(10-06-2024 11:00 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 10:23 PM)RCI Wrote:  Thanks UTArlingtonMaverick, you are much appreciated. Something to share for those who don't know, our star quarterback is named "Maverick." He is the son of the ex UT Austin quarterback Rick McIvor. Anyway, Maverick McIvor is doing a great job and has about the second most passing production in the FCS, maybe first after beating UCA. Anyway, we like the name "Maverick."

Just know, I wish you guys were still playing football, but that is a song sung often on this board. I value UTA's research and engineers because we need many more in this country if we are going to continue to lead the world. I think ACU's fastest growing area is Physics and Engineering (unless it is nursing school,) so we applaud schools like UTA and others in the WAC. Tarleton's agriculture productivity is so very important. Energy, Water, Health, and Agriculture are really critical areas so we can have futures with wonderful sports and lifestyles. I think about a basketball player, a starting center for four years and a co-captain for two years, who won the Einstein Prize for producing the science that created Quantum Computing. Sports can teach a lot and fulfills lives with valuable experiences. I do want us to preserve the value of colligate athletics.

UTArlingtonMaverick is one of the few posters I know who have been anti-football. I haven't seen him in a while. I wonder, with UTA on the verge of being homeless simply for not having football in this geographic region if that viewpoint has changed or morphed any.

My question is why is UTArlingtonMaverick against football? No judgment just a question.

(10-06-2024 11:42 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 11:00 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 10:23 PM)RCI Wrote:  Thanks UTArlingtonMaverick, you are much appreciated. Something to share for those who don't know, our star quarterback is named "Maverick." He is the son of the ex UT Austin quarterback Rick McIvor. Anyway, Maverick McIvor is doing a great job and has about the second most passing production in the FCS, maybe first after beating UCA. Anyway, we like the name "Maverick."

Just know, I wish you guys were still playing football, but that is a song sung often on this board. I value UTA's research and engineers because we need many more in this country if we are going to continue to lead the world. I think ACU's fastest growing area is Physics and Engineering (unless it is nursing school,) so we applaud schools like UTA and others in the WAC. Tarleton's agriculture productivity is so very important. Energy, Water, Health, and Agriculture are really critical areas so we can have futures with wonderful sports and lifestyles. I think about a basketball player, a starting center for four years and a co-captain for two years, who won the Einstein Prize for producing the science that created Quantum Computing. Sports can teach a lot and fulfills lives with valuable experiences. I do want us to preserve the value of colligate athletics.

UTArlingtonMaverick is one of the few posters I know who have been anti-football. I haven't seen him in a while. I wonder, with UTA on the verge of being homeless simply for not having football in this geographic region if that viewpoint has changed or morphed any.

My question is why is UTArlingtonMaverick against football? No judgment just a question.

If football came back to UTA, I would buy season tickets and attend 90 percent of the games. I like football, and, political items aside, pretty much support UTA in whatever it does.

However, all along I have been certain, at least to myself, that it's not coming back. And, after decades, I have never had a desire to jump-on, at least in my view, a bandwagon that will never get any traction. No disrespect to anyone else, and reasonable minds can disagree. My few football-friendly UTA friends are good people. They pass the have a beer together test. It's certainly legit as a recreational topic of discussion on a sports board, etc.

Looking at what intercollegiate sports has unfortunately become (especially football and also basketball) and how it evolving, there is, for now, a minor part of me that says it makes sense to chuck the whole thing and go DIII or whatever. Add a bunch of sports, lacrosse, soccer, whatever, and bring a lot of real student athletes on campus for the competition with sane dollar amounts.

(10-07-2024 09:16 PM)UTArlingtonMaverick Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 11:42 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 11:00 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 10:23 PM)RCI Wrote:  Thanks UTArlingtonMaverick, you are much appreciated. Something to share for those who don't know, our star quarterback is named "Maverick." He is the son of the ex UT Austin quarterback Rick McIvor. Anyway, Maverick McIvor is doing a great job and has about the second most passing production in the FCS, maybe first after beating UCA. Anyway, we like the name "Maverick."

