(01-21-2019 06:49 PM)Coach Bonez89 Wrote:  I just like making that statement from time to time to poke holes in state pride... In all seriousness though, I've always thought UTA could successfully relaunch football.

Football is going to lose money. That is a given.
UTA isn't struggling to attract students and certainly is well regarded academically for a metro non-flagship institution.

I think football is a hard sell and if they have the not unheard of start-up competitiveness issues it can be a negative for the school's perception.

(01-22-2019 11:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 06:49 PM)Coach Bonez89 Wrote:  I just like making that statement from time to time to poke holes in state pride... In all seriousness though, I've always thought UTA could successfully relaunch football.

Football is going to lose money. That is a given.
UTA isn't struggling to attract students and certainly is well regarded academically for a metro non-flagship institution.

I think football is a hard sell and if they have the not unheard of start-up competitiveness issues it can be a negative for the school's perception.

Agree.

Regarding the Rangers current stadium, its continued existence is a big uncertainty.

(01-22-2019 10:58 PM)UTArlingtonMaverick Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 06:49 PM)Coach Bonez89 Wrote:  I just like making that statement from time to time to poke holes in state pride... In all seriousness though, I've always thought UTA could successfully relaunch football.

Football is going to lose money. That is a given.
UTA isn't struggling to attract students and certainly is well regarded academically for a metro non-flagship institution.

I think football is a hard sell and if they have the not unheard of start-up competitiveness issues it can be a negative for the school's perception.

Agree.

Regarding the Rangers current stadium, its continued existence is a big uncertainty.

I was over there last week. it sure is odd to see 3 giant stadiums crammed into the same area. there is a sea of people and equipment working on stuff there. the current stadium was designed by the firm of a uta architecture school grad a cpl. years behind me and it is a terrific stadium. a lot of locals are scratching their heads about the supposed need for a new one so soon.

(01-25-2019 08:36 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 10:58 PM)UTArlingtonMaverick Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 06:49 PM)Coach Bonez89 Wrote:  I just like making that statement from time to time to poke holes in state pride... In all seriousness though, I've always thought UTA could successfully relaunch football.

Football is going to lose money. That is a given.
UTA isn't struggling to attract students and certainly is well regarded academically for a metro non-flagship institution.

I think football is a hard sell and if they have the not unheard of start-up competitiveness issues it can be a negative for the school's perception.

Agree.

Regarding the Rangers current stadium, its continued existence is a big uncertainty.

I was over there last week. it sure is odd to see 3 giant stadiums crammed into the same area. there is a sea of people and equipment working on stuff there. the current stadium was designed by the firm of a uta architecture school grad a cpl. years behind me and it is a terrific stadium. a lot of locals are scratching their heads about the supposed need for a new one so soon.

They need a new stadium because some city official decided they wanted something to hang their hat on, and the team owner decided to back said official by threatening to hold the city hostage for a new stadium or they’d just move the team to some other gullible city.

Just look at ATL, just replaced 2 20 year old stadiums with 2 new billion dollar stadiums. The TED and dome were still very nice, but why not spend a couple billion of taxpayer money for building most won’t ever enter.

^truth.

(01-25-2019 10:05 AM)Usajags Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 08:36 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 10:58 PM)UTArlingtonMaverick Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 06:49 PM)Coach Bonez89 Wrote:  I just like making that statement from time to time to poke holes in state pride... In all seriousness though, I've always thought UTA could successfully relaunch football.

Football is going to lose money. That is a given.
UTA isn't struggling to attract students and certainly is well regarded academically for a metro non-flagship institution.

I think football is a hard sell and if they have the not unheard of start-up competitiveness issues it can be a negative for the school's perception.

Agree.

Regarding the Rangers current stadium, its continued existence is a big uncertainty.

I was over there last week. it sure is odd to see 3 giant stadiums crammed into the same area. there is a sea of people and equipment working on stuff there. the current stadium was designed by the firm of a uta architecture school grad a cpl. years behind me and it is a terrific stadium. a lot of locals are scratching their heads about the supposed need for a new one so soon.

They need a new stadium because some city official decided they wanted something to hang their hat on, and the team owner decided to back said official by threatening to hold the city hostage for a new stadium or they’d just move the team to some other gullible city.

