(03-23-2023 08:26 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  SFA is good at basketball and football. Sam is good at baseball and football. ACU is competitive in all three. UTRGV hasn’t been competitive in basketball overall and they started a team, which plays in a year and a half. Competitiveness in one sport has zero bearing on anything else.

The City of Houston has three pro sports teams ant the highest level, a couple of other lower tier pro sports leagues and several colleges, all sponsoring football. Crowded sports market is an excuse and nothing else. When our basketball was winning, we drew crowds. If you are going to say I can’t afford a UTA football game because I’m going to the Cowboys, you probably can’t afford the Cowboys either.

Speaking of basketball, there’s the NBA team down the road, three DI programs in the area, along with a handful of DII, DIII, NAIA and juco programs. We just can’t compete and should drop that sport too.

The only argument the anti-football crowd makes that has any reasoning is budget/cost. Anything else is an argument pulled out of thin air to try and back up a viewpoint, rather than the viewpoint formed by the available data.

The previous failure is a pretty convincing argument against. I remember that too well. I was a student there at the time and I went to most home games. When we heard they were dropping football we tried to get community support to keep it, we got no support at all. We have really improved academically and I believe we can improve in our other sports. We just don't need football.

(03-24-2023 08:56 PM)RT98 Wrote:  

(03-23-2023 08:26 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  SFA is good at basketball and football. Sam is good at baseball and football. ACU is competitive in all three. UTRGV hasn’t been competitive in basketball overall and they started a team, which plays in a year and a half. Competitiveness in one sport has zero bearing on anything else.

The City of Houston has three pro sports teams ant the highest level, a couple of other lower tier pro sports leagues and several colleges, all sponsoring football. Crowded sports market is an excuse and nothing else. When our basketball was winning, we drew crowds. If you are going to say I can’t afford a UTA football game because I’m going to the Cowboys, you probably can’t afford the Cowboys either.

Speaking of basketball, there’s the NBA team down the road, three DI programs in the area, along with a handful of DII, DIII, NAIA and juco programs. We just can’t compete and should drop that sport too.

The only argument the anti-football crowd makes that has any reasoning is budget/cost. Anything else is an argument pulled out of thin air to try and back up a viewpoint, rather than the viewpoint formed by the available data.

The previous failure is a pretty convincing argument against. I remember that too well. I was a student there at the time and I went to most home games. When we heard they were dropping football we tried to get community support to keep it, we got no support at all. We have really improved academically and I believe we can improve in our other sports. We just don't need football.

You mean people don't support winning programs...? Shocker. Losing to a DII school to start the year was the final death knell. However, UTA averaged more in 1985 then a couple of WAC schools did this year (SUU, 4,805, Utah Tech 3,954). Six SLC schools averaged less. Should they drop it? The 1985 attendance number beat 61 schools in FCS, out of 130 this past year.

And community support was rallied, at least according to the Dallas Morning News' account from 1985. Several thousand met at Maverick Stadium and they raised $600,000 in a little over two weeks.

The 5,600 average in 1985 is brought up often when talking about lack of support. However, UTA averaged 2,000 more in 1984 (and should have been several thousand higher had the North Texas game not been played in a rainstorm).

Fun fact, UNT almost followed UTA's lead. Had one more regent on their Board voted no, they would have. Their attendance was mildly better and they had worse budget problems then UTA did at the time.

Speaking of budget problems, UTA is just in a far different place now than in 1985. There is no comparison, period. The funds were coming from an auxiliary piece of the pie with multiple competing departments. Stabbing in the back and competition was common. Now, however, the student fee more than covers the athletic budget. And it's just getting better as over the past decade and a half, external funds have increased to the point that the percentage of the total budget from the student fee has gone from 90% to 75%.

Another fun fact, of the Texas schools that elect to administer a student fee (UT-Austin does not, no surprise, but neither does SFA, somewhat surprising), UTA has the lowest on the state at an annual cost of $230. Number two among our peer group is UTEP at $396. UNT is double at $488. UTRGV, a start-up and WAC mate is $452.

There are other external factors you conveniently leave out. UTA's percentage of on-campus housing has increased three-fold since 1985, despite UTA's enrollment near doubling. While the U is still driven by off-campus students, there are more students on-campus by a long shot. And that's to say nothing of near campus housing, which has grown tremendously too.

