Jag does bring up some valid points to the table.
Remember, UTA did a football study in 2004. It determined the Athletic Department would need to find an extra $500,000 a year beyond ticket, sponsorships, student fees and other revenue to play 1-AA football. It recommended guarantee games but cautioned it would be hard to find them every year. That wouldn't be so hard at 1-A.
UTA is fortunate that we don't have some of the issues our peers in other states have. The BCS schools will play in-state G5's in guarantee games. Baylor and Tech have histories of home-and-homes as well.
UTA has a history with TCU in every other sport, including football (2-4 all-time) though they are dodging us in basketball now that we have elevated our program.
SMU won't play us in anything, we have a lot of sports with winning records against them.
UNT is a wild card. We play every year in volleyball and softball. We had been playing every year in both basketballs, but we owning them and their men's team bought out the contract when they were supposed to play at our place, so there are a lot of hard feelings lingering. That is left up in the air.
UTSA was a long time conference member and a recent start-up. Our departments have good relations, so that is a distinct possibility.
Rice and Houston don't play us much in the other sports, so they could, but I wouldn't bet on it.
As for financials, I disagree with the notion that it is always better to be 1-A than the lower DI, but there is really not much question that financial revenue is greater. The issue will be the increased costs of playing at a higher level. 22 extra scholarships are just the tip of the iceberg. For example, the SLC was primarily a bus league. Playing in the SBC raises travel costs over 1-AA.
When the time is right, UTA will reevaluate the proposal. That will happen once we have secured proper venues for our current sports. Both basketballs are done as well as volleyball with state-of-the-art College Park Center. Baseball and softball got indoor practice facilities last year and will get clubhouses and various other improvements after this season. There will be a few minor things left for those two afterwards, but not much. Track and field already has Maverick Stadium, which is still a preferred venue. The stadium also has received renovations in the locker rooms, PA system and playing field with the last four years. Curious for a U that doesn't have the sport. That leaves only tennis, which doesn't need too much to renovate the UTA tennis center.
(12-27-2013 11:19 AM)FloridaJag Wrote: 1. $750,000 for away game against Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
2. $250,000 for away game against SMU, TCU and Baylor
3. Guaranteed 30,000 people in the stands for games against UNT, Houston and Rice
4. Guaranteed 25,000 people in the stands for games against Texas State, UTSA.
1) I'd expect more from Texas or A&M. Could see that from Tech
2) If they aren't home and home series for those teams, I wouldn't play for less than $6-700,000. SMU wouldn't pay it, but they woudn't play us anyway, so it is irrelevant.
3) I could see 30,000 for the first two, but not Rice. They really don't carry much athletic weight in DFW.
4) Texas State yes. There are a lot of their alums up here. We are rivals in every other sport so that should turn out the local UTA contingent. UTSA drew only 19,000 at UNT this year. Now the Green don't have the history with UTSA we do, but I don't think that turns out an extra 6,000.
RE: UTA football question 
