple recuits were wiretapped attempting to get the boosters and Ole Miss penalized. My Ole Miss friends say their price tag will be well over $30,000,000.

Yet, here at little ol SMU we self report, we put up a half [deleted] defense of our coaches, we fail to aggressively appeal, all with a corrupt organization. Want to be not one player or school will find itself penalized from this FBI disclosure?

OK guys, time to panic, we have a losing season in basketball, due to our own actions courting the NCAA, what to do? Well, let's raise the prices.

Adious Slick Rick, go back to Chatanooga. Meanwhile, I am outa here. 30 years of inept athetic managment and performance. Why waist another $5,000 when we really don't want to win. We have the worst atheltic performance of any school in D-1, we haven't won a football championship is what? five, six conferences? We are still waiting for our first NCAA basketball tournament vicotry. Oh, Gerald, head coaches are on to your lies, written or verbal. How long will W come to an empty Moody. Tongiht was just the beginning.

While I won't get into battles of opinion or differences of point of view or whether 5k [or some other number] is a "waist" [sic], I will lay a few things out that are inferred in the above post.

One, yep, there's a board of directors. And a president. That would be me.

As to what was 'necessary,' the main thing was for people to be able to get credit for all of their gifts. Excellence funds count for Mustang Club. Other incidental gifts count for Mustang Club. Gifts for Athletics count for Mustang Club. The Mustang Club no longer needs to be a bunch of folks upstairs at Ford dialing for dollars while eating cold Campisis. It is, in effect, a giving society that recognizes giving across the entire Athletics Department. Gone are the days of, say, giving to a capital project as some of us have, then having to ask if we get Mustang Club credit for that. That's "why that was necessary," especially in light of the reseat...which is in effect a "select your seat event" in which the order of selecting your seat is determined by giving. Can't say giving total determines order without giving credit for all athletics related giving.

No, no one "paniced" [sic] after a dropoff. FY2016 MC giving was 5.5 million. FY2017 was 5.2 million. Total athletics giving-which includes operation/current use, capital, and endowment gifts in '16 was 8.194 million through 1/31. 17 was 8.003million through 1/31. As for this year, same metrics this year, as of 1/31 total giving is at 15.3 million. This year's MC goal is 5.75. At the end of May, good or bad, I'll post right here what FY2018 is.

Like I said above, it's unreasonable to think no one will disagree on anything. It's also unreasonable to allow folks free reign to disseminate half truths and inflammatory nonsense just for the sake of [deleted]. As for the reseat, no question that there are differing points of view and concerns, many legitimate. What it's not, however, is a referendum on "athletic management and performance." If I was a $50 donor and had seats about which I was passionate, I'd at least go to the select a seat event and see what was there...there's a decent chance mine would still be there. You've got until the summer to actually decide not to pay the invoice and non-renew.

If you havent had your one on one meeting to hash out your concerns, grievances, whatever, at least do that. I mean that for everyone, not just Mex. As for Mex, I know you were reached out to in the last couple of weeks. It's your prerogative to have that conversation or just keep your concerns to this or other message boards, but I'm sure they'll still make time for you.

RGV Pony wrote:If I was a $50 donor and had seats about which I was passionate, I'd at least go to the select a seat event and see what was there...there's a decent chance mine would still be there. You've got until the summer to actually decide not to pay the invoice and non-renew.

No, you don't. You have until March 31st, which occurs well prior to the "Select-A-Seat" event(s). Pretending otherwise is incredibly disingenuous, at best. Ticket prices pale in comparison to required giving for most people on this board.

I am passionate enough about my location to pay a 500% markup over value, if I can have "my" seats. But expecting me to pay almost 80% of that and end up elsewhere? No thanks. I can sit almost anywhere else for a lot cheaper.

Mexmustang wrote:So, we no longer have a Mustang Club, with outside directors and a president? We have a
'fund' without a board, or president. Guess they thought the Club might actually become a booster club with opinions and pressure to get things done. Just why was this necessary? Why couldn't other donations just be included? No, we need a restart. I guess when donations were down last year, from the past two years, they need to change the math so it doesn't look so bad. In other words they paniced

Every day we more and more stupid.

Other schools know that when you deal with a duplicitous, corrupt organization like the NCAA all you have to do is push back.

Let's see, not only did UNC have fake classes, but they had tutors taking the exams of athletes...for 20 years. I guess one on-line high school course is enough to get the worst penalties handed down in 40 years.

