Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Utrgv football decision
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Vaqueronation Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 240
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 3
I Root For: utrgv
Location:
Post: #1
Utrgv football decision
http://riograndeguardian.com/anderson-ut...-released/

Looks like the decision will be announced next week. From the tone of the ones interviewed it sounds like they got the green light.
04-24-2018 12:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RobtheAggie Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 422
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Utrgv football decision
(04-24-2018 12:33 AM)Vaqueronation Wrote:  http://riograndeguardian.com/anderson-ut...-released/

Looks like the decision will be announced next week. From the tone of the ones interviewed it sounds like they got the green light.
Very interesting. That leaves a few possible outcomes if the answer is yes.
1. WAC football is coming back.
2. Pioneer League FCS - WAC in other sports
3. Southland FCS - WAC in other sports
4. Southland in all sports
5. Big South FCS in football - WAC in other sports

Can one be a FCS independent?
04-24-2018 04:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PojoaquePosse Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 16
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Utrgv football decision
Definitely sounds like football is coming to UTRGV. Man, it would be great if football came back to the WAC. I hope this is the tip of the iceberg for that to happen.
04-24-2018 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
edinburger Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 364
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 10
I Root For: UTRGV
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Utrgv football decision
There goes my raise, the lab budget, and the North Sugar parking lot.

Seriously, I could see students voting this down if there's a steep price tag attached. I'm thinking somewhere around $30/head/semester is the upper limit of what they'd approve.

For you Title IV experts, does this mean we'd need a new women's sport also?
04-24-2018 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gleadley Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,532
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: GCU
Location: Phoenix. AZ
Post: #5
RE: Utrgv football decision
(04-24-2018 09:15 AM)edinburger Wrote:  There goes my raise, the lab budget, and the North Sugar parking lot.

Seriously, I could see students voting this down if there's a steep price tag attached. I'm thinking somewhere around $30/head/semester is the upper limit of what they'd approve.

For you Title IV experts, does this mean we'd need a new women's sport also?

While I'm not an expert, I think Title IV is actually related to federal financial aid/funding. Title IX is the one related to institutional equality, including in athletics. That's all I got, though.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2018 09:36 AM by gleadley.)
04-24-2018 09:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NMSUPistolPete Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 38
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #6
RE: Utrgv football decision
(04-24-2018 09:35 AM)gleadley Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 09:15 AM)edinburger Wrote:  There goes my raise, the lab budget, and the North Sugar parking lot.

Seriously, I could see students voting this down if there's a steep price tag attached. I'm thinking somewhere around $30/head/semester is the upper limit of what they'd approve.

For you Title IV experts, does this mean we'd need a new women's sport also?

While I'm not an expert, I think Title IV is actually related to federal financial aid/funding. Title IX is the one related to institutional equality, including in athletics. That's all I got, though.

It is a gender equity rule with scholarship allotment. Football is a large sport (63 scholarships going to male athletes in FCS football). If UTRGV choses to fund FCS football, that means the university would need to add more women's sports to offset the difference or reduce the amount of men's sports to account for the addition of football. This is the reason why a program like NMSU operates with 6 men's sports and 10 women's sports. The scholarships used in FBS football (85) is the equivalent amount of scholarships used in 5 women's sports.

If UTRGV adds football, it will effect the feasibility of maintaining the other secondary (non-revenue) men's sports. Or, it means the University will need to pour a lot more money into starting up more non-revenue women's sports. This may not go over well with the UTRGV student body.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2018 12:34 PM by NMSUPistolPete.)
04-24-2018 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,680
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #7
RE: Utrgv football decision
If UTRGV opts to start football and targets having an FBS program things could get interesting over the next five years.

That would give the WAC two of the eight football programs needed to reestablish itself as an FBS conference. I have no illusions that the WAC could lure any established FBS schools to its ranks, but assuming Chicago State and UMKC exit the conference, are there at least six FCS schools in the reduced WAC footprint that might be move-up candidates in that timeframe? Well, arguably there are:

- Idaho (been there already and the president who forced them down to FCS is on the verge of being fired)
- Montana (highest FCS attendance)
- Montana State (fifth highest FCS attendance)
- Eastern Washington (has won or shared five of the past eight Big Sky football titles and has stadium expansion ambitions, but is facing a budget crisis)
- Sac State (stadium seats 21,000, and the school is in a huge metro market with no NFL or FBS competition)
- UC Davis (current 11,000-seat stadium is expandable to 30,000)
- Stephen F. Austin (highest attendance in Southland Conference, stadium officially seats 15,000 but has accommodated as many as 23,000)

The Dakota schools are also out there but IMHO would expand the footprint too far north and east.

