DMN article on SMU fans similar to UNTs situation?

NT80 · February 4, 2006

Copeland's successor will face lackluster fans

01:27 AM CST on Saturday, February 4, 2006

UNIVERSITY PARK – At a casual function not too long ago that brought together some SMU boosters and coaches, a booster asked a coach about the nonconference schedule that was being put together.

The booster wanted to know what school he could get excited about seeing.

The coach laid out the schedule. Then the coach suggested to the booster that he should be excited to see SMU play, against whomever.

The anecdote popped to mind Friday while watching SMU president Gerald Turner discuss the challenges for whoever succeeds the gentleman seated to his left, Mustangs athletic director Jim Copeland.

Copeland was announcing that he planned to retire at this school year's end.

Turner mentioned the need to do for basketball what had been done for football under Copeland's 12-year watch – improve the facilities. It was not a revelation. Anyone and everyone who has been around SMU athletics know as much.

What was interesting was that Turner noted why it seemed to be such a long, hard slog – my words, not his – to build a much-needed basketball practice gymnasium and have ancient Moody Coliseum brought into the 21st century.

"We don't have the fan support and donor support to do everything at once," he explained. "They have to be done sequentially."

SMU isn't FSU.

SMU isn't even TCU, which is not a knock on Fort Worth's flagship private university.

The regional rivalry won't allow SMU folks to admit it, but they would love to be the Horned Frogs right now. TCU appears to be home to a perennial football bowl team despite not having football facilities as nice as SMU's. Its men's basketball program, although experiencing tough sledding this season, made the NIT only a year ago and has a new facility in which to practice. Its successful baseball program has new digs, too.

And what TCU has that SMU doesn't is fan support through thick and through thin, which is most critical.

Football at TCU's Amon G. Carter Stadium drew an average of 31,254 fans last season, according to the NCAA. SMU's fantastic Gerald J. Ford Stadium attracted an average of 18,630 for what turned out to be a scrappy 5-6 team that upset TCU.

Basketball at TCU last year drew only 4,344 per game, but that was still more than the 3,345 that supported men's basketball at Moody.

So it doesn't matter who succeeds Copeland. Whoever it is will still have, first and foremost, the unenviable task of trying to wake SMU's moribund fans (if they can be called that), be they alums or, even more disconcerting, classmates of the university's athletes. (There may not be a campus in America with a less-supportive student fan base than that on the Hilltop. They're an embarrassment.)

Copeland's departure will be yet another litmus test for all this. After all, SMU fans, whose bark belies their bulk, have grumbled that they haven't turned out in recent years because they came not to like the athletic director. Their greatest football player of the second half of the last century, Eric Dickerson, not long ago blamed the football team's woes squarely on Copeland and his coaching hires and said he wouldn't cut the athletic department a check because it wouldn't help.

Well, Copeland's last day on the job will be May 31. That means the Mustang Club can expect Dickerson's first check to arrive on June 1.

That's the biggest problem for SMU athletics. It isn't the administration. It isn't the AD. It's excuses. Everybody's got them. The coaches say they can't recruit everyone because of academic restraints. There is some truth to that, but the Hilltop ain't quite Harvard Yard, either, and Copeland got some of those restraints relaxed.

Alums say don't come out because they don't like the AD or the coach. Tell that to Texas fans, who came out when they didn't like Longhorns AD DeLoss Dodds just to fly banners expressing as much.

What SMU needs more than a hotshot new AD who can shake hands and kiss babies like a presidential candidate is a reality check.

The Southwest Conference is long gone, and it isn't coming back. The truth is that the only reason a private school of a few thousand students was running with the big dogs in the biggest of sports, year in and year out back in the day, was because it cheated.

SMU now is where SMU always should have been, and people who went there or go there need to acknowledge that. That doesn't mean the school doesn't deserve support anymore. It means it needs it now, the legitimate kind, if you indeed want to see winning football, a new basketball facility and all the pride that comes with it. A new AD won't be able to do it alone like some magician.

Edited February 4, 2006 by NT80

UNT_playmaker · February 4, 2006

at least SMU was able to upset what turned out to be a top 10 team this season

we couldnt even beat I-AA transients to the SBC Florida Atlantic Ocean.

NT91 · February 5, 2006

at least SMU was able to upset what turned out to be a top 10 team this season
we couldnt even beat I-AA transients to the SBC Florida Atlantic Ocean.
←

Come on lets be positive!!!!!!

VideoEagle · February 5, 2006

UNIVERSITY PARK – At a casual function not too long ago that brought together some SMU boosters and coaches, a booster asked a coach about the nonconference schedule that was being put together.
The booster wanted to know what school he could get excited about seeing.
The coach laid out the schedule. Then the coach suggested to the booster that he should be excited to see SMU play, against whomever.
←

I think with a lot of our fans this is exactly the problem - they are more worried about who we are playing than watching their own team.

