Remove this ad
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 988 Member Since: 07/27/11

Maverick

Lead

Jun 11 12 2:05 PM

Tags : :

I just finished my spreadsheet on UTA athletics. It is pretty all encompassing. For individual team sports, football, volleyball, M&W basketball, baseball and softball (Duck, I couldn't find tennis), it has our records versus every team we have ever played. At the end is our finish within the Southland conference.

As I was entering everything, I noticed a trend. We were the Nicholls of the conference before football and didn't become the commish cup contenders we are until after. Here's what I mean:

While we fielded a team, all of our sports played 170 seasons in the SLC. We won 9 conference championships, runner-ups 28 times and third placers 30. We were last 44 times, second to last 37 and third to last 13 (I only counted this if there were 6 or more conference teams).

After football, we played a total of 354 seasons. We have won 75 championships, 68 runners-up, and 66 third placers. We have been last only 9 times, second to last 14 and third to last 12 times.

Now there might be a couple of explanations for this. Our women's sports have always been strong, and they only played at most four seasons before we dropped football (volleyball won 4 1sts of the total 9).

But even sports we consistently do well in today, track and field, tennis and golf, we were bottom tier of the conference.

Also, the level of competition may have dropped, elevating our standings. Nicholls, SELa, C Ark and Sam have all been near the bottom in many-to-most sports. Losing a ULa-La for a TA&M-CC isn't an equal trade in most sports.

I wonder how much of the improvement has to do with what I call UNT syndrome, trying to put as much money into football as possible, even if other programs struggle.

Thoughts?
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 988 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#1 [url]

Jun 11 12 5:16 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

All-time in football, we have winning records against 21 teams, losing records against 21 teams and are tied with 5.

Volleyball is 126, 58 and 17.

Men's basketball is 57, 101 and 23.

Women's basketball is 72, 75 and 16.

Baseball is 85 39 and 11.

Softball is 92, 54 and 18 all-time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

UTArlingtonMaverick

Posts: 197 Member Since:08/09/11 Grad Student

#2 [url]

Jun 11 12 9:31 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

Our non-football sports were underfunded while we had football. That's a fact.

When football went away, otherwise for better or worse, the university was able to more fully-funded the other sports. That's a fact.

More money meant better results in the non-football sports.

If football is ever added, it will need to be done without bleeding the other sports dry, as was previously the case.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 626 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#3 [url]

Jun 16 12 3:36 PM

Re: "That's a Fact"

UTArlingtonMaverick wrote:
Our non-football sports were underfunded while we had football. That's a fact.
When football went away, otherwise for better or worse, the university was able to more fully-funded the other sports. That's a fact.
More money meant better results in the non-football sports.
If football is ever added, it will need to be done without bleeding the other sports dry, as was previously the case.


I'm sorry not to have responded sooner, but I wanted to clear up some potentially erroneous assumptions. First some background:

Arlington State College was a large junior college in the early 50's. Their athletic teams included football, basketball, track & field, tennis and golf, that I know of. Later on, we got swimming, baseball, and at times had bowling, rifle, pistol and fencing. Any money to pay for those programs came from football tickets sold or institutional funds. C.R. "Cheena" Gilstrap built a very competitive football program that began to win championships, culminating in the national JC championships in 1956 and 1957, when they won back-to-back Junior Rose Bowls. This athletic success served to put ASC and the ASC Rebels on the map, which in turn helped make it possible for Arlington and ASC leaders to successfully mount a campaign for 4-year status. Far from bleeding the other sports dry, football made Arlington athletics possible, and arguably helped pave the way for our current status as a 4-year university.

Despite Gilstrap's success, ASC/UTA never had enough institutional, external or ticket revenue funding to really prosper in all the sports that the college sponsored, and remember: these were only men's sports. The one major institutional source of funding that helped keep programs afloat into the late 60s and early 70s was the Student Activity Fee.