Just know, I wish you guys were still playing football, but that is a song sung often on this board. I value UTA's research and engineers because we need many more in this country if we are going to continue to lead the world. I think ACU's fastest growing area is Physics and Engineering (unless it is nursing school,) so we applaud schools like UTA and others in the WAC. Tarleton's agriculture productivity is so very important. Energy, Water, Health, and Agriculture are really critical areas so we can have futures with wonderful sports and lifestyles. I think about a basketball player, a starting center for four years and a co-captain for two years, who won the Einstein Prize for producing the science that created Quantum Computing. Sports can teach a lot and fulfills lives with valuable experiences. I do want us to preserve the value of colligate athletics.

UTArlingtonMaverick is one of the few posters I know who have been anti-football. I haven't seen him in a while. I wonder, with UTA on the verge of being homeless simply for not having football in this geographic region if that viewpoint has changed or morphed any.

My question is why is UTArlingtonMaverick against football? No judgment just a question.

If football came back to UTA, I would buy season tickets and attend 90 percent of the games. I like football, and, political items aside, pretty much support UTA in whatever it does.

However, all along I have been certain, at least to myself, that it's not coming back. And, after decades, I have never had a desire to jump-on, at least in my view, a bandwagon that will never get any traction. No disrespect to anyone else, and reasonable minds can disagree. My few football-friendly UTA friends are good people. They pass the have a beer together test. It's certainly legit as a recreational topic of discussion on a sports board, etc.

Looking at what intercollegiate sports has unfortunately become (especially football and also basketball) and how it evolving, there is, for now, a minor part of me that says it makes sense to chuck the whole thing and go DIII or whatever. Add a bunch of sports, lacrosse, soccer, whatever, and bring a lot of real student athletes on campus for the competition with sane dollar amounts.

I have to agree with Maverick. I was a student at UTA when they played their last game. I was sad, but in retrospect it was a good decision. UTA seems to prioritize spending heir money on improving education, which after all is the purpose of a university. Any money spent on football would take away from education spending or add to the student fee, either is a bad choice, because lets face it not that many people in the metroplex are going to care about UTA football when we already have the cowboys less than 5 miles from UTA and we have TCU and SMU and people around here will always care more about the longhorns and Aggies and sooners than they care about the Mavericks. For sports we just need to concentrate on basketball and baseball.

I lived in Arlington for 30 years. My kids used Maverick Stadium as their home field for football. One as a Colt, one as a Warrior. I have been there for many many football, band, track, and Special Olympic events. You cannot put lipstick on that pig. It would need a complete rebuild. The press box is disgusting. The concourse always has water standing. Bad water if you get my drift. My tv at home is larger than the video board. No suites.
Locker rooms are below modern high school standards. It’s a complete renovation. Plus you’d need a whole new building or buildings for just modern football team operations with bells and whistles to be competitive with peer Universities. $50 million maybe. $35 million?
Whatever the number, it’s huge! The UT Mothership already has its FBS, and FCS schools.
I can’t imagine this ever happens. Just stop.

Priorities. Student athletic fees.

Tarleton $36.75 per hour, $477.75 max https://catalog.tarleton.edu/expenses/
UTA $8.50 per credit hour/$115 maximum https://www.uta.edu

All the above posts have a legitimate basis in my opinion. Sports to me was a great part of growing up, but sports and business seem a little disjointed. For me it was play for the fun of it, study for the betterment of my opportunities, and then continue sports of some kind till old age wore me out. Division 3 sport's value for the athletes is valuable in ways other than making money. It is hard to say in this strange day and age, but sports was competitions to climb the ladder of merit the same as making good grades was a test of merit. To make it simple, for me sports was an added value in life so I don't really care whether it is FBS, FCS, division 3, or even intermurals, playing sports is one of those fine things in life and I do not want to see participation reduced because money becomes too large a factor. All these words probably do not make sense, but something seems less optimized with the way NIL and paying players has infected our contests. Playing sports has a lifetime value and that is my key take on things.

(10-08-2024 02:36 PM)wewererebels Wrote:  Priorities. Student athletic fees.

