I would like to see this happen, but we all know that they would end up being a Division I-AA school, the hopes and dreams of being division I-A are not going to happen!!!

(10-28-2018 05:30 PM)HoustonCougarNation Wrote:  I would like to see this happen, but we all know that they would end up being a Division I-AA school, the hopes and dreams of being division I-A are not going to happen!!!

UTA is in the Sun Belt so they have a standing invite to FBS if they restart football.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X304F using Tapatalk

(10-26-2018 03:04 PM)3BNole Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 10:59 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:31 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 09:37 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  UTA starting football will be a massive failure. How is a commuter school in a huge city, supposed to get fans to their games? Nobody will care.

I honestly can't think of many football teams that are a "massive failure". In fact, I would argue that nearly every football program would be extremely beneficial if it weren't for the government forcing title IX.

A football team brings much more than football. Football teams are almost like public face of many schools. They get the name of the school to the public, create fans that either support or attend the school, and give alumni reasons to come back to the school.

Long Beach State is doing just fine without football. I’d imagine Wichita St and Gonzaga are fine without football too.

Title 9? That’s a different issue. Please name 1 commuter school that recently started football that is far better off with a FBS/FCS team.

Playing devil’s advocate, Central Florida is the first that comes to mind. Not sure if folks would count Boise State but that could be another. UNC Charlotte has had more recognition though their team has struggled. FAU and FIU are certainly great examples.

USF is a better example than UCF. UCF started in the late 70's and worked their way up through the ranks while USF didn't have a team until the late 1990's, came in as a FCS team for 3 or 4 years before going FBS.

(10-25-2018 10:15 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:11 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 09:37 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  UTA starting football will be a massive failure. How is a commuter school in a huge city, supposed to get fans to their games? Nobody will care.

They can pull a Georgia State and buy Globe Life Park from the Rangers when they build a new park.

Or pull a Tulane and play in JerryWorld.

But Tulane pulled a Minnesota and built their own stadium a few years back.

(10-29-2018 01:16 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:15 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 10:11 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 09:37 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  UTA starting football will be a massive failure. How is a commuter school in a huge city, supposed to get fans to their games? Nobody will care.

They can pull a Georgia State and buy Globe Life Park from the Rangers when they build a new park.

Or pull a Tulane and play in JerryWorld.

But Tulane pulled a Minnesota and built their own stadium a few years back.

They have an on campus football stadium. It would need to be heavily renovated and expanded, but it's there.

(10-26-2018 03:23 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 03:04 PM)3BNole Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 10:59 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:31 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 09:37 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  UTA starting football will be a massive failure. How is a commuter school in a huge city, supposed to get fans to their games? Nobody will care.

I honestly can't think of many football teams that are a "massive failure". In fact, I would argue that nearly every football program would be extremely beneficial if it weren't for the government forcing title IX.

A football team brings much more than football. Football teams are almost like public face of many schools. They get the name of the school to the public, create fans that either support or attend the school, and give alumni reasons to come back to the school.

Long Beach State is doing just fine without football. I’d imagine Wichita St and Gonzaga are fine without football too.

Title 9? That’s a different issue. Please name 1 commuter school that recently started football that is far better off with a FBS/FCS team.

Playing devil’s advocate, Central Florida is the first that comes to mind. Not sure if folks would count Boise State but that could be another. UNC Charlotte has had more recognition though their team has struggled. FAU and FIU are certainly great examples.

Georgia State also.

Boise St has had football for a long time. I can give you UCF and USF as they have played in better leagues and have had accomplishments.

FAU, FIU, and Georgia St? They’re lucky to draw 10k to home games. Is their student enrollment greater since they started football?

If those 3 schools are your best examples, then you’re going to lose that argument.

Off the wall question here. It appears the WAC is moving towards sponsoring football at an FCS level. What if UTA started a football team at FCS and joined the WAC as a football only member to get the program off the ground and established. Then in a few years after the WAC has had a chance to gather a few other football playing members, UTA moves to FBS and joins their conference mates in the Sunbelt?

(10-31-2018 11:24 AM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  Off the wall question here. It appears the WAC is moving towards sponsoring football at an FCS level. What if UTA started a football team at FCS and joined the WAC as a football only member to get the program off the ground and established. Then in a few years after the WAC has had a chance to gather a few other football playing members, UTA moves to FBS and joins their conference mates in the Sunbelt?

Most FCS conferences would chafe at the idea of being a conference of convenience for an FBS start up but a desperate WAC might be okay with it.