This became controversial and some campus organizations politically maneuvered to take the SAF money out of athletics. At the same time, UTA found itself embroiled in a nasty mascot controversy, anti-war protests and the introduction of women's athletic programs. So during that "perfect storm" of controversy, budget cuts and a (post-Gilstrap) losing football, the money "pie" got smaller and the demands greater. To stay at the Division 1 level, the school had to offer a minimum number of sports, which may explain why we had rifle, pistol, fencing and bowling.

We probably had barely enough funding to keep football and the other sports going on a shoestring, but I think that was typical in the SLC. Our huge disadvantage was inadequate facilities. But by 1981 we had a decent football stadium and we were putting competitive teams on the field. Far from bleeding the other sports dry, football showed some promise to rebuild the following that UTA had previously enjoyed. Right or wrong, President Nedderman decided to pull the plug on the football program after the 1985 season. Some of our most ardent supporters left and have never returned. 3/4 of the Maverick Club members refused to renew their memberships.

The decision to kill football was based on the assumption that it would never get better and that it was losing money. Killing football and swimming were regrettable decisions that have been a continuing source of embarrassment to the university, but as you have implied, it did result in more funding for the surviving athletic programs.

I just want to hammer home my point that football did not "bleed" the other sports at UTA. There would not have been those other sports programs if football had not first been successful. As for the more fully-funded nature of the other sports after football, you need to give credit to President Witt, Pete Carlon and the students who voted to set up the student athletics fee about ten years ago. If that referendum had failed, UTA may have been forced to drop to Division II or III.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 988 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#4 [url]

Jun 17 12 11:08 AM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

Duck wrote:
I'm sorry not to have responded sooner, but I wanted to clear up some potentially erroneous assumptions.


Thanks for responding Duck, I always value your opinion, even when we disagree. Allow me to do the same and clear up what I feel are some assumptions, as some of the research I have done recently contradicts your statement.

[quote]Arlington State College was a large junior college in the early 50's. Their athletic teams included football, basketball, track & field, tennis and golf, that I know of. Later on, we got swimming, baseball, and at times had bowling, rifle, pistol and fencing. Any money to pay for those programs came from football tickets sold or institutional funds. C.R. "Cheena" Gilstrap built a very competitive football program that began to win championships, culminating in the national JC championships in 1956 and 1957, when they won back-to-back Junior Rose Bowls. This athletic success served to put ASC and the ASC Rebels on the map, which in turn helped make it possible for Arlington and ASC leaders to successfully mount a campaign for 4-year status. Far from bleeding the other sports dry, football made Arlington athletics possible, and arguably helped pave the way for our current status as a 4-year university.

I think you are giving football way to much credit. Academics and athletics are not connected. I believe you give way too much credit for football being the reason we are a four year university. Many Universities make that jump irrespective of their athletic programs.

Also, times have changed. I can't speak specifically about the era you mention, but today, football is rarely a money maker. Two years ago, only 20 teams of the 250 or so D1 schools made a profit. Now that includes direct expenses and revenue. However, I have to wonder about ancillary benefits claims, like increased exposure. North Texas didn't drop their program like we did. However, we have seen similar enrollment growth and have similar national academic profiles. That raises doubts in my mind about claims of indirect benefits of football.

[quote]Despite Gilstrap's success, ASC/UTA never had enough institutional, external or ticket revenue funding to really prosper in all the sports that the college sponsored, and remember: these were only men's sports. The one major institutional source of funding that helped keep programs afloat into the late 60s and early 70s was the Student Activity Fee.

This became controversial and some campus organizations politically maneuvered to take the SAF money out of athletics. At the same time, UTA found itself embroiled in a nasty mascot controversy, anti-war protests and the introduction of women's athletic programs. So during that "perfect storm" of controversy, budget cuts and a (post-Gilstrap) losing football, the money "pie" got smaller and the demands greater. To stay at the Division 1 level, the school had to offer a minimum number of sports, which may explain why we had rifle, pistol, fencing and bowling.