As I'm somewhat of a stats nerd (not just extremely basic sports stats, but things more complicated and academic), I compared the top five attendance sports (baseball, softball, both basketballs and volleyball) and extrapolated a possible attendance position and number. Against Sun Belt competition, UTA would have been at the end of the top third and statistically could have average of 18,000. Now obviously, there are more factors at play and I haven't done it with WAC schools but every sport has seen their attendance increase by 100% or more. But because 1985 is permanent, you don't think football would have similar increases.

So no, I don't buy that bit that no one cared then (they did) and therefore no one will care now.

(03-25-2023 11:05 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 08:56 PM)RT98 Wrote:  

(03-23-2023 08:26 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  SFA is good at basketball and football. Sam is good at baseball and football. ACU is competitive in all three. UTRGV hasn’t been competitive in basketball overall and they started a team, which plays in a year and a half. Competitiveness in one sport has zero bearing on anything else.

The City of Houston has three pro sports teams ant the highest level, a couple of other lower tier pro sports leagues and several colleges, all sponsoring football. Crowded sports market is an excuse and nothing else. When our basketball was winning, we drew crowds. If you are going to say I can’t afford a UTA football game because I’m going to the Cowboys, you probably can’t afford the Cowboys either.

Speaking of basketball, there’s the NBA team down the road, three DI programs in the area, along with a handful of DII, DIII, NAIA and juco programs. We just can’t compete and should drop that sport too.

The only argument the anti-football crowd makes that has any reasoning is budget/cost. Anything else is an argument pulled out of thin air to try and back up a viewpoint, rather than the viewpoint formed by the available data.

The previous failure is a pretty convincing argument against. I remember that too well. I was a student there at the time and I went to most home games. When we heard they were dropping football we tried to get community support to keep it, we got no support at all. We have really improved academically and I believe we can improve in our other sports. We just don't need football.

You mean people don't support winning programs...? Shocker. Losing to a DII school to start the year was the final death knell. However, UTA averaged more in 1985 then a couple of WAC schools did this year (SUU, 4,805, Utah Tech 3,954). Six SLC schools averaged less. Should they drop it? The 1985 attendance number beat 61 schools in FCS, out of 130 this past year.

And community support was rallied, at least according to the Dallas Morning News' account from 1985. Several thousand met at Maverick Stadium and they raised $600,000 in a little over two weeks.

The 5,600 average in 1985 is brought up often when talking about lack of support. However, UTA averaged 2,000 more in 1984 (and should have been several thousand higher had the North Texas game not been played in a rainstorm).

Fun fact, UNT almost followed UTA's lead. Had one more regent on their Board voted no, they would have. Their attendance was mildly better and they had worse budget problems then UTA did at the time.

Speaking of budget problems, UTA is just in a far different place now than in 1985. There is no comparison, period. The funds were coming from an auxiliary piece of the pie with multiple competing departments. Stabbing in the back and competition was common. Now, however, the student fee more than covers the athletic budget. And it's just getting better as over the past decade and a half, external funds have increased to the point that the percentage of the total budget from the student fee has gone from 90% to 75%.

Another fun fact, of the Texas schools that elect to administer a student fee (UT-Austin does not, no surprise, but neither does SFA, somewhat surprising), UTA has the lowest on the state at an annual cost of $230. Number two among our peer group is UTEP at $396. UNT is double at $488. UTRGV, a start-up and WAC mate is $452.

There are other external factors you conveniently leave out. UTA's percentage of on-campus housing has increased three-fold since 1985, despite UTA's enrollment near doubling. While the U is still driven by off-campus students, there are more students on-campus by a long shot. And that's to say nothing of near campus housing, which has grown tremendously too.

As I'm somewhat of a stats nerd (not just extremely basic sports stats, but things more complicated and academic), I compared the top five attendance sports (baseball, softball, both basketballs and volleyball) and extrapolated a possible attendance position and number. Against Sun Belt competition, UTA would have been at the end of the top third and statistically could have average of 18,000. Now obviously, there are more factors at play and I haven't done it with WAC schools but every sport has seen their attendance increase by 100% or more. But because 1985 is permanent, you don't think football would have similar increases.

So no, I don't buy that bit that no one cared then (they did) and therefore no one will care now.