Imagine a 2025 WAC that looked like this:

NORTHWEST
Seattle*
UVU*
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Montana
Montana State

SOUTHWEST
Cal Baptist*
GCU*
Sac State
UC Davis
NMSU
UTRGV

*Non-football

Sure it’s a huge stretch, but to survive the WAC needs to have something to offer potential new members. A route to FBS could be a compelling lure.
04-24-2018 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gleadley Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,532
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: GCU
Location: Phoenix. AZ
Post: #8
RE: Utrgv football decision
(04-24-2018 12:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  If UTRGV opts to start football and targets having an FBS program things could get interesting over the next five years.

That would give the WAC two of the eight football programs needed to reestablish itself as an FBS conference. I have no illusions that the WAC could lure any established FBS schools to its ranks, but assuming Chicago State and UMKC exit the conference, are there at least six FCS schools in the reduced WAC footprint that might be move-up candidates in that timeframe? Well, arguably there are:

- Idaho (been there already and the president who forced them down to FCS is on the verge of being fired)
- Montana (highest FCS attendance)
- Montana State (fifth highest FCS attendance)
- Eastern Washington (has won or shared five of the past eight Big Sky football titles and has stadium expansion ambitions, but is facing a budget crisis)
- Sac State (stadium seats 21,000, and the school is in a huge metro market with no NFL or FBS competition)
- UC Davis (current 11,000-seat stadium is expandable to 30,000)
- Stephen F. Austin (highest attendance in Southland Conference, stadium officially seats 15,000 but has accommodated as many as 23,000)

The Dakota schools are also out there but IMHO would expand the footprint too far north and east.

Imagine a 2025 WAC that looked like this:

NORTHWEST
Seattle*
UVU*
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Montana
Montana State

SOUTHWEST
Cal Baptist*
GCU*
Sac State
UC Davis
NMSU
UTRGV

*Non-football

Sure it’s a huge stretch, but to survive the WAC needs to have something to offer potential new members. A route to FBS could be a compelling lure.

Only 7 posts to devolve into realignment fantasy land. What took so long?
04-24-2018 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,931
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 93
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Utrgv football decision
03-nutkick
(04-24-2018 12:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  If UTRGV opts to start football and targets having an FBS program things could get interesting over the next five years.

That would give the WAC two of the eight football programs needed to reestablish itself as an FBS conference. I have no illusions that the WAC could lure any established FBS schools to its ranks, but assuming Chicago State and UMKC exit the conference, are there at least six FCS schools in the reduced WAC footprint that might be move-up candidates in that timeframe? Well, arguably there are:

- Idaho (been there already and the president who forced them down to FCS is on the verge of being fired)
- Montana (highest FCS attendance)
- Montana State (fifth highest FCS attendance)
- Eastern Washington (has won or shared five of the past eight Big Sky football titles and has stadium expansion ambitions, but is facing a budget crisis)
- Sac State (stadium seats 21,000, and the school is in a huge metro market with no NFL or FBS competition)
- UC Davis (current 11,000-seat stadium is expandable to 30,000)
- Stephen F. Austin (highest attendance in Southland Conference, stadium officially seats 15,000 but has accommodated as many as 23,000)

The Dakota schools are also out there but IMHO would expand the footprint too far north and east.

Imagine a 2025 WAC that looked like this:

NORTHWEST
Seattle*
UVU*
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Montana
Montana State

SOUTHWEST
Cal Baptist*
GCU*
Sac State
UC Davis
NMSU
UTRGV

*Non-football

Sure it’s a huge stretch, but to survive the WAC needs to have something to offer potential new members. A route to FBS could be a compelling lure.

Treading on dangerous water here, but am repeating myself.

