PonyFans.com

ponyboy wrote:I guess I slipped into a more macro view. Having a larger alumni presence in Dallas would help football, which is of course the immediate subject. But it'd help in other areas of the university too.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but really if that is what you want, I guess you picked the wrong university.

JesuitPony wrote:Great post and great plan. I wish I lived closer so that I could attend more home games.

Case in point.

mustangxc wrote:

ponyboy wrote:I guess I slipped into a more macro view. Having a larger alumni presence in Dallas would help football, which is of course the immediate subject. But it'd help in other areas of the university too.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but really if that is what you want, I guess you picked the wrong university.

Wait a minute. Calallen is suggesting things we do to make things better. I've added another idea: that we consider changing the geographic mix of incoming students. If it's a good idea, you then implement that new strategic direction. All of these ideas involve changing the university from what it is to something better.

ponyboy wrote:

mustangxc wrote:

ponyboy wrote:I guess I slipped into a more macro view. Having a larger alumni presence in Dallas would help football, which is of course the immediate subject. But it'd help in other areas of the university too.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but really if that is what you want, I guess you picked the wrong university.

Wait a minute. Calallen is suggesting things we do to make things better. I've added another idea: that we consider changing the geographic mix of incoming students. If it's a good idea, you then implement that new strategic direction. All of these ideas involve changing the university from what it is to something better.

Mandating that more of our student body be in-state would decrease the quality of the student body. Ain't happening, nor should it.

Calallen's ideas involve improving the football program, not the university as a whole. We can improve football, game atmosphere, etc. without messing with the core of our student body. Some subtle tweaks are fine, but changing the composition would completely change our course.

why don't we not try at all. wait we already did that.

East Coast Mustang wrote:Mandating that more of our student body be in-state would decrease the quality of the student body. Ain't happening, nor should it.

I'm not suggesting you mandate a result. There are other ways to achieve a goal than mandate. And why shouldn't it happen? What is the purpose of this school? What's the end goal? What does success look like? Is it an ever increasing national academic presence, a la Rice or the University of Chicago? Both of their football teams suck, one really badly since they cancelled football years ago.

ponyboy wrote:

East Coast Mustang wrote:Mandating that more of our student body be in-state would decrease the quality of the student body. Ain't happening, nor should it.

I'm not suggesting you mandate a result. There are other ways to achieve a goal than mandate. And why shouldn't it happen? What is the purpose of this school? What's the end goal? What does success look like? Is it an ever increasing national academic presence, a la Rice or the University of Chicago? Both of their football teams suck, one really badly since they cancelled football years ago.

The university's mission as a whole isn't to have a nationally competitive football program. Stanford, Northwestern, and more recently Vanderbilt are all private institutions that draw students from across the country, and they're all competitive at the highest level of college football at the moment. No reason we can't do the same

Good examples, but it seems to me more complex than that. Anyway, apologies for dragging us off course. Cheers.

Doesn't matter. In 10 years we will have separate but unequal football divisions. The train has left the station and we're not on it.

ponyinNC wrote:
I lay this at the feet of RGT and the Trustees. My one question to them - do you want to be TCU, USC or Northwestern? Or do you want to be Emory, W&L or U Chicago?

If I understand this correctly, the choice is between a first group consisting of private schools that is strong (USC) to very strong (NW) academically (this removes TCU) and has D1 programs in a power conference vs. a group of schools that are very strong academically but no D1 programs? Well, that is a tough question because taking all things into account, in my opinion (based on your list), my order of preference would be UChicago > NW > W&L > USC > Emory > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >tcu.

If I had to choose a happy medium, I'd choose for SMU to strive to be like a ND, which is more comparable in size to us and has very strong academics and is a powerhouse in D1 atheletics.

ponyboy wrote:To add to your plan, here's one thing I'd do strategically. I'd make it a goal that 80% of incoming students are from Texas and 50% from DFW. We are small enough without adding to the fact that the overwhelming majority of students graduate and go back to California, Illinois, Missouri. We'll never develop even a reasonably sized local alumni fan base with the current model where non-Texans outnumber Texans.

And, 100% Christian and Republican? Man, that would indeed be one intellectually incestuous [deleted]!

Let's cripple the national reputation of the university in order to promote the football program. Didn't we already experience that some years back?

You are frightening me, Ponyboy.

You are quite the reader, pulling such an amazing amount of content from so few words.

ponyboy wrote:You are quite the reader, pulling such an amazing amount of content from so few words.

Sorry ponyboy, but we are a national university, and become more national vs. state every year I believe. There is nothing wrong with that, otherwise we'd be a public school (texas) or a regional private school (tcu, baylor, etc). That is not what we want to be, and the student body quality reflects the differences. SMU will not trade that off to have more local alumni for increased football attendance.

We have plenty of local alumns and alumns that will travel, if we have a good product on the field.