Tarleton $36.75 per hour, $477.75 max https://catalog.tarleton.edu/expenses/
UTA $8.50 per credit hour/$115 maximum https://www.uta.edu

For Tarleton, that's per hour, regardless of which campus you attend, Fall/Spring/Summer, online, part-time, undergrad/grad, it doesn't matter. You attend Tarleton, you pay the fee. We're now past 18,000 enrolled, and projections have us at 30,000 by over the next 5 years. Do the math, and you get a pretty big number. Our athletic budget has already doubled and will continue to compound. For those that say Tarleton simply lives off the teat of A&M are a bunch of morons. We put our money where our mouth is. Every single one of us.

(10-08-2024 05:05 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(10-08-2024 02:36 PM)wewererebels Wrote:  Priorities. Student athletic fees.

Tarleton $36.75 per hour, $477.75 max https://catalog.tarleton.edu/expenses/
UTA $8.50 per credit hour/$115 maximum https://www.uta.edu

For Tarleton, that's per hour, regardless of which campus you attend, Fall/Spring/Summer, online, part-time, undergrad/grad, it doesn't matter. You attend Tarleton, you pay the fee. We're now past 18,000 enrolled, and projections have us at 30,000 by over the next 5 years. Do the math, and you get a pretty big number. Our athletic budget has already doubled and will continue to compound. For those that say Tarleton simply lives off the teat of A&M are a bunch of morons. We put our money where our mouth is. Every single one of us.

I believe the only limit is the hours are capped at 13. So if a student is taking 15 credit hours, they will only play the athletic fee for 13 hours.

(10-08-2024 05:17 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  

(10-08-2024 05:05 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(10-08-2024 02:36 PM)wewererebels Wrote:  Priorities. Student athletic fees.

Tarleton $36.75 per hour, $477.75 max https://catalog.tarleton.edu/expenses/
UTA $8.50 per credit hour/$115 maximum https://www.uta.edu

For Tarleton, that's per hour, regardless of which campus you attend, Fall/Spring/Summer, online, part-time, undergrad/grad, it doesn't matter. You attend Tarleton, you pay the fee. We're now past 18,000 enrolled, and projections have us at 30,000 by over the next 5 years. Do the math, and you get a pretty big number. Our athletic budget has already doubled and will continue to compound. For those that say Tarleton simply lives off the teat of A&M are a bunch of morons. We put our money where our mouth is. Every single one of us.

I believe the only limit is the hours are capped at 13. So if a student is taking 15 credit hours, they will only play the athletic fee for 13 hours.

Well said. Good for Tarleton athletics!

(10-07-2024 11:29 PM)RT98 Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 09:16 PM)UTArlingtonMaverick Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 11:42 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 11:00 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 10:23 PM)RCI Wrote:  Thanks UTArlingtonMaverick, you are much appreciated. Something to share for those who don't know, our star quarterback is named "Maverick." He is the son of the ex UT Austin quarterback Rick McIvor. Anyway, Maverick McIvor is doing a great job and has about the second most passing production in the FCS, maybe first after beating UCA. Anyway, we like the name "Maverick."

Just know, I wish you guys were still playing football, but that is a song sung often on this board. I value UTA's research and engineers because we need many more in this country if we are going to continue to lead the world. I think ACU's fastest growing area is Physics and Engineering (unless it is nursing school,) so we applaud schools like UTA and others in the WAC. Tarleton's agriculture productivity is so very important. Energy, Water, Health, and Agriculture are really critical areas so we can have futures with wonderful sports and lifestyles. I think about a basketball player, a starting center for four years and a co-captain for two years, who won the Einstein Prize for producing the science that created Quantum Computing. Sports can teach a lot and fulfills lives with valuable experiences. I do want us to preserve the value of colligate athletics.

UTArlingtonMaverick is one of the few posters I know who have been anti-football. I haven't seen him in a while. I wonder, with UTA on the verge of being homeless simply for not having football in this geographic region if that viewpoint has changed or morphed any.

My question is why is UTArlingtonMaverick against football? No judgment just a question.

