LOL..........

(01-08-2025 05:42 PM)Oscar P Wrote:  The Mothership picked UTRGV to have football.
The Texas valley never competes for High School championships, and sends 10 kids to play scholarship football. If that’s doesn’t tell UTA fans all they need to know about starting football, then there is no help for them.
UTA is not getting football.

As Duck (wewereRebels) said, this post is outrageously off in so many ways. The UT system has no say in who starts what, whether it be a sports program or an academic degree path. They formally approve plans by the component schools for their preferred projects.

UTRGV decided to move forward. They had less in facility infrastructure when they made the announcement than UTA does now. UTA has a football stadium on campus right now. It needs a reno, sure, but as is, still beats 1/3 of FCS teams easily and likely sits in the middle. If they are dead set against Maverick Stadium, the Rangers old ballpark has been converted for football use. The Rangers owners would love to lease it out and would do it for cheap.

Athletic infrastructure at CPC beats anything UTRGV had by a mile. The main difference is they had an AD who came in with that as a priority and the President was on the same page.

UTA has made attempts in this century in a couple of ways. There have been three different feasibility studies and one effort had Les Miles on board as a coach. Each time, something derailed it: College Park Center's construction, a President ethics scandal and the latest was Covid.

The main problem I see with UTA is the idea that everything needs to be perfect day one. I subscribe to a build it and they will come idea. UTA wants it here now before they say yes. The most recent feasibility study says they need $160 million for a new stadium alone. Established programs, even some in the power conferences, can't raise that kind of money in one sitting. Start with an announcement and a field house. Then renovate the fan amenities. Then a new press box. Then a capacity increase, etc.

What UTRGV had that UTA didn't wasn't the system's approval, it was school leadership setting a goal and working to attain it. Students have proven time and again they'll support any plan. There just has to be one.

I know people really want football , why I have no Idea. Back in the day I used to go to UTA football games, we were not good then. I don't know what has changed that will allow us to be good now. We have basketball and really are not very successful at that. In the current college football environment , a commuter University such as ourselves will not be adding football.

(01-11-2025 08:20 PM)RT98 Wrote:  I know people really want football , why I have no Idea. Back in the day I used to go to UTA football games, we were not good then. I don't know what has changed that will allow us to be good now. We have basketball and really are not very successful at that. In the current college football environment , a commuter University such as ourselves will not be adding football.

"Commuter university?" Not this century. More students live on or next to the campus at UTA than at Mothership U in Austin.

(01-11-2025 11:22 PM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-11-2025 08:20 PM)RT98 Wrote:  I know people really want football , why I have no Idea. Back in the day I used to go to UTA football games, we were not good then. I don't know what has changed that will allow us to be good now. We have basketball and really are not very successful at that. In the current college football environment , a commuter University such as ourselves will not be adding football.

"Commuter university?" Not this century. More students live on or next to the campus at UTA than at Mothership U in Austin.

But there is still not a lot of support for Athletics. I regularly go to Basketball and baseball games and there is not much support. In a University with the enrollment that UTA has there should be more support. There is just too much to do in the metroplex. UTA will never be a big draw

(01-12-2025 11:13 PM)RT98 Wrote:  

(01-11-2025 11:22 PM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-11-2025 08:20 PM)RT98 Wrote:  I know people really want football , why I have no Idea. Back in the day I used to go to UTA football games, we were not good then. I don't know what has changed that will allow us to be good now. We have basketball and really are not very successful at that. In the current college football environment , a commuter University such as ourselves will not be adding football.

"Commuter university?" Not this century. More students live on or next to the campus at UTA than at Mothership U in Austin.

But there is still not a lot of support for Athletics. I regularly go to Basketball and baseball games and there is not much support. In a University with the enrollment that UTA has there should be more support. There is just too much to do in the metroplex. UTA will never be a big draw

Never say never. Winning changes everything. We had good and improving attendance to basketball games in the teens, like when Scott Cross was our coach and we had a team that beat UT in 2016.

I tire of RT's argument that has been refuted time and again. 1985 UTA and 2025 UTA are not the same thing. Half the buildings on campus are the same and it is in the same general area. That's about it.

-We weren't good because there was no funding. That has changed. Drastically. UTA has a non-football budget that was higher than some conference peers over the decades with the sport.

-Similar to the last point, but a different one based on culture, UTA won one non-football championship while participating in football (men's cross country in 1985) from sports what played most seasons since the SLC's founding. Looking at the same men's sports, the Mavs won 38 conference champs in the same sports in the same amount of time, 23 years (obviously there have been more since then as well). It's hard to quantify equally, as the women joined the NCAA in 1982. From 1982 to the end of football, the women won 5 (four in volleyball, one in softball). The women's sports in the same time period would add another 38 conference regular season titles, a higher per season average than prior.

-Attendance has improved dramatically in all sports. In the last decade and a half, the following sports had yearly attendance records in the top ten (which includes the COVID year where no records were set): Volleyball with eight seasons in the top ten, men's basketball - eight, women's basketball - ten, baseball - nine (the tenth was 16 years ago) and softball - ten.

- Attendance dipped dramatically in men's basketball after dropping football. 1) why would football's attendance stay the same when every other sport is on an upward trajectory? and 2) there's a real chance all sports will see a bounce in attendance as school spirit rises.

