(02-08-2015 08:58 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 02:17 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 12:45 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  The big issue is cost, both startup and yearly. Maverick Stadium will need a lot of work for FBS standards, which is where the bulk of the money would come from. There is also the matter of starting a golf and soccer team.

Your stadium is already better/bigger then Idaho's hanger. Golf is about as inexpensive as it get for starting a sport.

well we already have golf and have been ranked a time or two, so I guess you mean womens golf and soccer which seems like the next 2 to add. at one time we had a top 25 swim program and still have the facilities for that..dont know if womens swim team would be more cost effective than one of those other sports but worth studying..and as for stadium size, no visiting belt team would draw a large enough crowd to fill it and if we scheduled a home game against texas tech or baylor or somebody like that we could probably rent jerry world..

Jerry world is always looking for events, that would be an easy way for y'all to get decent home and home games with just about anyone.

Do you guys play men's soccer already??? With 40k students, you guys should be able to do whatever you wanted.

(02-07-2015 01:36 PM)Louisianafanrcajun90 Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 12:45 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  The big issue is cost, both startup and yearly. Maverick Stadium will need a lot of work for FBS standards, which is where the bulk of the money would come from. There is also the matter of starting a golf and soccer team.

I thought you guys had tons of money? UNO never had a football team and for good reason. Nobody would have gone to the games. They barely go to the other sports. It is a place to finish a degree that you started someplace else, get an advance degree or you wish you could go someplace else but can't. I suspect the F_U schools are the same.

You're stilling trolling with outdated/inaccurate info?

Jerry World would cost about a million per event to use, so it really isn't cost effective. Plus one of the reasons UTA went from a top SLC team in football attendance to last was moving the games off-campus. I'd hate to do that again. The best way to build support in the early stages would be playing the games at The Mav.

(02-08-2015 10:52 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Jerry World would cost about a million per event to use, so it really isn't cost effective. Plus one of the reasons UTA went from a top SLC team in football attendance to last was moving the games off-campus. I'd hate to do that again. The best way to build support in the early stages would be playing the games at The Mav.

You miss understand what we are saying. You would play most games at the Mav, but with a chance to play a "home" game against a "USC", you would play that at Jerry World. Sell those 90k tickets at $30 a pop, you'd make up that million quick.

I get that. There has been talk among those in the mix that The Mav is just unsuitable for FBS and every game would be there. That is just untenable to me.

Even at a million per, the big game would generate much revenue for the program, but it would help with exposure.

If UTA were to decide to restart football, it would be 5 years from that moment before they were playing FBS football. Any improvements that needed to be done to the Mav could easily be accomplished in that timeline.

(02-08-2015 10:52 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Jerry World would cost about a million per event to use, so it really isn't cost effective. Plus one of the reasons UTA went from a top SLC team in football attendance to last was moving the games off-campus. I'd hate to do that again. The best way to build support in the early stages would be playing the games at The Mav.

I started following SLC football in the mid '70's and I never knew UTA had good attendance. You did say SLC attendance so that may be right but if I remember it was poorly attended. Plus it didn't pick up much when games came back to campus.

(02-08-2015 11:12 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I get that. There has been talk among those in the mix that The Mav is just unsuitable for FBS and every game would be there. That is just untenable to me.

Even at a million per, the big game would generate much revenue for the program, but it would help with exposure.

With Maverick Stadium currently at 12,500-15,000 capacity, UTA might be able to make an addition similar to a Boise State 2012 addition. It added 8,818 endzone seats for $3.1 million (2012 dollars). That would put "the Mav" at over 21,000 on the low end of capacity. That would be on the low end of FBS stadiums, but it would put stadium capacity near that of Ball State, Western Kentucky, Florida International, and Old Dominion. That would be a way to get a pre-existing stadium up to FBS size without busting the budget. A longer term solution could be done at a later date as the program gets more established.

The company Boise State used, Southern Bleacher Company, is headquartered less than 2 hours away from Arlington to the west in Graham, Texas.

http://www.southernbleacher.com/people/n...7-000-/14/

http://www.southernbleacher.com/bleacher.../football/

Press box looks great. Playing field is virtually new. An athletic complex and upgrades to the scoreboard might be needed. There might be some donors to help with some of the costs of those upgrades. For example, a local credit union put up $1,000,000 for naming rights partially defraying the cost of our scoreboard. We also had donations for naming rights for press box upgrades, stadium upgrades, luxury suite additions, and playing field as well as the athletic complex.