Just look at ATL, just replaced 2 20 year old stadiums with 2 new billion dollar stadiums. The TED and dome were still very nice, but why not spend a couple billion of taxpayer money for building most won’t ever enter.

actually there are two reasons they use to justify it: they say they cant sign the best pitchers because of the heat in the current stadium during the summer months and, they have seen how much money jerryworld generates for jerry jones. both sports franchises have figured out just what level of product they can put forth and still make big bucks. the new baseball stadium will provide the team with many more revenue sources.

Try and think of another private business that requires the city it’s located in to build its facilities. Manufacturing, nope, restaurant, nope, movie theater, nope, hospitals, nope. And think about it, the cities build these billion dollar buildings, and how many jobs, full time jobs, does it create for the citizens of city???

(01-26-2019 09:35 AM)Usajags Wrote:  Try and think of another private business that requires the city it’s located in to build its facilities. Manufacturing, nope, restaurant, nope, movie theater, nope, hospitals, nope. And think about it, the cities build these billion dollar buildings, and how many jobs, full time jobs, does it create for the citizens of city???

Airlines are a big example. But maybe the airport generates enough revenue from jobs, parking, hotels, rental cars and toll roads to pay their way. One wonders.

(01-26-2019 02:59 PM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 09:35 AM)Usajags Wrote:  Try and think of another private business that requires the city it’s located in to build its facilities. Manufacturing, nope, restaurant, nope, movie theater, nope, hospitals, nope. And think about it, the cities build these billion dollar buildings, and how many jobs, full time jobs, does it create for the citizens of city???

Airlines are a big example. But maybe the airport generates enough revenue from jobs, parking, hotels, rental cars and toll roads to pay their way. One wonders.

Good example, except airlines pay a lot for the gates they use. It also does give full time jobs to a lot of people and is used everyday by the community. Football stadiums are used what, at best, 15 days a year...maybe 20 if you can get some other events.

(01-26-2019 03:16 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:59 PM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 09:35 AM)Usajags Wrote:  Try and think of another private business that requires the city it’s located in to build its facilities. Manufacturing, nope, restaurant, nope, movie theater, nope, hospitals, nope. And think about it, the cities build these billion dollar buildings, and how many jobs, full time jobs, does it create for the citizens of city???

Airlines are a big example. But maybe the airport generates enough revenue from jobs, parking, hotels, rental cars and toll roads to pay their way. One wonders.

Good example, except airlines pay a lot for the gates they use. It also does give full time jobs to a lot of people and is used everyday by the community. Football stadiums are used what, at best, 15 days a year...maybe 20 if you can get some other events.

No argument here. Football stadia are bad municipal investments for the short and medium term, and a bad deal for the local taxpayers. One interesting thing I have seen is how a football stadium can tie up hundreds of acres used for parking and feeder roads, but after the stadium is torn down, suddenly the municipality has an abundance of land available for redevelopment.

This happened in Irving when the former Cowboys stadium was razed. All those acres of former parking lots turned out to be prime real estate in Irving and the municipality benefited in the long run from having had all that space put on the shelf for a generation.

I doubt that has been the case in many other places like Philly, when the Eagles left the Vet, but I just thought Irving might be the exception that proves the rule.

(12-07-2018 09:38 PM)ATX Bobcat Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 11:38 AM)grumpdoggMav Wrote:  My biggest concern about adding football is the people in charge. Our athletic department doesn't have a good track record with the programs we have. I've heard many stories from players about housing and meal plan payments being late and sending the basketball team on double digit hour bus rides for games. I just don't see how they could possibly manage an additional 80+ student athletes without some sudden cash infusion. I think it will happen at some point, but just don't know when. Assuming we will still be in the SBC I would think we would be competitive within 5 years based on the talent pool in the DFW alone.

Well have i got a solution for you. If you need a guy who knows how to get facilities improved and move a football team up to FBS. Your man is already in the great state of Texas. One of the finest leaders of men this world has ever seen. Dr. Larry Teis. I will personally drive him to Arlington and get him set up to help you guys build your dynasty.

Dang. That is a very attractive offer. Would we be guaranteed an overwhelmingly successful football program such as has blessed Texas State? I feel like UTA is not holding up its end of the bargain at this point, although our two Texas schools have habitually had a very strong presence in the all sports standings.