Following the out of courst settlement, for cash, with Penn State, the NCAA is about to get its pocket's cleaned by a couple of Ole Miss boosters. Seems like the NCAA investigator and a couple recuits were wiretapped attempting to get the boosters and Ole Miss penalized. My Ole Miss friends say their price tag will be well over $30,000,000.

Yet, here at little ol SMU we self report, we put up a half [deleted] defense of our coaches, we fail to aggressively appeal, all with a corrupt organization. Want to be not one player or school will find itself penalized from this FBI disclosure?

OK guys, time to panic, we have a losing season in basketball, due to our own actions courting the NCAA, what to do? Well, let's raise the prices.

Adious Slick Rick, go back to Chatanooga. Meanwhile, I am outa here. 30 years of inept athetic managment and performance. Why waist another $5,000 when we really don't want to win. We have the worst atheltic performance of any school in D-1, we haven't won a football championship is what? five, six conferences? We are still waiting for our first NCAA basketball tournament vicotry. Oh, Gerald, head coaches are on to your lies, written or verbal. How long will W come to an empty Moody. Tongiht was just the beginning.

Hey, look! It's Mr. "I pop my head up every once in a while, get my teeth kicked in because 85% of what I'm saying is either demonstrably false or, at best, a half truth, and then I don't respond, disappear again, and then start the whole thing over in a couple weeks."

And LOOK WE'RE BACK TO IT'S TURNER'S FAULT AND I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE SO I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP SPOUTING CRAP.

SMU Section F wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:If I was a $50 donor and had seats about which I was passionate, I'd at least go to the select a seat event and see what was there...there's a decent chance mine would still be there. You've got until the summer to actually decide not to pay the invoice and non-renew.

No, you don't. You have until March 31st, which occurs well prior to the "Select-A-Seat" event(s). Pretending otherwise is incredibly disingenuous, at best. Ticket prices pale in comparison to required giving for most people on this board.

I am passionate enough about my location to pay a 500% markup over value, if I can have "my" seats. But expecting me to pay almost 80% of that and end up elsewhere? No thanks. I can sit almost anywhere else for a lot cheaper.

Your second paragraph is absolutely your choice and up to you and I respect that. Some like you might be walking away. Others are (and have) done more. You (and everyone else) are right, the market & demand will determine where things go in the future. As for donation requirements and ticket price, a) ticket costs arent changing other than going down in some areas; b) donation requirements are largely the same other than going up in most desired/premium areas.

Your first paragaph is partially true.

March 31st is the deadline for donations to be in. Just like March 31 was the deadline last year. And the year before.

This year, donation and consequent ranking are being used for consideration of order of seat selection. You don't "have" to pick seats.

RGV Pony wrote:

Mexmustang wrote:So, we no longer have a Mustang Club, with outside directors and a president? We have a
'fund' without a board, or president. Guess they thought the Club might actually become a booster club with opinions and pressure to get things done. Just why was this necessary? Why couldn't other donations just be included? No, we need a restart. I guess when donations were down last year, from the past two years, they need to change the math so it doesn't look so bad. In other words they paniced

Every day we more and more stupid.

Other schools know that when you deal with a duplicitous, corrupt organization like the NCAA all you have to do is push back.

Let's see, not only did UNC have fake classes, but they had tutors taking the exams of athletes...for 20 years. I guess one on-line high school course is enough to get the worst penalties handed down in 40 years.

Following the out of courst settlement, for cash, with Penn State, the NCAA is about to get its pocket's cleaned by a couple of Ole Miss boosters. Seems like the NCAA investigator and a couple recuits were wiretapped attempting to get the boosters and Ole Miss penalized. My Ole Miss friends say their price tag will be well over $30,000,000.

Yet, here at little ol SMU we self report, we put up a half [deleted] defense of our coaches, we fail to aggressively appeal, all with a corrupt organization. Want to be not one player or school will find itself penalized from this FBI disclosure?

OK guys, time to panic, we have a losing season in basketball, due to our own actions courting the NCAA, what to do? Well, let's raise the prices.

Adious Slick Rick, go back to Chatanooga. Meanwhile, I am outa here. 30 years of inept athetic managment and performance. Why waist another $5,000 when we really don't want to win. We have the worst atheltic performance of any school in D-1, we haven't won a football championship is what? five, six conferences? We are still waiting for our first NCAA basketball tournament vicotry. Oh, Gerald, head coaches are on to your lies, written or verbal. How long will W come to an empty Moody. Tongiht was just the beginning.