If an increase in athletic fees could be approved, revenue could be substntially increased. Right now it looks like it is capped at $7.75 per semester credit hour. Ours is at $9.00 per semester credit hour. Texas State's is at $20.00. Even with a minimal increase, it seems like athletic fees for 30,000+ students would help with some of the additional costs. Also alumni in Texas like football so giving might go up.

(02-08-2015 03:42 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 10:52 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Jerry World would cost about a million per event to use, so it really isn't cost effective. Plus one of the reasons UTA went from a top SLC team in football attendance to last was moving the games off-campus. I'd hate to do that again. The best way to build support in the early stages would be playing the games at The Mav.

I started following SLC football in the mid '70's and I never knew UTA had good attendance. You did say SLC attendance so that may be right but if I remember it was poorly attended. Plus it didn't pick up much when games came back to campus.

In 1967 and 68, UTA averaged about 9,200, which was a lot for that time period in the SLC. In 69, it slipped to the mid-8,000 range after a 5-5 season. The next year they moved off-campus to Arlington Stadium. The 1970 average was 4,580. They averaged 5,000 twice in seven years at Arlington Stadium. Attendance was literally cut in half after moving off campus.

In the ten seasons they played off campus, they averaged 5,051. In the years at Maverick Stadium following, with two winning seasons in six years, they averaged 6,562 (Note these are season averages, not the average of each game during those seasons).

Moving off-campus wasn't the only reason for the downfall of our program (I can go into a lot more detail), but it can't be ignored.

For those interested, UTA did conduct a study a decade ago about sports expansion.

http://www.uta.edu/sportsexpansion/

It goes into some detail on what facilities would be needed. A lot has changed, baseball and softball no longer the locker rooms and the numbers aren't inflation adjusted, for example, but a lot is still current.

To recap why this thread was started.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/high-sc...canada.ece

USA won 35-0 over Canada in the Intenational Bowl. I was hoping for an attendance number in the article, but didn't get it.

(02-08-2015 04:31 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 03:42 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 10:52 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Jerry World would cost about a million per event to use, so it really isn't cost effective. Plus one of the reasons UTA went from a top SLC team in football attendance to last was moving the games off-campus. I'd hate to do that again. The best way to build support in the early stages would be playing the games at The Mav.

I started following SLC football in the mid '70's and I never knew UTA had good attendance. You did say SLC attendance so that may be right but if I remember it was poorly attended. Plus it didn't pick up much when games came back to campus.

In 1967 and 68, UTA averaged about 9,200, which was a lot for that time period in the SLC. In 69, it slipped to the mid-8,000 range after a 5-5 season. The next year they moved off-campus to Arlington Stadium. The 1970 average was 4,580. They averaged 5,000 twice in seven years at Arlington Stadium. Attendance was literally cut in half after moving off campus.

In the ten seasons they played off campus, they averaged 5,051. In the years at Maverick Stadium following, with two winning seasons in six years, they averaged 6,562 (Note these are season averages, not the average of each game during those seasons).

Moving off-campus wasn't the only reason for the downfall of our program (I can go into a lot more detail), but it can't be ignored.

I went to those games at turnpike stadium. it was a baseball stadium and it sucked for football. they mounted huge wheels under a portion of the third base stands so that they could move them. most of the fans sat in what was the outfield and the amenities there were spartan. the teams coming in to play were the likes of central michigan and bowling green so not much interest outside of die hard supporters. when the new stadium opened on campus we were in a conference with stAte and latech and unt and lamar so the crowds were not too bad. another factor for loss of interest was a heated debate over changing the mascot to the current one. lots of the old school supporters left at that point. then later when football was dropped a lot of us boosters cut back our support. some will not want to give any money if it has anything to do with jerry and the administration is focused on the drive to tier one so it is going to be interesting to watch.

in those years 67-68 etc. we had an on campus stadium and a good team. there were good crowds but it was old and dusty and it was decided to tear it down and build the new activity center there with no plan for building a replacement. that should have showed us then that the administration did not place football as a very high priority.