That is the step TCU has managed to take. A significant number of their fans actually want to watch THE FROGS PLAY and they don't care who it is they are playing!

SilverEagle · February 5, 2006

I think with a lot of our fans this is exactly the problem - they are more worried about who we are playing than watching their own team.
That is the step TCU has managed to take. A significant number of their fans actually want to watch THE FROGS PLAY and they don't care who it is they are playing!
←

I think that to a certain extent you may be right. But as FFR has pointed out, fans will get excited about seeing THEIR team play anyone.......as long as they have a reasonable expectation that THEIR team is going to win.

For the umpteenth time, here is my example. Our first ever sell-out at Fouts was when we were a 1-AA school and our opponent was SFA!

Why? Because North Texas was winning, the Mean Green was exciting to watch, and we had great promotions during that era.

LoveMG · February 5, 2006

So it doesn't matter who succeeds Copeland. Whoever it is will still have, first and foremost, the unenviable task of trying to wake SMU's moribund fans (if they can be called that), be they alums or, even more disconcerting, classmates of the university's athletes. (There may not be a campus in America with a less-supportive student fan base than that on the Hilltop. They're an embarrassment.)
←

Same at UNT. RV is not the problem, although I would like to see more advertising and us in a better conference. If not CUSA, think WAC!

shaft · February 5, 2006

I like how the article spells out how fans need to have realistic expectations, understand their team's position in D1, and not make excuses. Then this thread starts up full of excuses and calling for sell out crowds.

UNTFan23 · February 5, 2006

I like how the article spells out how fans need to have realistic expectations, understand their team's position in D1, and not make excuses. Then this thread starts up full of excuses and calling for sell out crowds.
←

Who called for a sell out? SilverEagle pointed out why Fouts sold out. So long as the team is competitive and plays exciting football, the fans will come so long as they know a game is being played (ie. good marketing).

UNTLifer · February 6, 2006

The Southwest Conference is long gone, and it isn't coming back. The truth is that the only reason a private school of a few thousand students was running with the big dogs in the biggest of sports, year in and year out back in the day, was because it cheated.
←

SouthernMustang · February 6, 2006

I think the article has good points, and some pretty bad points as well. The alumni's "stand" to not show up only hurts the school. That does frustrate me. I think President Turner put up with Copeland's apathy way too long. Copeland only made changes when Bennett demanded them. Bennett deserves the credit for loosening up academic restrictions, not Copeland. I think the Faculty Senate needed to be called out moreso than anything else. A lot of the problems with SMU weren't with Turner, or Copeland per se ... but with a faculty senate that had way too much power. The problem is finding the balance between taking a stand to them, but still being able to win them over. Bennett has been able to do this. But my problems with this...

BEGIN RANT..

First of all, I think it's pretty ridiculous to trash-talk a student body in a major-newspaper column. There is so much more to this problem than lackluster students. And to call them the worst anywhere? Why don't you troll on up to some of those MAC schools or WAC or Sun Belt schools that have 5x's the student body of SMU and average even less than we do? Or look even at UNT's average, even though they have a larger student body and have won their conference numerous times? The students may be apathetic as the season where's on, but most are usually there in good support the first couple of games. But once the losses pile up, it's the same ole and they give up. And yeah if we were Vandy or Baylor and got to see Texas or Tennessee on the other side of the field we'd show up, but who really wants to see your team lose to San Jose State or UTEP? Private schools usually tend to attract more apathetic students when it comes to sports (TCU even had it's dip during the Sullivan years). There are notable exceptions (Notre Dame) -- but even Miami and USC students don't show up in amazing force when they have mediocre years.

Secondly, to say SMU is where it "always should've been" is ridiculous. Should TCU not be where they are? Are they cheating? Should a team like Miami not be where it is? If you're going to call out and say private-schools can only win by cheating -- then where is the blame on those that are succeeding? Oh wait, that would require a Dallas journalist to actually investigate and take his mouth away from the burnt-orange genitalia.

Thirdly, President Turner is trying to address the situation. If anyone thinks that firing Phil Bennett and starting from scratch right now is a good idea -- they are stupid f'ng idiots. Bennett has finally gotten things changed administratively and things are turning in the right direction. No, SMU is not Harvard or Yale, but the faculty senate thought they were and tried to institute that into the athletic department since they couldn't with the regular student body. Bennett has implemented a LOT of changes. They won 5 games last year, and they weren't all against bottom-feeder teams. SMU probably won't ever be at the level it was ever again, but there's no reason they can't have success in their conference like TCU has in theirs. He mentions the loosened restrictions without results. Um stupid- did you not notice we went from 0-12 and 3-8 seasons (with most of the losses being blow-outs) to 5-6 and in every-single game aside 2?? I'd say those are results. Oh but wait-- he'd have to show up to a SMU sporting event to realize that. And SMU's stadium is so much further away than the hometown heroes just down the block in Austin.