While I won't get into battles of opinion or differences of point of view or whether 5k [or some other number] is a "waist" [sic], I will lay a few things out that are inferred in the above post.

One, yep, there's a board of directors. And a president. That would be me.

As to what was 'necessary,' the main thing was for people to be able to get credit for all of their gifts. Excellence funds count for Mustang Club. Other incidental gifts count for Mustang Club. Gifts for Athletics count for Mustang Club. The Mustang Club no longer needs to be a bunch of folks upstairs at Ford dialing for dollars while eating cold Campisis. It is, in effect, a giving society that recognizes giving across the entire Athletics Department. Gone are the days of, say, giving to a capital project as some of us have, then having to ask if we get Mustang Club credit for that. That's "why that was necessary," especially in light of the reseat...which is in effect a "select your seat event" in which the order of selecting your seat is determined by giving. Can't say giving total determines order without giving credit for all athletics related giving.

No, no one "paniced" [sic] after a dropoff. FY2016 MC giving was 5.5 million. FY2017 was 5.2 million. Total athletics giving-which includes operation/current use, capital, and endowment gifts in '16 was 8.194 million through 1/31. 17 was 8.003million through 1/31. As for this year, same metrics this year, as of 1/31 total giving is at 15.3 million. This year's MC goal is 5.75. At the end of May, good or bad, I'll post right here what FY2018 is.

Like I said above, it's unreasonable to think no one will disagree on anything. It's also unreasonable to allow folks free reign to disseminate half truths and inflammatory nonsense just for the sake of [deleted]. As for the reseat, no question that there are differing points of view and concerns, many legitimate. What it's not, however, is a referendum on "athletic management and performance." If I was a $50 donor and had seats about which I was passionate, I'd at least go to the select a seat event and see what was there...there's a decent chance mine would still be there. You've got until the summer to actually decide not to pay the invoice and non-renew.

If you havent had your one on one meeting to hash out your concerns, grievances, whatever, at least do that. I mean that for everyone, not just Mex. As for Mex, I know you were reached out to in the last couple of weeks. It's your prerogative to have that conversation or just keep your concerns to this or other message boards, but I'm sure they'll still make time for you.

Thanks for your service on the board and for taking the time to respond. You mention the one on one meetings but honestly what good would that do at this point? I mentioned in another post, it would have been fantastic to be invited to a one on one prior to this being rolled out. I think it would have provided the powers that be some good insight in order to achieve the goals of the program with the help of their most loyal fans. I think SMU missed a good opportunity to shore up loyalty to the program when it is on the rise.

Mexmustang wrote: Every day we more and more stupid.

I'd just like to point out the irony in this sentence.

RGV Pony wrote:

SMU Section F wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:If I was a $50 donor and had seats about which I was passionate, I'd at least go to the select a seat event and see what was there...there's a decent chance mine would still be there. You've got until the summer to actually decide not to pay the invoice and non-renew.

No, you don't. You have until March 31st, which occurs well prior to the "Select-A-Seat" event(s). Pretending otherwise is incredibly disingenuous, at best. Ticket prices pale in comparison to required giving for most people on this board.

I am passionate enough about my location to pay a 500% markup over value, if I can have "my" seats. But expecting me to pay almost 80% of that and end up elsewhere? No thanks. I can sit almost anywhere else for a lot cheaper.

Your second paragraph is absolutely your choice and up to you and I respect that. Some like you might be walking away. Others are (and have) done more. You (and everyone else) are right, the market & demand will determine where things go in the future. As for donation requirements and ticket price, a) ticket costs arent changing other than going down in some areas; b) donation requirements are largely the same other than going up in most desired/premium areas.

Your first paragaph is partially true.

March 31st is the deadline for donations to be in. Just like March 31 was the deadline last year. And the year before.

This year, donation and consequent ranking are being used for consideration of order of seat selection. You don't "have" to pick seats.

Well, maybe this explains my frustrations on the phone w/ Mustang Club representatives so far... is the "company line" to pretend that when I gave my donation last March I had no idea what seats it was entitling me to purchase for this season?