If football came back to UTA, I would buy season tickets and attend 90 percent of the games. I like football, and, political items aside, pretty much support UTA in whatever it does.

However, all along I have been certain, at least to myself, that it's not coming back. And, after decades, I have never had a desire to jump-on, at least in my view, a bandwagon that will never get any traction. No disrespect to anyone else, and reasonable minds can disagree. My few football-friendly UTA friends are good people. They pass the have a beer together test. It's certainly legit as a recreational topic of discussion on a sports board, etc.

Looking at what intercollegiate sports has unfortunately become (especially football and also basketball) and how it evolving, there is, for now, a minor part of me that says it makes sense to chuck the whole thing and go DIII or whatever. Add a bunch of sports, lacrosse, soccer, whatever, and bring a lot of real student athletes on campus for the competition with sane dollar amounts.

I have to agree with Maverick. I was a student at UTA when they played their last game. I was sad, but in retrospect it was a good decision. UTA seems to prioritize spending heir money on improving education, which after all is the purpose of a university. Any money spent on football would take away from education spending or add to the student fee, either is a bad choice, because lets face it not that many people in the metroplex are going to care about UTA football when we already have the cowboys less than 5 miles from UTA and we have TCU and SMU and people around here will always care more about the longhorns and Aggies and sooners than they care about the Mavericks. For sports we just need to concentrate on basketball and baseball.

I've argued the other points to death, as basketball is more flooded in this market than football and we have attendance growth the last 15 years that put us in the top half of iur conference peers, whichever home that was.

But we're on the verge of being an independent in all sports with this attitude. Is it worth it? Honest question.

Back to the point of the thread... no discussion at all from either side: Tarleton or MWC, no new rumors, no new social media, no nothing. I'm guessing it's not happening. Each side will spin it their own way.

Thoughts?

(10-09-2024 02:02 PM)Texas48 Wrote:  Back to the point of the thread... no discussion at all from either side: Tarleton or MWC, no new rumors, no new social media, no nothing. I'm guessing it's not happening. Each side will spin it there own way.

Thoughts?

Tarleton has a new deaf-mute AD that doesn't even acknowledge our (fan base) existence, so we got nothin'.

(10-04-2024 09:08 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-04-2024 01:32 AM)Spolovilo4EVER Wrote:  I see MWC not CUSA. CUSA would get us to FBS, But the WAC is a better league and travel would be far easier in the MWC as opposed to CUSA. The teams are better in the MWC and would generate far more excitment to play NEW MEXICO WYOMING and AIR FORCE than it would to play Kennesaw St, Jacksonville St, and Middle Tennessee St and all the rest of the bums in CUSA. Attendance ( FB BB and University) would explode even more if we were in the MWC, it might actually decline if we went to CUSA. CUSA would just be a rut we would have to work even harder to get out of and it is totally not worth it...MWC or bust WAC over CUSA.

I get that it's fun to dunk on CUSA but cmon man, this is ridiculous. SHSU, La Tech, and MSU would be good draws simply due to proximity.

Maybe the issue is Delaware, Liberty, FIU wouldn’t be big draws or get fans traveling to those games,

(10-09-2024 01:41 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 11:29 PM)RT98 Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 09:16 PM)UTArlingtonMaverick Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 11:42 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 11:00 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  UTArlingtonMaverick is one of the few posters I know who have been anti-football. I haven't seen him in a while. I wonder, with UTA on the verge of being homeless simply for not having football in this geographic region if that viewpoint has changed or morphed any.

My question is why is UTArlingtonMaverick against football? No judgment just a question.

If football came back to UTA, I would buy season tickets and attend 90 percent of the games. I like football, and, political items aside, pretty much support UTA in whatever it does.

However, all along I have been certain, at least to myself, that it's not coming back. And, after decades, I have never had a desire to jump-on, at least in my view, a bandwagon that will never get any traction. No disrespect to anyone else, and reasonable minds can disagree. My few football-friendly UTA friends are good people. They pass the have a beer together test. It's certainly legit as a recreational topic of discussion on a sports board, etc.

