Remove this ad
avatar

utastud34

Posts: 25 Member Since: 10/14/12

Sophomore

Lead

Jan 22 13 11:45 AM

Tags : :

I know some insider details to UTA football. Brand new stuff.
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#1 [url]

Jan 22 13 8:27 PM

Re: New UTA Football information

[quote]I know some insider details to UTA football. Brand new stuff.
Please help me get over my skepticism: Tell us something newsworthy.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#2 [url]

Jan 22 13 10:12 PM

Re: New UTA Football information

Call me skeptical too. This is the same guy that said everybody knew who he was in the baseball stands and no one knew anything.

I just get a mental image of a seven-year old sitting at the keyboard sneaking behind the parents back to type funny messages when I read his posts.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

utastud34

Posts: 25 Member Since:10/14/12 Sophomore

#3 [url]

Jan 23 13 2:03 AM

Re: New UTA Football information

My friend works in a certain office, not an 8$ and hour student, a salaried member of UTA, by the way. He sat in on a conference call with Baker and others who discussed what will the first thing on the docket for when the new president comes in to office. It's football.
I don't know how many donors there are, neither did they disclose that, but every donor has a million bucks each and is willing to front the cost of the roughly 17 million it will cost to front UTA football.

That is, if they stop building 90,000 blaze statues on campus.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#4 [url]

Jan 23 13 12:16 PM

Re: New UTA Football information

While I think most people on the board would like to believe you, there are a few holes that seem to be glaringly big in your story.

This will be the new president's call plain and simple. Without knowing who that will be, Baker an Co. are in a wait and see approach.

The 17 million you cited was the minimum cited in the Nienas report at the beginning of the decade. There are two problems with that. The first is inflation. The $17 million it would cost in 2003 dollars would cost $21.2 million today. Second, the report then was for UTA to sport a 1-AA program. With the move to the WAC and then the SBC, and some of the moves the have made otherwise, suggest a desire for 1-A. That ups the ante right there.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

utastud34

Posts: 25 Member Since:10/14/12 Sophomore

#5 [url]

Jan 25 13 8:05 AM

Re: New UTA Football information

You guys can be skeptical and that one guy can trash me, but that's what the board is pushing first to the new president. You don't think they're trying to get an athletics-minded president? My facts are facts. Plus, I was throwing the 17 million out, my concern for the move to I-A nor the change in inflation wasn't a big deal. I'll wait for the new report.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#6 [url]

Jan 25 13 3:18 PM

Re: New UTA Football information

[quote]You guys can be skeptical and that one guy can trash me, but that's what the board is pushing first to the new president. You don't think they're trying to get an athletics-minded president? My facts are facts. Plus, I was throwing the 17 million out, my concern for the move to I-A nor the change in inflation wasn't a big deal. I'll wait for the new report.
Stude (I prefer to think of you as a student, rather than as a male horse in heat), I apologize if some of us come across as being too negative. There is a fine line between skepticism and cynicism, and sometimes I know I have landed on the wrong side of that line.

Also, be aware that some of us have been waiting and hoping for the return of UTA football since Nedderman dropped the bomb back in 1985. We have had sporadic and periodic attempts by student leaders, ex-lettermen, Arlington community leaders and even professors and school officials to bring this about, but we have been repeatedly bitterly disappointed.

Undoubtedly, the most serious bid for football was led by Student Congress President Josh Warren in 2004. Not only did he get the referendum (an event that got greater participation by students than any other one day vote held in the history of UTA), but he led a movement that was serious enough that Spaniolo could not ignore it, and the President agreed to commission the Neinas Study. http://www.uta.edu/sportsexpansion/.

According to the study, a major component of start-up expenses for athletics expansion involved construction or upgrading of facilities. The construction of College Park Center and the extensive improvements of the Clay Gould Baseball Stadium facilities have to some degree satisfied facilities requirements, as well as freeing up space at Maverick Stadium that was formerly occupied by the Athletics Department staff offices.

