CSNbbs

http://www.utamavs.com/genrel/041315aaa.html

April 13, 2015
ARLINGTON, Texas -- The University of Texas at Arlington is adding women's golf to its Division I intercollegiate sport programs with competition to begin in the 2017-2018 academic year.

Jim Baker, Director of Intercollegiate Athletics, said the addition allows for increased participation and opportunities for women, while strengthening UT Arlington's footprint in the Sun Belt Conference.

"Enhancing opportunities for female student-athletes is part of our mission here at UT Arlington," Baker said. "The addition of women's golf furthers our commitment to building and fielding championship-caliber Division I programs in each of our sport programs."

The addition of women's golf is the first sport expansion for UT Arlington Athletics since women's tennis in 1983.

UT Arlington is beginning a national search for a new head coach who will lead the combined men's and women's golf programs. Additional staffing and resources will be allocated to the women's golf program to prepare for the 2017-18 season.

The new women's golf program will capitalize on regional talent and interest in the sport, Baker said.

"The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex is a hotbed for women's golf," he said. "The makings of the top golf program are right here -- talented junior golfers, top courses and great weather year around."

Congrats. Couldn't they have added football while they were at it?

(04-13-2015 05:02 PM)JoeJag Wrote: [ -> ]Congrats. Couldn't they have added football while they were at it?

Hopefully, football will be the "next shoe to fall" . . . .

. . . . Women's Golf: Nice add. . . . .

(04-13-2015 05:02 PM)JoeJag Wrote: [ -> ]Congrats. Couldn't they have added football while they were at it?

The football feasibility study from 2004 listed women's golf and women's soccer as a requirement for meeting Title IX.

I think women's golf gives UTA the minimum number of sports to remain in Sun Belt.


https://www.uta.edu/sportsexpansion/spor...ansion.pdf

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/txar...icPlan.pdf

Hhhhhmmmm...why does a school add a cheap women's sport that won't generate revenue ? Could be a step towards football.

FWIW, women's golf was one sport we added to counterbalance the extra schollies for FBS football.

I had this great post typed up on my windows phone to break the scoop and it disappears.

Either way, this is solid news, as EigenEagle referenced. It is the cheapest sport of the three proposed in our 2004 study, found here, http://www.uta.edu/sportsexpansion/, if anyone wants to reference it, though obviously much of it is out of date numbers wise.

It still follows the timeline set forth that I have been saying since I joined the board.

First was to upgrade the facilities
Basketball and volleyball: Check. CPC has been at the top of the three conferences it has been apart of since its opening.
Baseball: Check. New indoor practice facility last year, new clubhouse and various upgrades to The Gould this year.
Softball: Check. Allan Saxe Field was completely rebuilt this year.
Track: Check. Maverick Stadium's locker rooms were renovated a couple of years ago and the facility itself is still one of the best in the Southwest (though I can think of another reason for further renovations).
Golf: Check (by default). They really don't have any facilities on campus.
Tennis: The last on-campus venue that hasn't seen any work.

Second, though not in order, upgrade conference. UTA went to the WAC, which offered a higher level of competition than the Southland. When the WAC imploded, they were able to get into the SBC (coincidence that both offer FBS?).

Third step, add women's golf and soccer. Golf is the cheapest and is able to get up and running now without any further investments, aside from scholarship, another assistant coach and possibly more pay for the head coach. Soccer, in theory is the same since Maverick Stadium is a soccer stadium too and the baseball and softball teams no longer operate there.

Fourth step, football.

There are too many moves, like adding women's golf that by themselves don't make much sense...unless football is the end game.

Nice to see this added.

Not sure why this was designated OT, by the way...

(04-13-2015 08:49 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote: [ -> ]I had this great post typed up on my windows phone to break the scoop and it disappears.

Either way, this is solid news, as EigenEagle referenced. It is the cheapest sport of the three proposed in our 2004 study, found here, http://www.uta.edu/sportsexpansion/, if anyone wants to reference it, though obviously much of it is out of date numbers wise.

It still follows the timeline set forth that I have been saying since I joined the board.

First was to upgrade the facilities
Basketball and volleyball: Check. CPC has been at the top of the three conferences it has been apart of since its opening.
Baseball: Check. New indoor practice facility last year, new clubhouse and various upgrades to The Gould this year.
Softball: Check. Allan Saxe Field was completely rebuilt this year.
Track: Check. Maverick Stadium's locker rooms were renovated a couple of years ago and the facility itself is still one of the best in the Southwest (though I can think of another reason for further renovations).
Golf: Check (by default). They really don't have any facilities on campus.
Tennis: The last on-campus venue that hasn't seen any work.

Second, though not in order, upgrade conference. UTA went to the WAC, which offered a higher level of competition than the Southland. When the WAC imploded, they were able to get into the SBC (coincidence that both offer FBS?).

