2019 SMSU Mustangs: Let's ride!

[Stanger86]

No. It is coed and it will drive enrollment

I'm curious, does it still fall under Title IX restrictions even though it's not sanctioned by the NCAA?

[Clean Liver]

No. It is coed and it will drive enrollment

How so? Please explain. Thank you.

[MrMustang]

How so? Please explain. Thank you.

It is coed so there will be women athletes too. Not just men

Anything that drives enrollment is a good thing. We need more kids

[Clean Liver]

It is coed so there will be women athletes too. Not just men

Anything that drives enrollment is a good thing. We need more kids

That explains nothin'. I've done a lot of online research today, there are approximately 125 collegiate institutions that have e-sports, but none mentioned their inclusion spiked enrollment. Proceed with your argument.

[Stanger86]

That explains nothin'. I've done a lot of online research today, there are approximately 125 collegiate institutions that have e-sports, but none mentioned their inclusion spiked enrollment. Proceed with your argument.

https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/ar...invest-esports

[Stanger86]

Embedded Tweet

[Clean Liver]

Shortly after Good Morning America aired a segment about


https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/ar...invest-esports

How did I know you'd be the first to chime in? ;-) Which one? Article didn'y say specifically. There are not, I don't believe, 500 on an e- roster, so what are the odds all those applicants will stay if they don't make the e- team? Odds all applied cuz of the e-sport inclusion/curriculum? Maybe some saw the show and it simply piqued their interest in the school, sport or another activity.

Keep diggin'. Ya got 100+ more schools to go.

[MrMustang]

That explains nothin'. I've done a lot of online research today, there are approximately 125 collegiate institutions that have e-sports, but none mentioned their inclusion spiked enrollment. Proceed with your argument.

well that is one reason for SMSU to add it. Also enhance the college expierence for kids with another option

[Stanger86]

OK, I want to bring something up....

When St Cloud and Crookston made their cuts, there was talk that more teams could cut football down the road. As one of the lesser-funded programs in the Northern Sun, I immediately had fears that Southwest could be one of them. Those fears about the immediate future of the program have been completely eliminated for now.

HOWEVER, the more I think about it the more I wonder what the point of this football team is. Are we trying to be competitive? I think most would say yes, despite some factors holding us back. Have we been successful in that mission? In 25 years at the Division II level, we have four winning seasons: 1999, 2008, 2013, 2015. Two years of 6-5, one at 7-5, one at 8-3. Now, I applaud this team for doing the best it can with its resources. We aren't a Crookston level of bad. But are we just wallowing in mediocrity with no hope ahead?

If the team is nothing more than a tool to help enrollment numbers, I think we need to say as much and own that decision for what it is. If winning at a high level is what's most important, at some point we need to put up or shut up as a program. I'm honestly getting sick of mediocrity. A six-win season every three to four years doesn't do it for me any more. I do think we have potential to be better. But if we don't invest the necessary resources, it's never going to happen. And at that point, maybe it's better to invest our scholarship dollars in sports that actually can compete at a higher level year. What if we invested fully in volleyball, men's basketball, etc.? Would that be better use of our resources? What would be the potential fallout of a decision like that? Maybe boosters stop donating without football, which obviously would be a point against shutting down.

One thing I do appreciate though is that ever since Danahar retired, we've seemed to have support of athletics from the very top of the university. Unfortunately, that can't be said of every school and shouldn't be taken for granted. We also have pretty solid community support. These are things that should be helping us elevate the program's profile.

So what's holding us back? Is it our location? Is it the youth of the institution/lack of dead big money donors? Are there ways that we can better use these things to our advantage as opposed to just taking them for what they are and not trying to improve the situation?

[Twincitiesmav]

OK, I want to bring something up....

When St Cloud and Crookston made their cuts, there was talk that more teams could cut football down the road. As one of the lesser-funded programs in the Northern Sun, I immediately had fears that Southwest could be one of them. Those fears about the immediate future of the program have been completely eliminated for now.

HOWEVER, the more I think about it the more I wonder what the point of this football team is. Are we trying to be competitive? I think most would say yes, despite some factors holding us back. Have we been successful in that mission? In 25 years at the Division II level, we have four winning seasons: 1999, 2008, 2013, 2015. Two years of 6-5, one at 7-5, one at 8-3. Now, I applaud this team for doing the best it can with its resources. We aren't a Crookston level of bad. But are we just wallowing in mediocrity with no hope ahead?

If the team is nothing more than a tool to help enrollment numbers, I think we need to say as much and own that decision for what it is. If winning at a high level is what's most important, at some point we need to put up or shut up as a program. I'm honestly getting sick of mediocrity. A six-win season every three to four years doesn't do it for me any more. I do think we have potential to be better. But if we don't invest the necessary resources, it's never going to happen. And at that point, maybe it's better to invest our scholarship dollars in sports that actually can compete at a higher level year. What if we invested fully in volleyball, men's basketball, etc.? Would that be better use of our resources? What would be the potential fallout of a decision like that? Maybe boosters stop donating without football, which obviously would be a point against shutting down.

One thing I do appreciate though is that ever since Danahar retired, we've seemed to have support of athletics from the very top of the university. Unfortunately, that can't be said of every school and shouldn't be taken for granted. We also have pretty solid community support. These are things that should be helping us elevate the program's profile.

So what's holding us back? Is it our location? Is it the youth of the institution/lack of dead big money donors? Are there ways that we can better use these things to our advantage as opposed to just taking them for what they are and not trying to improve the situation?

[Stanger86]

Yeah that's why I brought that up in the last paragraph. SMSU was founded in 1967. U-Mary (1959) is the only other NSIC school that was founded this century. Bemidji State is the next youngest institution after those two, founded in 1919.

[Purple Mav Man]

Yeah that's why I brought that up in the last paragraph. SMSU was founded in 1967. U-Mary (1959) is the only other NSIC school that was founded this century. Bemidji State is the next youngest institution after those two, founded in 1919.

[Clean Liver]

So what's holding us back? Is it our location? Is it the youth of the institution/lack of dead big money donors? Are there ways that we can better use these things to our advantage as opposed to just taking them for what they are and not trying to improve the situation?

Means nothin'.

[Clean Liver]

well that is one reason for SMSU to add it. Also enhance the college expierence for kids with another option

That's a joke, correct?

[Stanger86]

Means nothin'.

It means quite a bit in terms of the donations from boosters and other gifts, which tie into the number of scholarships that can be offered. More dead alums equal more potential money.