From the executive summary of the Neinas report, I see that $17 million was at the upper range of expenses, and these were not startup expenses, but a five year projection of cost.
[quote]In conclusion, the total cost for expanding the UTA athletic program to include football, women’s soccer and women’s golf for a five year period is estimated to range from $13,780,000 to $17,455,000, depending upon the type of facilities constructed to meet the needs of sports expansion and not including inflationary increases.
I don't want to make this post too long, but from reading the Neinas report, I come to the conclusion that money is not a huge challenge. Far from being an inflation-adjusted $17 million startup, it boils down to perhaps $1 or $2 million just to get the ball rolling. President Spaniolo has spent more on discretionary projects, such as building a faculty lounge or having the bleachers ripped out of Texas Hall. Here are some details. http://www.uta.edu/sportsexpansion/sports_expansion.pdf
[quote]The 17 million you cited was the minimum cited in the Nienas report at the beginning of the decade. There are two problems with that. The first is inflation. The $17 million it would cost in 2003 dollars would cost $21.2 million today. Second, the report then was for UTA to sport a 1-AA program. With the move to the WAC and then the SBC, and some of the moves the have made otherwise, suggest a desire for 1-A. That ups the ante right there.
Actually, $17 million was closer to the maximum cited in the Nienas report in 2005. Brother Fo is another dyed-in-the-wool Maverick who bleeds blue, yet sometimes he is a bit argumentative. It will indeed cost more to compete in FCS, but that increased expense will not really kick in until years 5 and 6. UTA's growth in enrollment has been over 8,000 since the Nienas report, almost 30%, which would tend to mitigate the effects of inflation. Another factor would be the potential increase of the proposed student fee from a paltry $2 per semester hour. I mean really - if UNT could get their students to approve a $10 per hour increase to pay for their new stadium, I think it would not be unreasonable to ask for $5 per hour at UTA.

All of which is to say I'm optimistic, if we can get the right new President. I hope your good news pans out.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#7 [url]

Jan 25 13 11:35 PM

Re: New UTA Football information

As per the Nienas report, you may want o go back and reread it a bit. The report was published in September 2004. The figures cited are in 2004 dollars.

That five year cost included needed and/or upgraded facilities. The range for football was 1.5 to 7.8 mil, for a 1-AA program. Soccer would need another half million.

So just in the Nienas report, for UTA to field a 1-AA program, there would need to be 2 million to 8.5 million. That almost exclusively has to come from donors.

As I said, it would appear that UTA, with a home in one 1-A conference after moving from another, would likely play at the higher level. That will require serious capacity upgrades to Maverick Stadium, primarily in capacity.

With that said, you have to hire a coach and partial staff right away, so the student fee doesn't apply there. That has to come from donors. Year one requires minimum $200,000.

You would also have to start out with all the needed equipment, which was pegged at $300,000.

Soccer's year one commits, coaches, equipment, would be about $100,000.

Women's golf would compete right away, meaning another $145,000 would have to come from donors.

So in the first year, when the athletics fee wouldn't have kicked in yet, there would need to be $2.7-$9.2 million, which is $3.3-$11.1 million inflation adjusted.

Throwing in the facilities and misc. added with year one costs, Nienas has the figure at $5 mil. (Why facilities are in year two is unknown, because bids and construction would need to begin before that to have everything ready for the start of the athletic year.)

But here's the kicker.

[quote]The unknown is UTA's ability to generate revenue, support and interest to finance the expansion of its intercollegiate athletic program.

Nienas cites that our annual budget would have to grow $2 mil plus facility improvement. The student fee would cover. $1.25 mil. After factoring in NCAA and conference revenue, Nienas said:

[quote]At a minimum, UTA needs to generate $500,000 from ticket sales, donations and sponsorships to augment student fees and NCAA distribution.

And that is the rub. Where does it come from? Unless Duck's $5 fee passes, it would have to come from donors.

Yes the U could fund some to all of this, but the risk is high. That's partially why a five-year window was used. If donors could raise that, then it is a done deal.

So this is a round about way of me saying, the minimum is far higher than you said Duck, but I would say there has to be at least five mil raised for it to work at a minimal level and closer to the five-year cost to make it a slam dunk.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#8 [url]

Jan 25 13 11:54 PM

Re: New UTA Football information

Well, if our seven-year old sitting at the keyboard sneaking behind the parents has any of his facts right about deep pocket donors waiting in the wings, we shouldn't have any problems.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

80sAlum

Alumni

Posts: 293 Member Since:03/17/11 Alumni

#9 [url]

Jan 26 13 1:16 PM

Re: New UTA Football information

I do have to say I like Baker's attempt to increase donations, has anyone else seen the "Are You Invested" brochure? An attempt to get additional Maverick Club members....heck for a paltry $15,000 you can have lunch with Coach Cross....find it hard to believe he wouldn't have lunch with you for just $10,000!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

GiantBenMav

Alumni

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

#10 [url]

Jan 26 13 9:50 PM

Re: New UTA Football information

yeah, they are fishing for donations ...

but I do fully expect that AD Baker is getting his ducks in a row for football, when your new boss asks you a question you better damn well have an answer ... whether or not he\she like the answer is a whole different story ...

Buddy Christ Says: Go Mavs !!!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#12 [url]

May 29 13 9:12 PM

Re: New UTA Football information

Hey '34, any more news since we got our new President? I set up a google alert on my computer to notify me immediately of anything on the internet pertaining to "UTA Football." You might be surprised how much Utah crap there is out there, or responses to stories about the track meet held at UTA's football stadium. Computers are so stupid....

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help