Baseball?

[mr. pony]

Will someone tell me how TCU and Rice are able to field baseball teams (and d*mn good ones) and we can't?

[that's great raplh]

is it space related?

[Terry Webster]

They don't have soccer programs. We do.

[PonyKai]

It all comes full circle with lovely title ix

[Corso]

Bring in wooden bats, and then it's a conversation worth having .... and not before.

[ponyplayer]

is it space related?

no, NASA is not involved..............................

[Water Pony]

Don't forget Vanderbilt. Go Commodores. In five years they remodeled their ballpark, which is in the center of a beautiful campus in Nashville. Rice and Vandy, two academically challenging schools, are competitive because they made a commitment, hired great coaches and recruited student-athletics, who fit their model.

As for Baseball or Men's Track & Field coming back, we would need two woman sports for every Men's team added. Candidates for Woman sports could be Lacrosse and/or Softball. Those women's teams have large rosters, which helps with the numbers for Title IX.

Varsity Men's Lacrosse would be very cool, BTW. Great spectator game too. The Men's Nationals for Club Lacrosse were held in Frisco, TX, this year and the Lone Star Alliance tornament was at Ford Stadium, as well.

This is a growth sport.

[EastStang]

The NCAA Lacrosse finals featured Duke, Cornell, Johns Hopkins and Delaware. Three of which are not getting BCS funds. Johns Hopkins beat Duke in an exciting 12-11 final. I like lacrosse, it is a fast and interesting sport. However, without any men's programs or women's programs within about 1000 miles, lacrosse would not be terrribly cost effective as an NCAA sport. As I've said many times before, we were never very good at baseball when we had baseball. We would have the same types of recruiting battles for good baseball players in Texas that we haven't mastered in football. At least five CUSA teams are very good perenially in baseball (Rice, USM, ECU, Tulane, and UH). Memphis is showing signs of life as well. So, it would be hard to build a winning program from scratch when we're going to start out at the bottom of a tough conference especially recruiting against not only CUSA teams, but also UT, A&M, Arkansas, OU, Baylor and TCU. We would need to hire a superstar coach to even make a dent. I don't know, I'd rather work on rebuilding men's track and add women's softball, shooting or gymnastics to offset it. With men's track, we might be able to recruit a few two sport football players who have Olympic track aspirations.

[Boston Pony]

National title - Northwestern (after 4 years of varsity status), Notre Dame, Vandy, Ohio State & Denver are all within 1000 miles. Future programs U of Florida, Louisville, Cincy, and Georgia Tech are starting within next 2-3 years. Great opportunity to add program which is inexpensive to compete and adds 25 - 35 players to roster. We could do much worse... For the guys, DI programs are dropping in numbers as costs are adding up and football programs take all of the men's program money... thus the Hopkins (DIII in all other mens's sports), Denver, Cornell, & Dukes don't have the big time football to complete with them (seriously Duke's fb team is the worst). Club level is where men's program can thrive but a varsity women's program would be a great addition at SMU

[NavyCrimson]

EastStang:
As I've said many times before, we were never very good at baseball when we had baseball. We would have the same types of recruiting battles for good baseball players in Texas that we haven't mastered in football.

But there is one BIG difference. We can all compete for the national championship where in football we aren't even considered - or never will be. Also, consider that Rice & Cal State Fullerton both won the College World Series within the last five years. Plus - they have great crowds because of their winning ways!

Yes - we need a donor

[PonyKai]

Not to bring sunshine down on your parade, but why will we never, ever be considered as a national title contender? We aren't there now, we won't be there next year, or the year after that. But look at TCU. In the last decade they've built a successful non-bcs team, with better players, and have reached double digit wins 4 out of the last 5 years, and are poised to make a run at the BCS bowls this year. Why couldn't that be this school in 5, 10, 15, 20 years.

[mr. pony]

[quote="Terry Webster"]They don't have soccer programs. We do.[/quote]

Yeah, well, TCU also has mens track and cross country. Doesn't add up. We should either have a baseball team or a men's track team.

[PK]

They don't have soccer programs. We do.

Yeah, well, TCU also has mens track and cross country. Doesn't add up. We should either have a baseball team or a men's track team.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that Rice and TCU have a mens swimming team...we do. The total number of men athletes verses the total number of women athletes are the numbers that control. Our mens swimming program is one of our more successful programs, so are you going to cut that program to add baseball?

[PonyKai]

I thought it was funding to mens athletics and womens...not simple numbers.

[abezontar]

Not to bring sunshine down on your parade, but why will we never, ever be considered as a national title contender? We aren't there now, we won't be there next year, or the year after that. But look at TCU. In the last decade they've built a successful non-bcs team, with better players, and have reached double digit wins 4 out of the last 5 years, and are poised to make a run at the BCS bowls this year. Why couldn't that be this school in 5, 10, 15, 20 years.

Because a non-BCS team will never be picked to play in the BCS title game. No matter how good that team may be, it will not be able to overcome the bias against its non-BCS conference. Case in point...Tulane, Utah, and Boise State.