http://riograndeguardian.com/anderson-ut...-released/

Mack Brown heads the committee working on the feasibility study. They’re considering both FCS and FBS and have looked at UTSA as a potential model.

Credit to Vaqueronation for posting this on the WAC board.

Mack Brown: “The opportunity to build a college football program from the ground up is unique”. Think the answer to the study was predestined, otherwise they would not have had a study with someone like Brown chairing it. With UTRGV almost having 30k students and the projections to go even higher, fb is needed. UTRGV also has a new arena that is almost complete. UTRGV athletics won’t be recognizable in a few years.

So WAC football is on the table again.

(04-24-2018 12:09 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Mack Brown: “The opportunity to build a college football program from the ground up is unique”. Think the answer to the study was predestined, otherwise they would not have had a study with some like Brown chairing it. With UTRGV almost having 30k students and the projections to go even higher, fb is needed. UTRGV also has a new arena that is almost complete. UTRGV athletics won’t be recognizable in a few years.

So WAC football is on the table again.

Yes....If the WAC wants to sponsor football then it will be as a FCS conference.

There were plans to expand the 9700 seat H-E-B stadium in Edinburgh to 24,000 seats. That stadium currently has a USL team.

http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/art...1e400.html

Great news, exactly what we need. Another school who is lucky to get 1,000 to their basketball games, might start football. Students will get their tuition raised and a community who doesn’t care about college football will magically become FCS/FBS fans. Okayyyyyyyy

(04-24-2018 12:36 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Great news, exactly what we need. Another school who is lucky to get 1,000 to their basketball games, might start football. Students will get their tuition raised and a community who doesn’t care about college football will magically become FCS/FBS fans. Okayyyyyyyy

With Seattle being forced back into their tiny gym with under 1000 seating while Key Arena is redone, that really sucks for the WAC. UTRGV basketball will have a new 10,000 seat arena now though.

Yeah and? What does that have to do with UTRGV football? Good for them, hope they can fill up more than 10% outside of their opener.

(04-24-2018 12:36 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Great news, exactly what we need. Another school who is lucky to get 1,000 to their basketball games, might start football. Students will get their tuition raised and a community who doesn’t care about college football will magically become FCS/FBS fans. Okayyyyyyyy

Yep. I sent that to a friend (big donor to school as well) in the Valley and here was his text response -


UTRGV had to put the squeeze on McAllen to get them to write the check they promised to subsidize the medical school..I guess they will raise student fees but new fb program will be a moneypit

Here's my thinking

1) UTRGV would be foolish to try to go FBS. No one would take them, they're hard to get to as well, they'd have serious problems getting games, and they're not going to be able to do this as an independent. Idaho isn't going to reverse back and be FBS again. A reconstituted FBS WAC would be outside of the Playoff payout pool too.

2) UTRGV might be looking at FCS as a way to get in the conference they really want to get into, which is the Southland. That is what this FCS movement is all about.

(04-24-2018 12:53 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 12:36 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Great news, exactly what we need. Another school who is lucky to get 1,000 to their basketball games, might start football. Students will get their tuition raised and a community who doesn’t care about college football will magically become FCS/FBS fans. Okayyyyyyyy

Yep. I sent that to a friend (big donor to school as well) in the Valley and here was his text response -


UTRGV had to put the squeeze on McAllen to get them to write the check they promised to subsidize the medical school..I guess they will raise student fees but new fb program will be a moneypit

(04-24-2018 01:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's my thinking

1) UTRGV would be foolish to try to go FBS. No one would take them, they're hard to get to as well, they'd have serious problems getting games, and they're not going to be able to do this as an independent. Idaho isn't going to reverse back and be FBS again. A reconstituted FBS WAC would be outside of the Playoff payout pool too.

2) UTRGV might be looking at FCS as a way to get in the conference they really want to get into, which is the Southland. That is what this FCS movement is all about.

So they can’t win in the WAC, but the SLC will want them because they start a football team? Why not take Tarleton St instead?

(04-24-2018 12:09 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Mack Brown: “The opportunity to build a college football program from the ground up is unique”. Think the answer to the study was predestined, otherwise they would not have had a study with someone like Brown chairing it. With UTRGV almost having 30k students and the projections to go even higher, fb is needed. UTRGV also has a new arena that is almost complete. UTRGV athletics won’t be recognizable in a few years.

So WAC football is on the table again.

Why?

They have enrollment within a whisker of UTSA. Enrollment at UTSA hasn't made any significant leap with football and in fact they had some down years after moving FBS.

UTRGV seems to be functioning quite effectively without football.

(04-24-2018 01:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's my thinking

1) UTRGV would be foolish to try to go FBS. No one would take them, they're hard to get to as well, they'd have serious problems getting games, and they're not going to be able to do this as an independent. Idaho isn't going to reverse back and be FBS again. A reconstituted FBS WAC would be outside of the Playoff payout pool too.

2) UTRGV might be looking at FCS as a way to get in the conference they really want to get into, which is the Southland. That is what this FCS movement is all about.

I'd like to point out the main guy for Idaho to FCS is in the process of being fired, also the Southland has 14-16 members already why would they add another?

(04-24-2018 01:31 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 01:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's my thinking

1) UTRGV would be foolish to try to go FBS. No one would take them, they're hard to get to as well, they'd have serious problems getting games, and they're not going to be able to do this as an independent. Idaho isn't going to reverse back and be FBS again. A reconstituted FBS WAC would be outside of the Playoff payout pool too.

2) UTRGV might be looking at FCS as a way to get in the conference they really want to get into, which is the Southland. That is what this FCS movement is all about.

So they can’t win in the WAC, but the SLC will want them because they start a football team? Why not take Tarleton St instead?