Duck touched it, so I won't harp on it much or look it up like I have before, but there were like 4-5 decent on-campus housing options in 1985. Outside of Centennial Court apartments there were minor options even when I was a student at the turn of the century. There are now thousands more who live on campus and thousands more near campus than in the 1980's (and 1990's and most of the 2000's for that matter).

- Downtown Arlington is a vastly different place. Restaurants, shops, businesses and residents populate the area that used to be neutral at best to the University. It allows a much more attractive gameday environment.

And this is just what I can think of off the top of my head. Bottomline is RT's argument has and continues to be an outdated argument that now longer applies to the University or situation. If you don't like football, that's fine and everyone is entitled to that perspective. But if the only reason you can provide is it didn't work in the 1980's, which by all metrics was better than the 1970's and has no reason to doubt the 1990's or later wouldn't be better either, then we are allowed to be skeptical of that position and argument when pure numbers alone make that position indefensible.

(01-11-2025 08:20 PM)RT98 Wrote:  I know people really want football , why I have no Idea. Back in the day I used to go to UTA football games, we were not good then. I don't know what has changed that will allow us to be good now. We have basketball and really are not very successful at that. In the current college football environment , a commuter University such as ourselves will not be adding football.

I wanted a separate post on this. 9-2 in 1979, 6-5 with a conference title in 1981, 5-6 in 1983, 7-4 in 1984 and 4-6-1 in 1985, where they lost a conference title by a combined seven points.

In the 1970's, they were bad in the first half, with a 1972 exception, and competitive with three 5-6 seasons prior to 1979, so I'd ceded that one, but they were not bad by any stretch. They played up in non-conference most years but had a plus .500 in conference play. That's not bad.

Thanks to RT for bringing this up again, and thanks to Fo once again for shedding light with some actual facts on the discussion.

(01-13-2025 09:22 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I tire of RT's argument that has been refuted time and again. 1985 UTA and 2025 UTA are not the same thing. Half the buildings on campus are the same and it is in the same general area. That's about it.

-We weren't good because there was no funding. That has changed. Drastically. UTA has a non-football budget that was higher than some conference peers over the decades with the sport.

-Similar to the last point, but a different one based on culture, UTA won one non-football championship while participating in football (men's cross country in 1985) from sports what played most seasons since the SLC's founding. Looking at the same men's sports, the Mavs won 38 conference champs in the same sports in the same amount of time, 23 years (obviously there have been more since then as well). It's hard to quantify equally, as the women joined the NCAA in 1982. From 1982 to the end of football, the women won 5 (four in volleyball, one in softball). The women's sports in the same time period would add another 38 conference regular season titles, a higher per season average than prior.

-Attendance has improved dramatically in all sports. In the last decade and a half, the following sports had yearly attendance records in the top ten (which includes the COVID year where no records were set): Volleyball with eight seasons in the top ten, men's basketball - eight, women's basketball - ten, baseball - nine (the tenth was 16 years ago) and softball - ten.

- Attendance dipped dramatically in men's basketball after dropping football. 1) why would football's attendance stay the same when every other sport is on an upward trajectory? and 2) there's a real chance all sports will see a bounce in attendance as school spirit rises.

Duck touched it, so I won't harp on it much or look it up like I have before, but there were like 4-5 decent on-campus housing options in 1985. Outside of Centennial Court apartments there were minor options even when I was a student at the turn of the century. There are now thousands more who live on campus and thousands more near campus than in the 1980's (and 1990's and most of the 2000's for that matter).

- Downtown Arlington is a vastly different place. Restaurants, shops, businesses and residents populate the area that used to be neutral at best to the University. It allows a much more attractive gameday environment.

And this is just what I can think of off the top of my head. Bottomline is RT's argument has and continues to be an outdated argument that now longer applies to the University or situation. If you don't like football, that's fine and everyone is entitled to that perspective. But if the only reason you can provide is it didn't work in the 1980's, which by all metrics was better than the 1970's and has no reason to doubt the 1990's or later wouldn't be better either, then we are allowed to be skeptical of that position and argument when pure numbers alone make that position indefensible.

Wow. It is not about my preference for football or not. This is about how you pay for football. The university can pay for it, but money is not as free flowing as you seem to think. If the University pays for it will come at the expense of Academics ( which after all is the purpose of a college). Or as some have suggested they could raise student fees, in which case students ,many of whom, also work in order to go to school, will bear the burden. Some of these students already struggle to make ends meet. So now we make it harder on them just so a small percentage of the student population can have some football on Saturday.

Your posts said UTA couldn’t do it in the ‘80’s so we couldn’t do it now. One that has been made a few times.

As for the student fee, each vote has been led by students with no input from the U. They have supported it each time.

Football brings in the most revenue. Guarantee games got for 1.5 million to 3 at the G5 level and a third to 1 mil at the FCS level. ULM sometimes has two to make budget. There’s more TV money for football schools. There’s more sponsorship opportunities. Game day revenue is higher, even if attendance isn’t high. It has the higher chance of breaking even than any other sport. While I wouldn’t expect the sport to draw even at UTA certainly in the short term, it’d be the complementing sports that would need a greater percentage of external revenue than football.

And no, the money would not come from academics, just like it doesn’t now with the 15 current sports.