Because last year when I handed over a few thousand dollars, I'm pretty sure I knew that in a few months I'd get an invoice for "my" seats that I'd been sitting in for years. Of course, I could choose not to buy them, but considering I had already given a few thousand dollars with the express purpose of buying those tickets, it wasn't [deleted] likely.

However this year, I would hand over my few thousand dollars (actually a few thousand more) and then in a few months... well, I have no idea. Maybe sit where I've sat since I graduated? Maybe sit somewhere else? Maybe not even buy tickets? But I'm a few thousand dollars in the hole regardless. Saving myself the price of tickets at that point is pretty insignificant.

I'm glad the Mustang Club has enough people donating millions of dollars and just buying season tickets on a lark afterwards, but - go ahead and call me ungrateful - I was only making my donation (or at least that level of donation) so I could get my season tickets.

Blunt Pony wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:

Mexmustang wrote:So, we no longer have a Mustang Club, with outside directors and a president? We have a
'fund' without a board, or president. Guess they thought the Club might actually become a booster club with opinions and pressure to get things done. Just why was this necessary? Why couldn't other donations just be included? No, we need a restart. I guess when donations were down last year, from the past two years, they need to change the math so it doesn't look so bad. In other words they paniced

Every day we more and more stupid.

Other schools know that when you deal with a duplicitous, corrupt organization like the NCAA all you have to do is push back.

Let's see, not only did UNC have fake classes, but they had tutors taking the exams of athletes...for 20 years. I guess one on-line high school course is enough to get the worst penalties handed down in 40 years.

Following the out of courst settlement, for cash, with Penn State, the NCAA is about to get its pocket's cleaned by a couple of Ole Miss boosters. Seems like the NCAA investigator and a couple recuits were wiretapped attempting to get the boosters and Ole Miss penalized. My Ole Miss friends say their price tag will be well over $30,000,000.

Yet, here at little ol SMU we self report, we put up a half [deleted] defense of our coaches, we fail to aggressively appeal, all with a corrupt organization. Want to be not one player or school will find itself penalized from this FBI disclosure?

OK guys, time to panic, we have a losing season in basketball, due to our own actions courting the NCAA, what to do? Well, let's raise the prices.

Adious Slick Rick, go back to Chatanooga. Meanwhile, I am outa here. 30 years of inept athetic managment and performance. Why waist another $5,000 when we really don't want to win. We have the worst atheltic performance of any school in D-1, we haven't won a football championship is what? five, six conferences? We are still waiting for our first NCAA basketball tournament vicotry. Oh, Gerald, head coaches are on to your lies, written or verbal. How long will W come to an empty Moody. Tongiht was just the beginning.

While I won't get into battles of opinion or differences of point of view or whether 5k [or some other number] is a "waist" [sic], I will lay a few things out that are inferred in the above post.

One, yep, there's a board of directors. And a president. That would be me.

As to what was 'necessary,' the main thing was for people to be able to get credit for all of their gifts. Excellence funds count for Mustang Club. Other incidental gifts count for Mustang Club. Gifts for Athletics count for Mustang Club. The Mustang Club no longer needs to be a bunch of folks upstairs at Ford dialing for dollars while eating cold Campisis. It is, in effect, a giving society that recognizes giving across the entire Athletics Department. Gone are the days of, say, giving to a capital project as some of us have, then having to ask if we get Mustang Club credit for that. That's "why that was necessary," especially in light of the reseat...which is in effect a "select your seat event" in which the order of selecting your seat is determined by giving. Can't say giving total determines order without giving credit for all athletics related giving.

No, no one "paniced" [sic] after a dropoff. FY2016 MC giving was 5.5 million. FY2017 was 5.2 million. Total athletics giving-which includes operation/current use, capital, and endowment gifts in '16 was 8.194 million through 1/31. 17 was 8.003million through 1/31. As for this year, same metrics this year, as of 1/31 total giving is at 15.3 million. This year's MC goal is 5.75. At the end of May, good or bad, I'll post right here what FY2018 is.

Like I said above, it's unreasonable to think no one will disagree on anything. It's also unreasonable to allow folks free reign to disseminate half truths and inflammatory nonsense just for the sake of [deleted]. As for the reseat, no question that there are differing points of view and concerns, many legitimate. What it's not, however, is a referendum on "athletic management and performance." If I was a $50 donor and had seats about which I was passionate, I'd at least go to the select a seat event and see what was there...there's a decent chance mine would still be there. You've got until the summer to actually decide not to pay the invoice and non-renew.