I am all for Tarleton taking the last spot in the Southland.
For the sake of argument, RGV is an existing D1 school with 30,000 students while Tarleton would be another D2 move up for the league with 12,000 students.

RGV is the sole D1 school in the Rio Grande Valley (1.3m people). Tarleton is 60 miles outside of DFW and would be lost behind Cowboys and BigXII teams.

RGV is a USNWR National university with a Medical school; Tarleton is a USNWR Regional university focused on ag and education.

Those three things would be easier sells for league presidents.

(04-24-2018 02:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 12:09 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Mack Brown: “The opportunity to build a college football program from the ground up is unique”. Think the answer to the study was predestined, otherwise they would not have had a study with someone like Brown chairing it. With UTRGV almost having 30k students and the projections to go even higher, fb is needed. UTRGV also has a new arena that is almost complete. UTRGV athletics won’t be recognizable in a few years.

So WAC football is on the table again.

Why?

They have enrollment within a whisker of UTSA. Enrollment at UTSA hasn't made any significant leap with football and in fact they had some down years after moving FBS.

UTRGV seems to be functioning quite effectively without football.

Why does UTRGV need football? Because that's what they do in Texas

And they want to be noticed outside the Rio Grande Valley. That simple.

(04-24-2018 03:13 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 02:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 12:09 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Mack Brown: “The opportunity to build a college football program from the ground up is unique”. Think the answer to the study was predestined, otherwise they would not have had a study with someone like Brown chairing it. With UTRGV almost having 30k students and the projections to go even higher, fb is needed. UTRGV also has a new arena that is almost complete. UTRGV athletics won’t be recognizable in a few years.

So WAC football is on the table again.

Why?

They have enrollment within a whisker of UTSA. Enrollment at UTSA hasn't made any significant leap with football and in fact they had some down years after moving FBS.

UTRGV seems to be functioning quite effectively without football.

Why does UTRGV need football? Because that's what they do in Texas

And they want to be noticed outside the Rio Grande Valley. That simple.

Enrollment at UTSA doesn't back up that value.

If they want to start football, I don't care one way or another. Only thing that matters is the blessing of the board, I just do not buy the idea that football is the grand panacea many think it is.

(04-24-2018 03:09 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 01:31 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 01:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's my thinking

1) UTRGV would be foolish to try to go FBS. No one would take them, they're hard to get to as well, they'd have serious problems getting games, and they're not going to be able to do this as an independent. Idaho isn't going to reverse back and be FBS again. A reconstituted FBS WAC would be outside of the Playoff payout pool too.

2) UTRGV might be looking at FCS as a way to get in the conference they really want to get into, which is the Southland. That is what this FCS movement is all about.

So they can’t win in the WAC, but the SLC will want them because they start a football team? Why not take Tarleton St instead?

I am all for Tarleton taking the last spot in the Southland.
For the sake of argument, RGV is an existing D1 school with 30,000 students while Tarleton would be another D2 move up for the league with 12,000 students.

RGV is the sole D1 school in the Rio Grande Valley (1.3m people). Tarleton is 60 miles outside of DFW and would be lost behind Cowboys and BigXII teams.

RGV is a USNWR National university with a Medical school; Tarleton is a USNWR Regional university focused on ag and education.

Those three things would be easier sells for league presidents.

So all the people in Edinburg are suddenly going to support FCS football, when they don’t even support their basketball team? Nobody attends HBU or UIW games, but UTRGV is going to be more successful?

(04-24-2018 03:13 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 02:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Why?

They have enrollment within a whisker of UTSA. Enrollment at UTSA hasn't made any significant leap with football and in fact they had some down years after moving FBS.

UTRGV seems to be functioning quite effectively without football.

Why does UTRGV need football? Because that's what they do in Texas

And they want to be noticed outside the Rio Grande Valley. That simple.

1.3M people in the Valley, and it is growing rapidly. FBS football seems reasonable. Maybe the goal is the western side of the grand C-USA/Sunbelt realignment?

(04-24-2018 03:58 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 03:09 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 01:31 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 01:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's my thinking

1) UTRGV would be foolish to try to go FBS. No one would take them, they're hard to get to as well, they'd have serious problems getting games, and they're not going to be able to do this as an independent. Idaho isn't going to reverse back and be FBS again. A reconstituted FBS WAC would be outside of the Playoff payout pool too.

2) UTRGV might be looking at FCS as a way to get in the conference they really want to get into, which is the Southland. That is what this FCS movement is all about.

So they can’t win in the WAC, but the SLC will want them because they start a football team? Why not take Tarleton St instead?

I am all for Tarleton taking the last spot in the Southland.
For the sake of argument, RGV is an existing D1 school with 30,000 students while Tarleton would be another D2 move up for the league with 12,000 students.

RGV is the sole D1 school in the Rio Grande Valley (1.3m people). Tarleton is 60 miles outside of DFW and would be lost behind Cowboys and BigXII teams.

RGV is a USNWR National university with a Medical school; Tarleton is a USNWR Regional university focused on ag and education.

Those three things would be easier sells for league presidents.

So all the people in Edinburg are suddenly going to support FCS football, when they don’t even support their basketball team? Nobody attends HBU or UIW games, but UTRGV is going to be more successful?

UTRGV will be fairly successful...there is nothing else going on in the RGV. Basketball I bet averages 2-3k. I imagine Football will draw 15k easily. Also, if the stadium is enlarged to 24k...I could easily see a 3rd Tier Bowl game against CUSA or the AAC.

WAC would have 2 football programs to start off with Tarleton State and UTRGV. In a few years, WAC will have enough teams to sponsor the sport.

1,303 in 16-17
1,134 in 15-16
1,174 in 14-15
1,053 in 13-14
694 in 12-13
611 in 11-12
729 in 10-11
513 in 09-10

Not even close to 2-3k