This wasn't uncommon across the country. ACU and Trinity, both founders of the SLC faced similar circumstances and made different choices. Other schools may have made choices that UTA would end up making.

This was the period where the have's and have-nots as we know them today sorted themselves out. The Ivy League used to be a national contended in all sports. After this time period, they are now content with competition amongst themselves, for example.

[quote]We probably had barely enough funding to keep football and the other sports going on a shoestring, but I think that was typical in the SLC.

I'm not sure I agree based on the results of the SLC in the late '60's, '70's and early '80's.

In football, the SLC champ finished undefeated three times and had one loss six times. They were 2-5 in bowl games and had McNeese made a field goal in 1980, it would have been three.

Lamar and La Tech made sweet sixteen runs in the '80's. La Tech won a woman's national championship in 1982 (and again in 1988). Monroe made a Final Four appearance in 1985.

Arkansas St had several track and field individual national champions.

In the '60's, Arkansas St made a College World Series run and in the '70's. Lamar amd La Tech won several tournament games in the '70's.

[quote]Our huge disadvantage was inadequate facilities.

Maybe, but for their era, they weren't bad. The facilities arms race really didn't begin until the '90's. Texas Hall was always a bit of a struggle, but it wasn't a liability for quite a while. In the SLC, UTA was a pretty good place to play.

[quote]But by 1981 we had a decent football stadium and we were putting competitive teams on the field.

In 1980, we were 3-8 overall and 3-2 in the SLC. In 1981, 6-5, 4-1. 1982 was 3-8, 1-4. In 1983, 5-6 and 2-4. In 1984, we were 7-4 and 4-2. Our last year was 4-6-1 overall and 2-3-1 in conference. Two winning seasons in six years isn't that competitive. In conference, only three of those six years had winning records.

Maybe 1986 would have been different, but we will never know and any conversation would just be speculative.

[quote]Far from bleeding the other sports dry, football showed some promise to rebuild the following that UTA had previously enjoyed.

Maybe, but using just the portion of the '80's with an intact football program, the rest of the athletic programs doesn't back this claim up. This period had seven teams in the SLC. Volleyball finished first or tied for first all four times.

Men's basketball had a second, third, a sixth and three last place 7th finishes. Women's basketball was 2, 4, 4 and 5.

Baseball was 3/6, 5/6, t2/6, 2/7, 4/7 and 2/7, the best mens program. Softball had three seconds and a tie for first.

Men's tennis had two 5's, two 6's and two 7's. Women's had to 6's and two 7's.

Golf had one finish in the top half and two last place finishes.

Combining men's and women's cross country and both indoor and outdoor track and field (), they only had 8 top half finishes in 15 seasons.

The only clear defined period where we saw a distinct rise athletic performance was post football. Again, part of that may be due to women's programs just coming into the fold (our women's teams have always been competitive). Some may be due to the fact that we traded Arkansas St, La Tech Louisiana-Laffayette and Lamar (for 11 years) and traded them in for teams from D-II. But, to me, the numbers clearly state, with football, we were a sub-par, losing athletic profile. After football, we are a competitive mid-major in most sports.

[quote]Right or wrong, President Nedderman decided to pull the plug on the football program after the 1985 season. Some of our most ardent supporters left and have never returned. 3/4 of the Maverick Club members refused to renew their memberships.

I find that sad. I support my alma mater, regardless of what they offer. If they dropped baseball, I would be highly upset, as I feel that is our most competitve team sport nationally. But I would still support the rest of the programs.

The adding of orange to the uni's has made me unhappy, but UTA is still my team.

[quote]The decision to kill football was based on the assumption that it would never get better and that it was losing money. Killing football and swimming were regrettable decisions that have been a continuing source of embarrassment to the university, but as you have implied, it did result in more funding for the surviving athletic programs.