If you havent had your one on one meeting to hash out your concerns, grievances, whatever, at least do that. I mean that for everyone, not just Mex. As for Mex, I know you were reached out to in the last couple of weeks. It's your prerogative to have that conversation or just keep your concerns to this or other message boards, but I'm sure they'll still make time for you.

Thanks for your service on the board and for taking the time to respond. You mention the one on one meetings but honestly what good would that do at this point? I mentioned in another post, it would have been fantastic to be invited to a one on one prior to this being rolled out. I think it would have provided the powers that be some good insight in order to achieve the goals of the program with the help of their most loyal fans. I think SMU missed a good opportunity to shore up loyalty to the program when it is on the rise.

It's possible it would do no good. Or it's possible that more information would be helpful. While I generally prefer face time to hear things out and [sometimes more importantly] to voice my grievances, that doesn't float everyone's boat.

Blunt Pony wrote: I mentioned in another post, it would have been fantastic to be invited to a one on one prior to this being rolled out. I think it would have provided the powers that be some good insight in order to achieve the goals of the program with the help of their most loyal fans. I think SMU missed a good opportunity to shore up loyalty to the program when it is on the rise.

they did do one-on-one meetings prior to it being rolled out. I know this because I was at a couple of them. there was/is no point in thinking that they were going to schedule roughly 1,900 one-on-one meetings with every season ticket holder. that's wildly inefficient use of the athletic department/directors' time.

another thing to point out is that this isn't the first time this has been considered. it was supposed to be done a couple years ago, then they reeled it in b/c of the sanctions and post season ban. all things considered, our basketball tickets are still a bargain compared to other programs over the last 5 years that have won as many games as we have.

Dutch wrote:there was/is no point is thinking that they were going to schedule roughly 1,900 one-on-one meetings with every season ticket holder. that's wildly inefficient use of the athletic department/directors' time.

I thought that's what they were supposedly doing now... is it more efficient to "play catch up" than prepare beforehand?

Dutch wrote:another thing to point out is that this isn't the first time this has been considered. it was supposed to be done a couple years ago, then they reeled it in b/c of the sanctions and post season ban.

Oh, I thought they realized what a terrible idea it was so early into building a successful program and were going to be patient... too much faith on my part, I guess. Because we aren't any further along now.

Dutch wrote:all things considered, our basketball tickets are still a bargain compared to other programs over the last 5 years that have won as many games as we have.

I wish there was a more in-depth analysis of this available... because the Moody Reseat website lists us along with Villanova, Gonzaga, Kentucky, Arizona, and Kansas as if we are peers just because of a cherry-picked three year time period. Add a few years beforehand (or even this year) and that comparison crumbles, especially when you consider the respective conferences of those teams (except Gonzaga).

God bless you all

Dutch wrote:

Blunt Pony wrote: I mentioned in another post, it would have been fantastic to be invited to a one on one prior to this being rolled out. I think it would have provided the powers that be some good insight in order to achieve the goals of the program with the help of their most loyal fans. I think SMU missed a good opportunity to shore up loyalty to the program when it is on the rise.

they did do one-on-one meetings prior to it being rolled out. I know this because I was at a couple of them. there was/is no point in thinking that they were going to schedule roughly 1,900 one-on-one meetings with every season ticket holder. that's wildly inefficient use of the athletic department/directors' time.

another thing to point out is that this isn't the first time this has been considered. it was supposed to be done a couple years ago, then they reeled it in b/c of the sanctions and post season ban. all things considered, our basketball tickets are still a bargain compared to other programs over the last 5 years that have won as many games as we have.

Glad that you got a one on one to get your input. I take it you agree with the process, but maybe that is because you were involved in it. That is kind of my point. Now, I do not think it is a waste of resources to "invite" 1900 people to meet with a representative about this change. It is a big part of what you do as a collegiate booster club...you meet with boosters. Not everyone is going to schedule a meeting anyway, but the courtesy would have gone a long way.

It is like a broken record with the ticket prices, but that is not the issue here. Prices have really not increased much and I have no problem in rising ticket prices. It is the stripping of peoples tickets with no option to re-purchase that is the issue here. We are all well aware of the Free Market Economy.

To get support, you make people a part of the solution. SMU did not do that with their loyal fans and it remains to be seen what the results of that will be.