I was actually at that last rally at maverick stadium. It was not a large attendance by any means. The Dallas morning news got it wrong. If they want to do it then fine. I will probably even attend some games ( I live 1.5 miles from Maverick stadium ), but I would just prefer the money be spent on something other than a mediocre FCS team.

(03-26-2023 01:04 AM)RT98 Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 11:05 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 08:56 PM)RT98 Wrote:  

(03-23-2023 08:26 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  SFA is good at basketball and football. Sam is good at baseball and football. ACU is competitive in all three. UTRGV hasn’t been competitive in basketball overall and they started a team, which plays in a year and a half. Competitiveness in one sport has zero bearing on anything else.

The City of Houston has three pro sports teams ant the highest level, a couple of other lower tier pro sports leagues and several colleges, all sponsoring football. Crowded sports market is an excuse and nothing else. When our basketball was winning, we drew crowds. If you are going to say I can’t afford a UTA football game because I’m going to the Cowboys, you probably can’t afford the Cowboys either.

Speaking of basketball, there’s the NBA team down the road, three DI programs in the area, along with a handful of DII, DIII, NAIA and juco programs. We just can’t compete and should drop that sport too.

The only argument the anti-football crowd makes that has any reasoning is budget/cost. Anything else is an argument pulled out of thin air to try and back up a viewpoint, rather than the viewpoint formed by the available data.

The previous failure is a pretty convincing argument against. I remember that too well. I was a student there at the time and I went to most home games. When we heard they were dropping football we tried to get community support to keep it, we got no support at all. We have really improved academically and I believe we can improve in our other sports. We just don't need football.

You mean people don't support winning programs...? Shocker. Losing to a DII school to start the year was the final death knell. However, UTA averaged more in 1985 then a couple of WAC schools did this year (SUU, 4,805, Utah Tech 3,954). Six SLC schools averaged less. Should they drop it? The 1985 attendance number beat 61 schools in FCS, out of 130 this past year.

And community support was rallied, at least according to the Dallas Morning News' account from 1985. Several thousand met at Maverick Stadium and they raised $600,000 in a little over two weeks.

The 5,600 average in 1985 is brought up often when talking about lack of support. However, UTA averaged 2,000 more in 1984 (and should have been several thousand higher had the North Texas game not been played in a rainstorm).

Fun fact, UNT almost followed UTA's lead. Had one more regent on their Board voted no, they would have. Their attendance was mildly better and they had worse budget problems then UTA did at the time.

Speaking of budget problems, UTA is just in a far different place now than in 1985. There is no comparison, period. The funds were coming from an auxiliary piece of the pie with multiple competing departments. Stabbing in the back and competition was common. Now, however, the student fee more than covers the athletic budget. And it's just getting better as over the past decade and a half, external funds have increased to the point that the percentage of the total budget from the student fee has gone from 90% to 75%.

Another fun fact, of the Texas schools that elect to administer a student fee (UT-Austin does not, no surprise, but neither does SFA, somewhat surprising), UTA has the lowest on the state at an annual cost of $230. Number two among our peer group is UTEP at $396. UNT is double at $488. UTRGV, a start-up and WAC mate is $452.

There are other external factors you conveniently leave out. UTA's percentage of on-campus housing has increased three-fold since 1985, despite UTA's enrollment near doubling. While the U is still driven by off-campus students, there are more students on-campus by a long shot. And that's to say nothing of near campus housing, which has grown tremendously too.

As I'm somewhat of a stats nerd (not just extremely basic sports stats, but things more complicated and academic), I compared the top five attendance sports (baseball, softball, both basketballs and volleyball) and extrapolated a possible attendance position and number. Against Sun Belt competition, UTA would have been at the end of the top third and statistically could have average of 18,000. Now obviously, there are more factors at play and I haven't done it with WAC schools but every sport has seen their attendance increase by 100% or more. But because 1985 is permanent, you don't think football would have similar increases.

So no, I don't buy that bit that no one cared then (they did) and therefore no one will care now.

I was actually at that last rally at maverick stadium. It was not a large attendance by any means. The Dallas morning news got it wrong. If they want to do it then fine. I will probably even attend some games ( I live 1.5 miles from Maverick stadium ), but I would just prefer the money be spent on something other than a mediocre FCS team.