Why is it an embarassment? I don't think Butler, Wichita St, Marquette, Gonzaga, etc. are embarassed over dropped football programs.

[quote]I just want to hammer home my point that football did not "bleed" the other sports at UTA.

I think the numbers would disagree. In 22 seasons with football, there were a total of 9 conference champions, only six outside of football (two if volleyball's four a discounted). In the first year after disbanding the football program, there were two. By the completion fourth year after football, we already had ten total conference champions.

[quotes]There would not have been those other sports programs if football had not first been successful.

Is there anything that can back this claim up or is it speculation from that time period? I wonder about this claim because collegiate athletic programs are fairly ubiquitous, even on down to the junior college level. I have a hard time with the claim that we would not have an athletic program if football didn't win, when DCCCD teams (they are non-scholarship JuCo) have basketball, baseball, soccer and volleyball programs.

I think a better claim would be we wouldn't be where we are now, not we wouldn't have an athletic program.

[quote]As for the more fully-funded nature of the other sports after football, you need to give credit to President Witt, Pete Carlon and the students who voted to set up the student athletics fee about ten years ago. If that referendum had failed, UTA may have been forced to drop to Division II or III.

I don't disagree that Witt and Carlon deserve credit for establishing the athletics fee. However, Witt didn't start at UTA until 1995. By that time, we had already achieved 26 conference championships in seven different sports. That ship had already been righted and funded before Witt. I don't want to discount what Witt did, becuase it was huge being able to give a steady stream of dedicated revenue, independent of the general fund to the athletics program.

Without running an complete statistical analysis, it seems to me the only variable that is consistent with our improving athletic conference performance is football was disbanded.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

grumpdogg

Senior

Posts: 110 Member Since:03/02/11 Junior

#6 [url]

Jun 21 12 9:40 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

I think what Duck calls an embarrassment is the strange looks we get when people out of the area find out we don't have football. Here in Texas, where football is king, a school with 30,000+ students don't have a football team.

And as far as athletics improving academics, you are technically correct, but it can help. TCU is the perfect example. Just 10 years ago TCU was not regarded that high academically, but when they started getting the national exposure in football their enrollment surged. With that came more tuition money and more people started donating. The exposure alone did more for them than anything else they could have done.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

UTArlingtonMaverick

Posts: 197 Member Since:08/09/11 Grad Student

#7 [url]

Jun 22 12 5:18 AM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

TCU pays their head coach something like $3 million a year. I think their baseball coach gets about half a million! When they wanted to re-build their stadium, they RAISED something like $95 MILLION in DONATIONS!!! I doff my hat to TCU. I am not saying you did this, but it would be wildly unrealistic for someone to compare our athletic situation to theirs.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 988 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#8 [url]

Jun 22 12 11:54 AM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

grumpdogg wrote:
I think what Duck calls an embarrassment is the strange looks we get when people out of the area find out we don't have football. Here in Texas, where football is king, a school with 30,000+ students don't have a football team.


I'm sorry, but I sure get tired of the we are in Texas line. So what? Lots of people in Texas like baseball or basketball too and don't like football. Attendance for college football in Texas is no outlier, meaning other states attend the games at the same rate as here.

Texas isn't even the leader in national championships at the D1 level. That would be Alabama, followed by Florida, California, Indiana and Oklahoma. 15 non-Texas schools have won more championships than our number 1 school. Another 7 are tied with them. So football isn't number one for winning.

Like every other sport, if you win, people come, if you don't then attendance falls.

[quote]And as far as athletics improving academics, you are technically correct, but it can help. TCU is the perfect example. Just 10 years ago TCU was not regarded that high academically, but when they started getting the national exposure in football their enrollment surged. With that came more tuition money and more people started donating. The exposure alone did more for them than anything else they could have done.

I think this is just conjecture. First, TCU has always had a good academic reputation. Most private schools do. Second, every academic study has shown, from your point of view, no relation at best and some institutions a decline. I don't think UTA has to worry about this, since much of their funding comes from a dedicated fee.