Looking at what intercollegiate sports has unfortunately become (especially football and also basketball) and how it evolving, there is, for now, a minor part of me that says it makes sense to chuck the whole thing and go DIII or whatever. Add a bunch of sports, lacrosse, soccer, whatever, and bring a lot of real student athletes on campus for the competition with sane dollar amounts.

I have to agree with Maverick. I was a student at UTA when they played their last game. I was sad, but in retrospect it was a good decision. UTA seems to prioritize spending heir money on improving education, which after all is the purpose of a university. Any money spent on football would take away from education spending or add to the student fee, either is a bad choice, because lets face it not that many people in the metroplex are going to care about UTA football when we already have the cowboys less than 5 miles from UTA and we have TCU and SMU and people around here will always care more about the longhorns and Aggies and sooners than they care about the Mavericks. For sports we just need to concentrate on basketball and baseball.

I've argued the other points to death, as basketball is more flooded in this market than football and we have attendance growth the last 15 years that put us in the top half of iur conference peers, whichever home that was.

But we're on the verge of being an independent in all sports with this attitude. Is it worth it? Honest question.

I believe so. Of course I am bias on this, because my degree is from UTA. So academic reputation is everything potential employers don't care about UTA athletics even if we had football.

(10-09-2024 11:00 PM)OilersTexansfan Wrote:  

(10-04-2024 09:08 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-04-2024 01:32 AM)Spolovilo4EVER Wrote:  I see MWC not CUSA. CUSA would get us to FBS, But the WAC is a better league and travel would be far easier in the MWC as opposed to CUSA. The teams are better in the MWC and would generate far more excitment to play NEW MEXICO WYOMING and AIR FORCE than it would to play Kennesaw St, Jacksonville St, and Middle Tennessee St and all the rest of the bums in CUSA. Attendance ( FB BB and University) would explode even more if we were in the MWC, it might actually decline if we went to CUSA. CUSA would just be a rut we would have to work even harder to get out of and it is totally not worth it...MWC or bust WAC over CUSA.

I get that it's fun to dunk on CUSA but cmon man, this is ridiculous. SHSU, La Tech, and MSU would be good draws simply due to proximity.

Maybe the issue is Delaware, Liberty, FIU wouldn’t be big draws or get fans traveling to those games,

Definitely, but it's crazy to think that any of the MWC schools would be big draws or have fans travelling to or from for them. AFA barely got 20k at NRG last year against SHSU and I'd bet there's thousands of more AF vets within an hour of NRG vs within an hour of Stephenville.

I will say though that the two times we've hosted Wyoming they've brought a thousand or so fans, pretty good all things considered but not like we'd see from a more regional team. Nevada brought like 30 last year. Probably all football parents.

(10-10-2024 09:15 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-09-2024 11:00 PM)OilersTexansfan Wrote:  

(10-04-2024 09:08 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(10-04-2024 01:32 AM)Spolovilo4EVER Wrote:  I see MWC not CUSA. CUSA would get us to FBS, But the WAC is a better league and travel would be far easier in the MWC as opposed to CUSA. The teams are better in the MWC and would generate far more excitment to play NEW MEXICO WYOMING and AIR FORCE than it would to play Kennesaw St, Jacksonville St, and Middle Tennessee St and all the rest of the bums in CUSA. Attendance ( FB BB and University) would explode even more if we were in the MWC, it might actually decline if we went to CUSA. CUSA would just be a rut we would have to work even harder to get out of and it is totally not worth it...MWC or bust WAC over CUSA.

I get that it's fun to dunk on CUSA but cmon man, this is ridiculous. SHSU, La Tech, and MSU would be good draws simply due to proximity.

Maybe the issue is Delaware, Liberty, FIU wouldn’t be big draws or get fans traveling to those games,

Definitely, but it's crazy to think that any of the MWC schools would be big draws or have fans travelling to or from for them. AFA barely got 20k at NRG last year against SHSU and I'd bet there's thousands of more AF vets within an hour of NRG vs within an hour of Stephenville.