Go ahead and let it play out. If we succeed, you'll be welcome on the Band Wagon. If we fail, then you can have the pitiful satisfaction of saying, "I told you so." Being less than two miles from the stadium, you should get ample opportunities to see the process. As at UTSA, the team will go through several years of transition, including some time of relative mediocrity. But even so, I predict the community and the students will have an enjoyable time watching the program grow at UTA.

The idea that 1985 UTA is how it will always be…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K38xNqZvBJI

(03-24-2023 08:12 PM)wewererebels Wrote:  Interesting. We do see lots of foreign athletes in certain sports. UTA has no American tennis players, men or women. Soccer would be similar, I guess, since futbol is more popular in other countries. My grandson is perhaps the only American soccer player on his college team, and the coaches are all foreigners. I presume that if Oxford decided to sponsor American football, most of the coaches and players would be Americans. That's just how it is.

I actually played on the UTA men's club soccer team from 1999 - 2003 and ran it the last 3 years. We had guys from all over and did fairly well. We qualified for the state tournament my freshman year. We had guys from all over the world on the team and when we could actually get everyone together to practice we were pretty good, but it didn't happen often. SMU has D1 NCAA soccer on lock in the DFW area right now as they are the only D1 program in the area.

UTA just doesn’t seem to really care about their basketball program. I only follow UVU sports so I can’t speak on UTA as a whole.

I spent the day on campus, talking with students about the sports referendum. By far, a majority of them expressed interest in and support for football plus the additional women's sports envisioned. It's a two day election, so we will be out there again tomorrow. I'm optimistic that the students will deliver a mandate, and I'm hopeful that the UTA administration will respond in a positive way, as the administration did at Rio Grande Valley. Mav Up!

I have no idea why you’d say that. We’re in the top half in basketball budget in the conference, have the best facilities and made two coaching changes because the overall results weren’t there. Now the first change was patently and obviously stupid, but programs that don’t care don’t make those changes.

When we were winning and/or competitive, attendance was climbing steadily.l, as it was in all sports. After the poor change, the program deviated from every other program and had more year over year declines. When you go from 20-win seasons to no winning season, attendance will fall.

(04-03-2023 09:21 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I have no idea why you’d say that. We’re in the top half in basketball budget in the conference, have the best facilities and made two coaching changes because the overall results weren’t there. Now the first change was patently and obviously stupid, but programs that don’t care don’t make those changes.

When we were winning and/or competitive, attendance was climbing steadily.l, as it was in all sports. After the poor change, the program deviated from every other program and had more year over year declines. When you go from 20-win seasons to no winning season, attendance will fall.

Their attendance has been mediocre. UVU, Sam Houston, SUU, Grand Canyon, Tarleton, Cal Baptist, Abilene Christian, NMSU all with more fan support.

The WAC is stronger than the Sun Belt, but disgress.

I just said it was. In 2016, 2017 and 2018, only GCU, NMSU and CBU would have beaten UTA.

I didn’t think that point was hard to understand from what I wrote….

(04-03-2023 10:38 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I just said it was. In 2016, 2017 and 2018, only GCU, NMSU and CBU would have beaten UTA.

I didn’t think that point was hard to understand from what I wrote….

I don’t know why you need to be snarky about your point.

The Utah schools I know for sure care about their college basketball a lot more than at least a couple of the Texas schools.

I wasn’t snarky, I was wondering why you we arguing with me by saying the same thing I just said.

UTA drew 5,390 for a second round NIT game and 6,336 for the quarterfinal game. UVU drew 5,289 for its quarterfinal game at home. Prior to the start of conference play, UTA averaged 1,662 while UVU averaged 1,488, SUU averaged 1,396 and Utah Tech averaged 1,034.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-962314.html

I haven’t done the whole season yet, but curiously enough, three Texas teams ranked ahead of every Utah school and every Texas school was ahead of at least one Utah school. The best Utah over Texas disparity was 265 fans, hardly a dominant “cares a lot more about basketball” ledger.

Utah Valley had a great season and fans grew as the season went on. Enjoy it for what it was. We still look back fondly on our run, but don’t turn into an elitist over one season. You’ll fall back to a baseline soon enough. Hopefully your coaching change doesn’t bomb like ours did after our run.

(04-04-2023 09:52 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I wasn’t snarky, I was wondering why you we arguing with me by saying the same thing I just said.