Sorry, but I am about to go on a soapbox.

I am just really getting frustrated with the UTA community. Both conference moves led to the football question, not how the current sports were going to compete, how would the current programs be affected, where the funds were going to come from to pay for the increased travel, or how past, present and future rivalries might be affected.

I'm frustated because baseball just had one of their best years in the program's history, played in a regional less than 100 miles away and no one seemed to notice. Men's and women's tennis were near the top of the SLC...again, golf recieved an at-large bid to the NCAA tourney...again and both our indoor track teams were second in the SLC. We had a couple of down years in normally strong sports that went unnoticed, minus volleyball on this board. If it weren't for the Men's basketball team and CPC, I wonder how much exposure, even amongst our own community, we would have gotten. I guarantee you at places like Texas, A&M or Baylor, they know what their other sports are doing, even as they place football in high regard. Texas competes on a national level in everything, as does A&M. Baylor's sports programs have improved, while the ones that were competitive have stayed that way. That's what I want to strive for, yet all I seem to see is football or nothing.

I know I am a stats nerd, but even on this board, I have posted stuff that gets no response, unless it is football or basketball.

If we get football, great. If we don't, I am going to continue to support UTA's current programs. My two-year-old son had such a wonderful experience at the regional baseball game against DBU that I plan to take him to at least one game of every team sport this upcoming year. My bond for UTA is not dependent upon one sport program.

Some of my frustration is also being reflected on how that one sport is driving everything. At least in the last round of realignment, moves were made with at least one other sport in mind. Now every move is based on football.

Rambling rant over.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 988 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#9 [url]

Jun 22 12 12:02 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

Apparently I am not the only one that is frustrated that all the conference moves are for one sport.

From Georgia State's head coach, who will be joining us as new SBC members after this upcoming sports year. They are barred from playing in the Colonial Athletic Association's bastetball tourney.

[quote]"I told them we're an independent," Hunter said. "That's what we are now. It's no fault of theirs. We made a move for football. And we're paying the consequences. The bad part is that this is the only league in the country where this is happening. From this point forward, we're an independent basketball team."

When I was at the baseball regional, an olympic sport coach at UTA expressed similar concerns while we watched the baseball team.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 626 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#10 [url]

Jun 22 12 1:51 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

[quote]Sorry, but I am about to go on a soapbox.You don't say!

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

GiantBenMav

Alumni

Posts: 334 Member Since:03/01/11 Alumni

#11 [url]

Jun 23 12 2:33 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

I do believe the redistribution of funds after football helped, but really the key was the implementation of the student fee ... if that was done before football was killed, who knows what would of happened ...

I think all of the members here love UTA Athletics, regardless of football ... or else there would be no reason for us to be here ...

I also believe that UTA is better with football, and happily await its return ... but to be honest I am glad that the "existing" sports are being taken care of first ... it is the right thing to do ...

Buddy Christ Says: Go Mavs !!!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GiantBenMav

Alumni

Posts: 334 Member Since:03/01/11 Alumni

#12 [url]

Jun 23 12 2:33 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

I do believe the redistribution of funds after football helped, but really the key was the implementation of the student fee ... if that was done before football was killed, who knows what would of happened ...

I think all of the members here love UTA Athletics, regardless of football ... or else there would be no reason for us to be here ...

I also believe that UTA is better with football, and happily await its return ... but to be honest I am glad that the "existing" sports are being taken care of first ... it is the right thing to do ...

Buddy Christ Says: Go Mavs !!!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 988 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#13 [url]

Jun 24 12 8:59 AM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

GiantBenMav wrote:
I do believe the redistribution of funds after football helped, but really the key was the implementation of the student fee ...


The student fee was passed in the laste '90's. UTA athletics was already on the rebound by that time. The only variable that correlates with the improvement of the program is that football was dropped.

In fact, the overall program has slipped more after the fee was passed than before.