The new WAC
Pacific Division
UC Davis
Sac St
Cal Poly
Cal Baptist*
GCU*
NMSU

Plains Division
UTRGV
Sam Houston St
Lamar
S F Austin or Incarnate Word or maybe Wichita St as fb only
Oral Roberts *
UMKC*

UVU and Seattle go to the Big Sky, which loses the Montana’s, Idaho, and Weber St.
The Summit will add those schools and be a partner with the WAC for going FBS. Been saying that for more than a year.
04-24-2018 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dancingNMSUaggie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,262
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 33
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Utrgv football decision
OK GCU. Let's do this. As much guff I give GCU would love to see GCU FBS football. You have the money, the fan base, the market. What's holding you back? You could probably hire some celebrity football coach.
04-24-2018 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chrisattsu Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 1,712
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 61
I Root For: Tarleton / TXST
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Utrgv football decision
If it gets approved, they will have to determine if they want to add womens sports, cut mens sports or some combination of both

Currently they sponsor 14 sports (7m / 7w).
Adding Softball, Swimming and Diving, and beach volleyball could be added
or maybe cutting Mens soccer or tennis

System school UTSA has 15 sports (7m / 8w). Same sports as RGV with softball added
UTEP has 14 sports (5m / 9w). In UTEP's case, they keep football, mens basketball, track, CC, and golf and have RIFLE on the women's side.
04-24-2018 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


gleadley Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,532
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 24
I Root For: GCU
Location: Phoenix. AZ
Post: #12
RE: Utrgv football decision
(04-24-2018 02:37 PM)dancingNMSUaggie Wrote:  OK GCU. Let's do this. As much guff I give GCU would love to see GCU FBS football. You have the money, the fan base, the market. What's holding you back? You could probably hire some celebrity football coach.

Um. No.

The reason GCU is successful is because academic decisions are left to academians, and business decisions are left to business people. DI football is a pit that GCU isn't willing to throw money and half of the athletic department into just to say we have football. President Mueller has said as much:

"Though football is the top revenue driving-sport for many athletic programs across the nation, it’s not in GCU’s future,' Mueller said, nor are there any immediate plans to add any other additional sports to the school’s current roster, according to Baker.

'We are not in the place that we want everything else to sacrifice to have that one thing,' Mueller said. 'There are a lot of schools that have done really well without football like the Big East schools like Marquette, Seton Hall, Villanova. (Also) Gonzaga, St. Mary’s. They are all schools that have built really good athletic programs without football.'"
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2018 05:02 PM by gleadley.)
04-24-2018 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lopes87 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 738
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 15
I Root For: GCU
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Utrgv football decision
I'm good with no FBS but the only coach I'd want to see as a football coach is currently coaching the Seahawks. Like Gleadley I'm fine with no football.
04-24-2018 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
edinburger Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 364
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 10
I Root For: UTRGV
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Utrgv football decision
(04-24-2018 12:32 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 09:35 AM)gleadley Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 09:15 AM)edinburger Wrote:  There goes my raise, the lab budget, and the North Sugar parking lot.

Seriously, I could see students voting this down if there's a steep price tag attached. I'm thinking somewhere around $30/head/semester is the upper limit of what they'd approve.

For you Title IV experts, does this mean we'd need a new women's sport also?

While I'm not an expert, I think Title IV is actually related to federal financial aid/funding. Title IX is the one related to institutional equality, including in athletics. That's all I got, though.

It is a gender equity rule with scholarship allotment. Football is a large sport (63 scholarships going to male athletes in FCS football). If UTRGV choses to fund FCS football, that means the university would need to add more women's sports to offset the difference or reduce the amount of men's sports to account for the addition of football. This is the reason why a program like NMSU operates with 6 men's sports and 10 women's sports. The scholarships used in FBS football (85) is the equivalent amount of scholarships used in 5 women's sports.

If UTRGV adds football, it will effect the feasibility of maintaining the other secondary (non-revenue) men's sports. Or, it means the University will need to pour a lot more money into starting up more non-revenue women's sports. This may not go over well with the UTRGV student body.

If we're going to be honest aren't they all non-revenue sports?
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2018 04:38 PM by edinburger.)
04-24-2018 04:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,003
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 80
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Utrgv football decision
(04-24-2018 09:35 AM)gleadley Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 09:15 AM)edinburger Wrote:  There goes my raise, the lab budget, and the North Sugar parking lot.

Seriously, I could see students voting this down if there's a steep price tag attached. I'm thinking somewhere around $30/head/semester is the upper limit of what they'd approve.