UTA drew 5,390 for a second round NIT game and 6,336 for the quarterfinal game. UVU drew 5,289 for its quarterfinal game at home. Prior to the start of conference play, UTA averaged 1,662 while UVU averaged 1,488, SUU averaged 1,396 and Utah Tech averaged 1,034.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-962314.html

I haven’t done the whole season yet, but curiously enough, three Texas teams ranked ahead of every Utah school and every Texas school was ahead of at least one Utah school. The best Utah over Texas disparity was 265 fans, hardly a dominant “cares a lot more about basketball” ledger.

Utah Valley had a great season and fans grew as the season went on. Enjoy it for what it was. We still look back fondly on our run, but don’t turn into an elitist over one season. You’ll fall back to a baseline soon enough. Hopefully your coaching change doesn’t bomb like ours did after our run.

Fair. I think UTA has helped save the WAC. I think UTA and UVU are fairly comparable. The commuter school apathy is a little bit true for both schools, JMO.

UTA helped saved the WAC?

(04-04-2023 12:28 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 09:52 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I wasn’t snarky, I was wondering why you we arguing with me by saying the same thing I just said.

UTA drew 5,390 for a second round NIT game and 6,336 for the quarterfinal game. UVU drew 5,289 for its quarterfinal game at home. Prior to the start of conference play, UTA averaged 1,662 while UVU averaged 1,488, SUU averaged 1,396 and Utah Tech averaged 1,034.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-962314.html

I haven’t done the whole season yet, but curiously enough, three Texas teams ranked ahead of every Utah school and every Texas school was ahead of at least one Utah school. The best Utah over Texas disparity was 265 fans, hardly a dominant “cares a lot more about basketball” ledger.

Utah Valley had a great season and fans grew as the season went on. Enjoy it for what it was. We still look back fondly on our run, but don’t turn into an elitist over one season. You’ll fall back to a baseline soon enough. Hopefully your coaching change doesn’t bomb like ours did after our run.

Fair. I think UTA has helped save the WAC. I think UTA and UVU are fairly comparable. The commuter school apathy is a little bit true for both schools, JMO.

UTA did what now?

(04-04-2023 02:08 PM)gleadley Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 12:28 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 09:52 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I wasn’t snarky, I was wondering why you we arguing with me by saying the same thing I just said.

UTA drew 5,390 for a second round NIT game and 6,336 for the quarterfinal game. UVU drew 5,289 for its quarterfinal game at home. Prior to the start of conference play, UTA averaged 1,662 while UVU averaged 1,488, SUU averaged 1,396 and Utah Tech averaged 1,034.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-962314.html

I haven’t done the whole season yet, but curiously enough, three Texas teams ranked ahead of every Utah school and every Texas school was ahead of at least one Utah school. The best Utah over Texas disparity was 265 fans, hardly a dominant “cares a lot more about basketball” ledger.

Utah Valley had a great season and fans grew as the season went on. Enjoy it for what it was. We still look back fondly on our run, but don’t turn into an elitist over one season. You’ll fall back to a baseline soon enough. Hopefully your coaching change doesn’t bomb like ours did after our run.

Fair. I think UTA has helped save the WAC. I think UTA and UVU are fairly comparable. The commuter school apathy is a little bit true for both schools, JMO

UTA did what now?

Ugh

UTA has stabilized membership. Save may be a bit much, but the WAC isn’t in a spot to reject membership. The conference had a great year in basketball. It remains to be seen what the transfer portal will do to next year. Having members helps.

As for commuter school apathy, it is what it is. Every school has challenges. Knowing what they are and working to correct them is something every school has to work towards.

I don’t know how to embed tweets, but this is from a campus newspaper reporter’s Twitter:

“Breaking: at UTA’s student government elections today, students voted 1,004-625 to approve a non-binding referendum to increase student fees to partially fund a football team. UTA has not had a football team since 1985.“

(04-04-2023 07:32 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I don’t know how to embed tweets, but this is from a campus newspaper reporter’s Twitter:

“Breaking: at UTA’s student government elections today, students voted 1,004-625 to approve a non-binding referendum to increase student fees to partially fund a football team. UTA has not had a football team since 1985.“

Congrats! Too bad this didn't happen when yall were in the Sun Belt