Furthermore, Turner is doing all that he can. And if Kevin Blackistone doesn't see why many school officials are "sensitive" to involve players like Dickerson-- he is as stupid as the paper he writes for. Those players are the g0d@mn reason we are in this mess!! Bringing them back is not a "good memories" and "fluffy bowl game victories" party for all to enjoy. I think the school is overreactive , but it's not unquestionable for them to want to distance from that past. Imagine if SMU is good again, and it's at the hands and involvement of former-paid off players, then the DMN will start scandal articles saying that we're only good because we're cheating again -- because that's the only way, right??

I think the biggest problem is the city of Dallas. If SMU fills up it's stadium with students, it has a 1/5th full stadium. If SMU had similar alum-% support as the beloved UTexas (the real UT is in Knoxville, check the founding dates) that you wish you were the hometown beat paper for, you'd probably have about 17,000. The rest of most other stadiums are filled by locals... go to an LSU game -- the Baton Rouge and Louisiana communities fill that place up. Go to Knoxville, Oxford, Gainesville -- it's the SAME damn thing.

The reason TCU has support is because Fort Worth is not a city full of metrosexual degree-less d-bags that can't afford SMU season tickets because they're too busy trying to mortgage off the payments on their leased BMW's and uptown apartments on a $25/k year job. Before you question the motives of apathetic alums, and just blatanly bash the President of a university that is trying to address the problem and correct it, why don't you call out the stupid city that only supports the latest Johnny-Come-Lately? Why don't you go take pictures of how Dallas supports the Texas Rangers? Why don't you take pictures at a Mav's game or a Stars game and show how many people actually pay attention, or are in the bars instead of in their seats?

You preach of not making excuses, but that is what your entire article consists of. You mention worshipping TCU, but we beat them in both sports this year. But most importantly, Other schools that have healthy support also rely on healthy support from the local community and the local media -- your actions and word are about as noble and positive as those you demonize the alums and students for doing. Call out your readers and get them out to help their local school... oh wait- y'alls circulation is at an all-time low and maybe 10 people read your little column.

I'm sorry- did the Austin Statesman turn down your resume again?

END RANT...

Stan R · February 6, 2006

The reason TCU has support is because Fort Worth is not a city full of metrosexual degree-less d-bags that can't afford SMU season tickets because they're too busy trying to mortgage off the payments on their leased BMW's and uptown apartments on a $25/k year job.
←

Ok now that is f-ing funny. But it is probably pretty accurate.

SouthernMustang · February 6, 2006

Ok now that is f-ing funny. But it is probably pretty accurate.
←

If it wasn't accurate... this wouldn't be happening.

Dallas 30k Millionaire Show

Stan R · February 6, 2006

If it wasn't accurate... this wouldn't be happening.
Dallas 30k Millionaire Show
←

Is this show on cable? What network?

Eagle1855 · February 6, 2006

If it wasn't accurate... this wouldn't be happening.
Dallas 30k Millionaire Show
←

A friend forwarded this to me the other day... pure greatness. Its going to be a movie, from what I understood

I think your assessment of the uptown dallas scene is fantastic. So very true.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Eagle1855

emmitt01 · February 6, 2006

My wife and I sit back and laugh almost every single weekend at a couple of her friends. They live in a two bedroom apartment on Ivan St....and pay roughly my mortgage payment for my three bedroom house. They hang out at places like "Medici" and all of the bars in Uptown "looking for doctors." One of them is soon to have her second breast augmentation and the other is saving up for her first. Their budget? Less than I make...as a cop.

Zeke · February 7, 2006

One of them is soon to have her second breast augmentation and the other is saving up for her first.
←

I didn't realize girls would just get one boob done these days and put the other one on layaway.

NT80 · February 7, 2006

And to call them the worst anywhere? Why don't you troll on up to some of those MAC schools or WAC or Sun Belt schools that have 5x's the student body of SMU and average even less than we do? Or look even at UNT's average, even though they have a larger student body and have won their conference numerous times?
←

I mostly agreed with your rant, except the above part. If UNT had SMU's 2005 schedule of hosting Baylor, TCU, Tulane, East Carolina, Rice, and UTEP I would glady saw we'd average close to 30K, not 18 like SMU.

If however, SMU hosted Tulsa, Troy, ULM, ULL and Arkansas State like we did, I doubt SMU could fill 10K much less the 17K UNT had. And try it in a fan-unfriendly facility like Fouts instead of posh Ford Stadium.

SMU has fewer students, but they also have better games to attend and in a nicer facility.

Edited February 7, 2006 by NT80