(02-09-2015 08:39 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 04:31 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 03:42 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 10:52 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Jerry World would cost about a million per event to use, so it really isn't cost effective. Plus one of the reasons UTA went from a top SLC team in football attendance to last was moving the games off-campus. I'd hate to do that again. The best way to build support in the early stages would be playing the games at The Mav.

I started following SLC football in the mid '70's and I never knew UTA had good attendance. You did say SLC attendance so that may be right but if I remember it was poorly attended. Plus it didn't pick up much when games came back to campus.

In 1967 and 68, UTA averaged about 9,200, which was a lot for that time period in the SLC. In 69, it slipped to the mid-8,000 range after a 5-5 season. The next year they moved off-campus to Arlington Stadium. The 1970 average was 4,580. They averaged 5,000 twice in seven years at Arlington Stadium. Attendance was literally cut in half after moving off campus.

In the ten seasons they played off campus, they averaged 5,051. In the years at Maverick Stadium following, with two winning seasons in six years, they averaged 6,562 (Note these are season averages, not the average of each game during those seasons).

Moving off-campus wasn't the only reason for the downfall of our program (I can go into a lot more detail), but it can't be ignored.

I went to those games at turnpike stadium. it was a baseball stadium and it sucked for football. they mounted huge wheels under a portion of the third base stands so that they could move them. most of the fans sat in what was the outfield and the amenities there were spartan. the teams coming in to play were the likes of central michigan and bowling green so not much interest outside of die hard supporters. when the new stadium opened on campus we were in a conference with stAte and latech and unt and lamar so the crowds were not too bad. another factor for loss of interest was a heated debate over changing the mascot to the current one. lots of the old school supporters left at that point. then later when football was dropped a lot of us boosters cut back our support. some will not want to give any money if it has anything to do with jerry and the administration is focused on the drive to tier one so it is going to be interesting to watch.

Why would it have anything to do with Jerry and are you saying you would not want UTA to be FBS??? A lot of schools you have history with are now FBS, and in the SBC, Texas St, stAte, ULM. Your statement doesn't make sense to me.

(02-09-2015 10:17 AM)Usajags Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 08:39 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 04:31 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 03:42 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 10:52 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Jerry World would cost about a million per event to use, so it really isn't cost effective. Plus one of the reasons UTA went from a top SLC team in football attendance to last was moving the games off-campus. I'd hate to do that again. The best way to build support in the early stages would be playing the games at The Mav.

I started following SLC football in the mid '70's and I never knew UTA had good attendance. You did say SLC attendance so that may be right but if I remember it was poorly attended. Plus it didn't pick up much when games came back to campus.

In 1967 and 68, UTA averaged about 9,200, which was a lot for that time period in the SLC. In 69, it slipped to the mid-8,000 range after a 5-5 season. The next year they moved off-campus to Arlington Stadium. The 1970 average was 4,580. They averaged 5,000 twice in seven years at Arlington Stadium. Attendance was literally cut in half after moving off campus.

In the ten seasons they played off campus, they averaged 5,051. In the years at Maverick Stadium following, with two winning seasons in six years, they averaged 6,562 (Note these are season averages, not the average of each game during those seasons).

Moving off-campus wasn't the only reason for the downfall of our program (I can go into a lot more detail), but it can't be ignored.

I went to those games at turnpike stadium. it was a baseball stadium and it sucked for football. they mounted huge wheels under a portion of the third base stands so that they could move them. most of the fans sat in what was the outfield and the amenities there were spartan. the teams coming in to play were the likes of central michigan and bowling green so not much interest outside of die hard supporters. when the new stadium opened on campus we were in a conference with stAte and latech and unt and lamar so the crowds were not too bad. another factor for loss of interest was a heated debate over changing the mascot to the current one. lots of the old school supporters left at that point. then later when football was dropped a lot of us boosters cut back our support. some will not want to give any money if it has anything to do with jerry and the administration is focused on the drive to tier one so it is going to be interesting to watch.

Why would it have anything to do with Jerry and are you saying you would not want UTA to be FBS??? A lot of schools you have history with are now FBS, and in the SBC, Texas St, stAte, ULM. Your statement doesn't make sense to me.

I would love for the school to field a football team in the sbc and play at our own on campus stadium.

The get on it. You have a seat at the table as soon as you guys want it.

Now get other UTA backers on board!!!!