For you Title IV experts, does this mean we'd need a new women's sport also?

While I'm not an expert, I think Title IV is actually related to federal financial aid/funding. Title IX is the one related to institutional equality, including in athletics. That's all I got, though.

It is a huge investment. As a comparison, Lamar University is an FCS program in the Southland and they have a football budget of $4.3 million. So UTRGV is probably talking about an additional $4-5 million per year for FCS football.

Then there is the Title IX requirements. UTRGV will add 63 football scholarships for football, so they will probably need to add a couple of female sports. Women's softball and maybe women's swimming & diving. Or they could add women's softball and drop men's soccer. I would say $5 million per year at a minimum to add football. If the students are willing to pay it, then it could happen.
04-24-2018 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RandomFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 305
Joined: Aug 2017
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Mid-Majors
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Utrgv football decision
Could UTRGV get around the Title IX issue by having non-scholarship football in the Pioneer League?
04-24-2018 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


edinburger Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 364
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 10
I Root For: UTRGV
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Utrgv football decision
(04-24-2018 05:10 PM)RandomFan Wrote:  Could UTRGV get around the Title IX issue by having non-scholarship football in the Pioneer League?

Somehow I don't think that is what President Bailey has in mind. His background is Texas Tech and Alabama and I think his dream is a "full up no asterisks" football team. I haven't heard that explicitly but it would be in line with how he is acting on a wide range of other issues.

But we'll find out more next week.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2018 05:44 PM by edinburger.)
04-24-2018 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
edinburger Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 364
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 10
I Root For: UTRGV
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Utrgv football decision
(04-24-2018 04:43 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 09:35 AM)gleadley Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 09:15 AM)edinburger Wrote:  There goes my raise, the lab budget, and the North Sugar parking lot.

Seriously, I could see students voting this down if there's a steep price tag attached. I'm thinking somewhere around $30/head/semester is the upper limit of what they'd approve.

For you Title IV experts, does this mean we'd need a new women's sport also?

While I'm not an expert, I think Title IV is actually related to federal financial aid/funding. Title IX is the one related to institutional equality, including in athletics. That's all I got, though.

It is a huge investment. As a comparison, Lamar University is an FCS program in the Southland and they have a football budget of $4.3 million. So UTRGV is probably talking about an additional $4-5 million per year for FCS football.

Then there is the Title IX requirements. UTRGV will add 63 football scholarships for football, so they will probably need to add a couple of female sports. Women's softball and maybe women's swimming & diving. Or they could add women's softball and drop men's soccer. I would say $5 million per year at a minimum to add football. If the students are willing to pay it, then it could happen.

If students foot the whole bill, that's about $175/head. 90% of our students come from three of the poorest counties in the US, virtually all are on financial aid, and unless the Pell Grants and Texas grants increase to cover it, $175 is a show stopper. However, I'm guessing Bailey's strategy is to get one or two local rich guys (Vaqueronation knows who I'm talking about) to sponsor half of it or more. Who knows what they'll get to name, at least the stadium and maybe some of the existing academic buildings too. Maybe he can talk the City of Edinburg into renaming University Avenue.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2018 05:58 PM by edinburger.)
04-24-2018 05:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,519
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 227
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Utrgv football decision
I see people forgot all about Tarleton State could be called up with an invite from the WAC. 9000 seat stadium and they could upped that even more in the future.

As it is, I think UTRGV and some other Texas schools could get the fan base if they are not in areas that are too heavily with D1 schools like the Cities of Dallas and Houston.
04-24-2018 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ProfScott Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 589
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 1
I Root For: GCU
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Utrgv football decision
(04-24-2018 02:37 PM)dancingNMSUaggie Wrote:  OK GCU. Let's do this. As much guff I give GCU would love to see GCU FBS football. You have the money, the fan base, the market. What's holding you back? You could probably hire some celebrity football coach.
Agree with the other GCU folks here. Football is not happening at GCU. It is a money pit and a Title IX nightmare. Plus GCU has been working hard to promote men's soccer as the main fall sport. One of the reasons GCU "has the money" is that they make good financial decisions. Football is a bad financial move for GCU. It might work for UTRGV just because they are in Texas and Texans live and breathe football. Arizonans do not.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2018 07:42 PM by ProfScott.)
04-24-2018 07:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.