PonyFans.com

The parts of RH's answers that jumped out at me:

1. Not only did 6 teams have a perfect score on the APR requirements, but ALL of SMU's teams met the NCAA standards. Congrats to one and all, including the teachers and academic support staff.

2. His comments about the future IPF (or in his language, Indoor Performance Center) were interesting, in part because he said it would impact football, track, men's and women's soccer and potentially more programs. I initially assumed that meant possibly adding a sport, but then thought it probably means current sports using the performance center to improve production/performance. Which is right?

HorsePower wrote:The parts of RH's answers that jumped out at me:

1. Not only did 6 teams have a perfect score on the APR requirements, but ALL of SMU's teams met the NCAA standards. Congrats to one and all, including the teachers and academic support staff.

2. His comments about the future IPF (or in his language, Indoor Performance Center) were interesting, in part because he said it would impact football, track, men's and women's soccer and potentially more programs. I initially assumed that meant possibly adding a sport, but then thought it probably means current sports using the performance center to improve production/performance. Which is right?

Not sure SMU will be in the financial or facilities position to add any sports for many years. Athletic Department has lost a bundle of money for many years and the new AAC fall very short of generating the revenues needed to even bring the current program near break even. In my opinion, we cannot expand and need to do a much better job with the programs we already have.

Agreed. I don't see any way SMU adds sports. But if this new facility not only can house indoor practices during bad weather but also help the other teams improve ... get a shovel in the ground!

PoconoPony wrote:

HorsePower wrote:The parts of RH's answers that jumped out at me:

1. Not only did 6 teams have a perfect score on the APR requirements, but ALL of SMU's teams met the NCAA standards. Congrats to one and all, including the teachers and academic support staff.

2. His comments about the future IPF (or in his language, Indoor Performance Center) were interesting, in part because he said it would impact football, track, men's and women's soccer and potentially more programs. I initially assumed that meant possibly adding a sport, but then thought it probably means current sports using the performance center to improve production/performance. Which is right?

Not sure SMU will be in the financial or facilities position to add any sports for many years. Athletic Department has lost a bundle of money for many years and the new AAC fall very short of generating the revenues needed to even bring the current program near break even. In my opinion, we cannot expand and need to do a much better job with the programs we already have.

Very few athletic programs break even. Not sure that's a reasonable expectation.

A few years ago, I heard/read that something like six or seven athletic programs in the country broke even.
Not sure what the total is now.

ponyboy wrote:

PoconoPony wrote:

HorsePower wrote:The parts of RH's answers that jumped out at me:

1. Not only did 6 teams have a perfect score on the APR requirements, but ALL of SMU's teams met the NCAA standards. Congrats to one and all, including the teachers and academic support staff.

2. His comments about the future IPF (or in his language, Indoor Performance Center) were interesting, in part because he said it would impact football, track, men's and women's soccer and potentially more programs. I initially assumed that meant possibly adding a sport, but then thought it probably means current sports using the performance center to improve production/performance. Which is right?

Not sure SMU will be in the financial or facilities position to add any sports for many years. Athletic Department has lost a bundle of money for many years and the new AAC fall very short of generating the revenues needed to even bring the current program near break even. In my opinion, we cannot expand and need to do a much better job with the programs we already have.

Very few athletic programs break even. Not sure that's a reasonable expectation.

Plus, our issues are mainly due to how scholarships are accounted for: each scholarship we give is accounted as an expense of an amount equal to tuition and fees.

What percentage of the freshman class are scholarship athletes? I assume the total scholarship for each class goes down due to drop outs/transfers/etc. That's about $50,000 a whack, a lot more than most schools, so it's no wonder we run a deficit.

It's a paper deficit. What difference does it make what accounting method we use?

"Had an opportunity to interact with coaches, staff, donors, ..."

Hey Rick, did you interact with any fb coaches? Ask any recruiting or organizational questions?

For example: "Hi guys. Saw on the premium SMU boards where once again, recruits comment that they never have met an SMU coach, but their HS coach let them know SMU had offered. So, WTF is going on over there? Is this just every man for himself? Have you gotten a large dry-erase board? Anybody being targeted that is not a project, or has at least one legit offer from a non-directional school?"

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Rick, did you have Rosemary write the questions? Or did you pose the questions and have her provide the answers? It was certainly doable either way.

[quote="78pony]

For example: "Hi guys. Saw on the premium SMU boards where once again, recruits comment that they never have met an SMU coach, but their HS coach let them know SMU had offered. So, WTF is going on over there? Is this just every man for himself? Have you gotten a large dry-erase board? Anybody being targeted that is not a project, or has at least one legit offer from a non-directional school?"
.[/quote]

Good Lord, is that really true? I know June and his staff are fairly awful at recruiting, but seriously??????

ponyboy wrote:It's a paper deficit. What difference does it make what accounting method we use?

Because it's not a real deficit. We aren't losing that money. We are actually losing the marginal cost of serving each athlete as a student, which is incredibly minimal.

blackoutpony wrote:[quote="78pony]

For example: "Hi guys. Saw on the premium SMU boards where once again, recruits comment that they never have met an SMU coach, but their HS coach let them know SMU had offered. So, WTF is going on over there? Is this just every man for himself? Have you gotten a large dry-erase board? Anybody being targeted that is not a project, or has at least one legit offer from a non-directional school?"
.

Good Lord, is that really true? I know June and his staff are fairly awful at recruiting, but seriously?????? [/quote][/quote]

Yes, seriously!

78pony wrote:"Had an opportunity to interact with coaches, staff, donors, ..."

Hey Rick, did you interact with any fb coaches? Ask any recruiting or organizational questions?

For example: "Hi guys. Saw on the premium SMU boards where once again, recruits comment that they never have met an SMU coach, but their HS coach let them know SMU had offered. So, WTF is going on over there? Is this just every man for himself? Have you gotten a large dry-erase board? Anybody being targeted that is not a project, or has at least one legit offer from a non-directional school?"

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Rick, did you have Rosemary write the questions? Or did you pose the questions and have her provide the answers? It was certainly doable either way.

Contrary to what the pay sites (and their readers) say, not everything that happens in athletics gets reported publicly. For example: Rosemary doesn't work there anymore.

ponyboy wrote:It's a paper deficit. What difference does it make what accounting method we use?

You might need to buy an extra chair for the classroom. Accelerated deprecation on that?