Third step, add women's golf and soccer. Golf is the cheapest and is able to get up and running now without any further investments, aside from scholarship, another assistant coach and possibly more pay for the head coach. Soccer, in theory is the same since Maverick Stadium is a soccer stadium too and the baseball and softball teams no longer operate there.

Fourth step, football.

There are too many moves, like adding women's golf that by themselves don't make much sense...unless football is the end game.

Cheers to the "End Game!"

Interesting tidbit from the 2012-'13 UTA Athletics Strategic Plan:

"The annual giving program, the Maverick Club, brought in $40,606 in 2011-2012... In ten years (2021-2022) the goal for funding into the Maverick Club is $1,000,000 per year."

A more in depth analysis about adding the sport and eventually football.

http://themaverickrambler.blogspot.com/2...o-uta.html

(04-13-2015 11:49 PM)theothermav Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting tidbit from the 2012-'13 UTA Athletics Strategic Plan:

"The annual giving program, the Maverick Club, brought in $40,606 in 2011-2012... In ten years (2021-2022) the goal for funding into the Maverick Club is $1,000,000 per year."

many long-time uta supporters lost interest when the football program was eliminated. I personally cut my level of monetary support way back. there is still plenty of bad feelings among maverick club members and old school fans which is indicated by the small amount of money coming in. I'm sure those numbers would jump with the announcement of a football restart. to me personally, a '72 grad, it is depressing that even the cheesiest schools have a football team to rally around. with about 200,000 alumni and 36,000 students ( 4 times the size of tcu or smu and larger than most of the B12 schools) the lack of a team is certainly a knock on school pride. we are left to root for schools other than our own every fall.

I don't know of any other way to boost giving by over 2,000 percent?

(04-14-2015 01:03 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know of any other way to boost giving by over 2,000 percent?

There may be reasons to add f-ball someday, but the annual giving argument never makes sense and won't be persuasive. It matters not that giving goes up by even many multiples when the costs, and, more importantly, deficits to be covered by institutional contributions, go up by many orders of magnitude more.

Btw, I am a proud member of the Maverick Club.

Oh I agree about costs versus revenue, but on the point of the topic, do you know of anyway else a University can go from getting $40,000 to a million in ten years from the Maverick Club?

Also, from the same report:

Quote: In order for us to achieve our goals, we have to start now. This plan is a ten-year look into the future of UT Arlington Athletics. Everything we achieve within the strategic plan will put us in a better position should we decide to expand our program with additional sports.

Again I ask, why would we expand?

(04-14-2015 11:07 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote: [ -> ]Oh I agree about costs versus revenue, but on the point of the topic, do you know of anyway else a University can go from getting $40,000 to a million in ten years from the Maverick Club?

Also, from the same report:

Quote: In order for us to achieve our goals, we have to start now. This plan is a ten-year look into the future of UT Arlington Athletics. Everything we achieve within the strategic plan will put us in a better position should we decide to expand our program with additional sports.

Again I ask, why would we expand?

many fans and supporters would no doubt be energized by the restart of football. I think revenues would increase by leaps and bounds. a million would not be that hard to raise. we would also then be sharing in the football revenue pot which according to the dallas morning news today is 506 million this year.

Congrats on the add especially if this is a step toward Football!

(04-13-2015 05:26 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: [ -> ]Hhhhhmmmm...why does a school add a cheap women's sport that won't generate revenue ? Could be a step towards football.

FWIW, women's golf was one sport we added to counterbalance the extra schollies for FBS football.

That is what I was thinking.

Coincidently, Bob Costas was speaking at UTA the day the golf addition was announced. I'm perplexed as to why Charlotte Jones, a vp at Dallas Cowboys, Inc. and the daughter of Jerry Jones, was the MC and moderator for the speaking engagement. Jerry Jones was also in the audience.

(04-15-2015 09:57 PM)theothermav Wrote: [ -> ]Coincidently, Bob Costas was speaking at UTA the day the golf addition was announced. I'm perplexed as to why Charlotte Jones, a vp at Dallas Cowboys, Inc. and the daughter of Jerry Jones, was the MC and moderator for the speaking engagement. Jerry Jones was also in the audience.

I dont see any hidden agenda. the Jonses consider themselves sports celebrities and they pop up at a lot of these kind of events. for as much as arlington has done for them, it would be nice for them to support something at the school..maybe a new tennis clubhouse or something.

He could do a lot of goodwill by doubling Maverick Stadium capacity and building a south end zone field house. As much as I hate the guy (believe me it is there), I'd stomach a Jerry Jones named building if it meant the restart.

But I agree, I don't think anything is there, though I did find it odd she moderated the event.