(12-05-2018 02:54 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Couple things from the article, first, they are going to put mega bucks into refurbing an old stadium to play football for a league that barely survived its first try nearly 20 years ago. That doesn’t seem like a smart investment of your money unless they know something else. Stadiums are not cheap to maintain, so I would imagine something else is working underneath that we don’t know yet.

What's worse...pumping money into a league you're excited about or showing potential fans you don't care by playing in un-renovated ill-equipped stadiums? Hoping it'll work vs saving money b/c you expect it to fail.

(01-26-2019 02:59 PM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 09:35 AM)Usajags Wrote:  Try and think of another private business that requires the city it’s located in to build its facilities. Manufacturing, nope, restaurant, nope, movie theater, nope, hospitals, nope. And think about it, the cities build these billion dollar buildings, and how many jobs, full time jobs, does it create for the citizens of city???

Airlines are a big example. But maybe the airport generates enough revenue from jobs, parking, hotels, rental cars and toll roads to pay their way. One wonders.

Airports are like roads and before that canals and ports.

The railroads were privately owned but government heavily financed construction via several different schemes but once built railroad was on its own.

Stadiums and arenas are an entirely different universe. Government finances most or all and basically gets bumpkus from them other than a bill for upkeep. Welfare for billionaires

If UTA comes along it would seem wise for Texas schools to break off and form a Texas conference of football.

"Stadiums and arenas are an entirely different universe. Government finances most or all and basically gets bumpkus from them other than a bill for upkeep. Welfare for billionaires."

^^This^^

Smart businessmen taking advantage of the system. Get the stupid taxpayers and cities to pay for the "palaces" multimillionaire athletics romp around in. And the owners reap the benefits with minimal investment(on the stadium). Wonder what Jerry Jones could sell the Dallas Cowboys for vs prior to moving into "JerryWorld"?

(10-11-2019 09:41 AM)ericsaid Wrote:  If UTA comes along it would seem wise for Texas schools to break off and form a Texas conference of football.

Nice dream, but it ain't hap'nin, Cap'n.

(10-11-2019 01:06 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 09:41 AM)ericsaid Wrote:  If UTA comes along it would seem wise for Texas schools to break off and form a Texas conference of football.

Nice dream, but it ain't hap'nin, Cap'n.

The FBS teams in Texas are in 4 different conferences. TxSt is the only school that is the lone Texas team in their respected conferences. If UTA were to restart football it would help TxSt, but there is nothing that would get these teams all in the same conference.

(10-11-2019 01:16 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 01:06 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 09:41 AM)ericsaid Wrote:  If UTA comes along it would seem wise for Texas schools to break off and form a Texas conference of football.

Nice dream, but it ain't hap'nin, Cap'n.

The FBS teams in Texas are in 4 different conferences. TxSt is the only school that is the lone Texas team in their respected conferences. If UTA were to restart football it would help TxSt, but there is nothing that would get these teams all in the same conference.

They’re actually in 5 different conferences. But you only need the CUSA schools + TXST + UTA to make a 6-team conference. Adding SMU and UH would bring that up to 8. The 5 power schools wouldn’t want anything to do with that, but you don’t need them to have the numbers for a conference.

Not that any of this has a chance of happening anyway.

smu and u of h have visions of grandeur that would block any notion of them partnering up with uta, txst, and untexas. in my view, if uta did start fielding a team, they could easily play a schedule of games against schools like sfa and sam houston and the old east texas state and maybe A&I or the old west texas state. those games would generate lots of fan interest because uta has a football history with all of them and with the right leadership the mavs could easily be competitive right away. I dont hear any buzz about starting football and the writer of the original article about playing over at Globe Life park probably just threw that in because he didnt know any better. that logic seems to work everywhere else where at the drop of a hat other schools will add football or move their programs up to the next available level but that thought process does not exist over at uta.

As long as Citadel beats GaTech, SC beats GA and GaSt beats Tennessee, I can continue to have hope that UTA will eventually return to the gridiron. I mean, what can be more pro-underdoggish than rooting for a team that has not existed since 1985? When it happens, it will be that much sweeter for having taken so long.

Meanwhile, our college is now the third largest in Texas and is closing in on Longhorn U for second place in enrollment. When we start playing, I'm confident someone will be in the stands watching.