[quote]if that was done before football was killed, who knows what would of happened ...

This is a question of conjecture beliefs. The answer will be what the views of the person are.

[quote]I also believe that UTA is better with football, and happily await its return ... but to be honest I am glad that the "existing" sports are being taken care of first ... it is the right thing to do ...

What does better mean to you?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GiantBenMav

Alumni

Posts: 334 Member Since:03/01/11 Alumni

#14 [url]

Jun 24 12 9:21 AM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

Most people believe that having football enriches the college experience ... I am in that group, sort of, because just having football does not make college better ... having a solid program alone does not make it better, but having good fans (Students / alumni) and an engaging program make it better, but truthfully the same can be said about any truly successful sport ...

I imagine Rice is pretty happy with their baseball program, even though their football / basketball teams languish in mediocrity, same could be said for Gonzaga with basketball ...

A marquee athletic program enriches the college experience ... and in my opinion since UTA does not have one of those yet, people think football will fill that void ... which it wont if the program stinks ... and too be honest it is more likely we will have a poor program than a great one ...

And the administration is doing the right thing in giving the other programs the resources to make that happen before football is even discussed ....

But with that said, I would LOVE to see football back on campus ... but until that time, and after, I will probably be a basketball fan first ...

Buddy Christ Says: Go Mavs !!!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 626 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#15 [url]

Jun 24 12 2:32 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

[quote]The student fee was passed in the laste '90's. UTA athletics was already on the rebound by that time. The only variable that correlates with the improvement of the program is that football was dropped.

All the fee did was maintain. It did not increase funding, but merely allowed it to continue at the former level. It was in response to an ultimatum from Dr. Witt, who did not want athletics to monopolize his discretionary funding. He announced that without a fee or other external source of athletic funding, UTA would have to look at dropping down to D-2 or D-3.

Maybe this was before your time. Ask Pete about it.

[quote]In fact, the overall program has slipped more after the fee was passed than before.
Your second point is true. One of the arguments the student leaders made in 2004 for the referendum was that overall funding was going to hit a ceiling if it relied solely on student fees, and that the existing sports could not generate enough student and community enthusiasm to cause external giving to grow. It appears their predictions proved true, or perhaps there is some other explanation of why our overall funding has not kept pace with our competition.

Looking forward, I wonder if other factors like College Park Center, gas revenues and large enrollment growth will improve UTA's prospects for the coming years.

I really look forward to a time in which more than half a dozen of us give a rip about UTA athletics. We do not have even 1/25th the participation I see on the UNT, SMU or TCU forums. And there's only one thing I can think of that would change that.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 988 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#16 [url]

Jun 26 12 1:18 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

Duck wrote:
[quote]The student fee was passed in the laste '90's. UTA athletics was already on the rebound by that time. The only variable that correlates with the improvement of the program is that football was dropped.

All the fee did was maintain. It did not increase funding, but merely allowed it to continue at the former level. It was in response to an ultimatum from Dr. Witt, who did not want athletics to monopolize his discretionary funding. He announced that without a fee or other external source of athletic funding, UTA would have to look at dropping down to D-2 or D-3.

Maybe this was before your time. Ask Pete about it.

I didn't say it increased funding. From a pure performance standpoint, the '90's were our peak decade in terms of highest finishes. The 2000's have seen more marquee programs make postseason appearances, both basketball's, softball and 3 of 5 baseball appearances, but we haven't finished above fourth in the commissioner's cup since 2006-7. The last time we won it was a decade ago. Prior to that, we did 3 times in the five years. Had it been awarded before that, we would have won more.

And on top of that, we were playing with a handicap in three sports, that if we would have finished last in them, we would have added ten points. However, that same handicap existed then too and we still won and would have won.