I will say though that the two times we've hosted Wyoming they've brought a thousand or so fans, pretty good all things considered but not like we'd see from a more regional team. Nevada brought like 30 last year. Probably all football parents.

true. those small schools have no wide base of alumni or national following to draw from. the service academies have a little bit of an advantage there because vets are all over but do schools like Liberty or Delaware or FIU even have nearby alumni associations to ramp up interest.

(10-10-2024 08:06 AM)RT98 Wrote:  

(10-09-2024 01:41 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 11:29 PM)RT98 Wrote:  

(10-07-2024 09:16 PM)UTArlingtonMaverick Wrote:  

(10-06-2024 11:42 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  My question is why is UTArlingtonMaverick against football? No judgment just a question.

If football came back to UTA, I would buy season tickets and attend 90 percent of the games. I like football, and, political items aside, pretty much support UTA in whatever it does.

However, all along I have been certain, at least to myself, that it's not coming back. And, after decades, I have never had a desire to jump-on, at least in my view, a bandwagon that will never get any traction. No disrespect to anyone else, and reasonable minds can disagree. My few football-friendly UTA friends are good people. They pass the have a beer together test. It's certainly legit as a recreational topic of discussion on a sports board, etc.

Looking at what intercollegiate sports has unfortunately become (especially football and also basketball) and how it evolving, there is, for now, a minor part of me that says it makes sense to chuck the whole thing and go DIII or whatever. Add a bunch of sports, lacrosse, soccer, whatever, and bring a lot of real student athletes on campus for the competition with sane dollar amounts.

I have to agree with Maverick. I was a student at UTA when they played their last game. I was sad, but in retrospect it was a good decision. UTA seems to prioritize spending heir money on improving education, which after all is the purpose of a university. Any money spent on football would take away from education spending or add to the student fee, either is a bad choice, because lets face it not that many people in the metroplex are going to care about UTA football when we already have the cowboys less than 5 miles from UTA and we have TCU and SMU and people around here will always care more about the longhorns and Aggies and sooners than they care about the Mavericks. For sports we just need to concentrate on basketball and baseball.

I've argued the other points to death, as basketball is more flooded in this market than football and we have attendance growth the last 15 years that put us in the top half of iur conference peers, whichever home that was.

But we're on the verge of being an independent in all sports with this attitude. Is it worth it? Honest question.

I believe so. Of course I am bias on this, because my degree is from UTA. So academic reputation is everything potential employers don't care about UTA athletics even if we had football.

Follow-up question then, but why have athletics at all? If you want to concentrate on basketball and baseball, there's a real chance won't have a home with even a terrible football team. Do you want the teams to do well? Would you care as much if they dropped to D2?

I absolutely agree with Utasportscaster on this one. Football decides everything. Not having football means your school is just dust in the wind (I love Kansas). Your entire athletic program direction will be determined by all of those conferences who don’t want you.

UTA pinned their hopes on the exceptions. Gonzaga is a household name now. Wichita State made it to the AAC. We made it to the Sun Belt.

But in this area of the country, there are no peers like that. The WCC was a good fit for that goal. There's no Texas or SW equivalent.

Just read a rumor that the WAC remnants are in conversations with the Summit for a merger. Without football, we could be looking at conference games in the Dakotas, Minnesota and Illinois, which make games in Missouri and Colorado seem close.

Back when we were exiled from SBC, the WAC looked appealing. Right now, there's little appeal on the landscape without football.

(10-10-2024 10:26 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  UTA pinned their hopes on the exceptions. Gonzaga is a household name now. Wichita State made it to the AAC. We made it to the Sun Belt.

But in this area of the country, there are no peers like that. The WCC was a good fit for that goal. There's no Texas or SW equivalent.

Just read a rumor that the WAC remnants are in conversations with the Summit for a merger. Without football, we could be looking at conference games in the Dakotas, Minnesota and Illinois, which make games in Missouri and Colorado seem close.

Back when we were exiled from SBC, the WAC looked appealing. Right now, there's little appeal on the landscape without football.

I know some folks from UALR that feel your pain.