I know the politics, and it wasn't before my time, but my point is simple and the standings bear this out. We were more successful as an entire athletic program on a per year basis before the fee than after. I am not advocating for or against it, just pointing out it is not the reason for our rise in competitiveness. The only variables that dos work the dropping of football, the replacement of superior conference opponents with lower quality ones and the addition of our women's programs, though in the '90's, our men's were just as strong.

[quote][quote]In fact, the overall program has slipped more after the fee was passed than before.
Your second point is true. One of the arguments the student leaders made in 2004 for the referendum was that overall funding was going to hit a ceiling if it relied solely on student fees, and that the existing sports could not generate enough student and community enthusiasm to cause external giving to grow. It appears their predictions proved true, or perhaps there is some other explanation of why our overall funding has not kept pace with our competition.

Looking forward, I wonder if other factors like College Park Center, gas revenues and large enrollment growth will improve UTA's prospects for the coming years.

I really look forward to a time in which more than half a dozen of us give a rip about UTA athletics. We do not have even 1/25th the participation I see on the UNT, SMU or TCU forums. And there's only one thing I can think of that would change that.

I would say winning solves all of that, which aside from baseball, our marquee programs have not consistently done and certainly not on a national level. I suspect that if the men were to reach the sweet sixteen a couple of times, you would see that. SFA's most attended sport in the '90's and early oughts was their women's basketball program, not football, because they won on a national level.

I would also say moving away from a commuter school will help. I am here because I developed a personal connection to the program. Commuters do not have that kind of attachment. They come in take class and leave. On-campus housing is a benefit, as is student amenities like the MAC. CPC should help that too, but not as much as winning. Prior to the CPC, the most attended men's basketball of the prior decade and a half was a tournament game. The second, was a tournament game. Meaningfull opponents will draw crowds.

Speaking of opponents, developing a strong rivalry will draw people and bring that attachment that you mention. We kinda had that with SFA, who was usually the opponent in the most attended basketball game.

I share a similar sentiment as Ben. If this a football team doesn't win, it is more of the same. You cite UNT, but when their team doesn't win, they have a hard time attracting a crowd. They blamed Fouts, but the same thing happened in their new stadium.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 626 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#17 [url]

Jun 26 12 2:36 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

Yes. Everything works better when you win. Even Nicholls State thrives when they have winners.

One confusing thing about our history in football and basketball was the number of years the school tolerated mediocrity. We suffered it seemed like forever with Bud Elliott as football coach, when he was winning 3, 4 or 5 games a season. He would seem to be getting to the end of his rope, then the team would go 9-2 and he would get extended.

If this all happened before you got interested in UTA, just imagine Eddie McCarter as a football coach. Some of the same excuses were heard, like inadequate funding and facilities. While there was some truth in the excuses or reasons if you will, nevertheless, when Elliott and later McCarter were replaced, the team records improved.

I do not like the color orange and have never loved UT, but they have one thing right. They never settle for second best. In a similar way, UTA should never settle for less than excellent results. If it means changing coaches more often, so be it.

Back to my original thought, UTA's reluctance to fire underachieving coaches has held us back in the past.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 988 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#18 [url]

Jun 26 12 7:06 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

I won't argue, and I wasn't around for Elliott, but I do know what I have seen from the record books. I do wonder about the budget. Bobby Knight would have a hard time winning with limited funds.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 626 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#19 [url]

Jun 27 12 6:00 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

FoUTASportscaster wrote:
I won't argue, and I wasn't around for Elliott, but I do know what I have seen from the record books. I do wonder about the budget. Bobby Knight would have a hard time winning with limited funds.

Okay. I won't argue either. Maybe Bud Elliott did the best possible under the circumstances. He was certainly very popular in the community and had a couple of big wins along the way.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 988 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#20 [url]

Jun 27 12 8:41 PM

Re: UTA's time in the SLC & pre vs. post football

UTA had two types of football seasons every year in the '70's. Poor non-conference, mediocre conference. They rarely finished below third, but they also rarely finished above third. Maybe it was the fact that he competed in the SLC somewhat that kept him around.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help