Remove this ad
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since: 07/27/11

Maverick

Lead

May 5 13 12:56 PM

Tags : :

While most UTA folks would support adding a soccer to go with football, I have a different view.

I'd like to UTA to add Women's Soccer, independent of any football decision for the following reasons:

1) UTA is increasingly becoming one of the few D1 schools to not offer the sport. There are 323 DI Women's Soccer programs as of this year. Comparatively, there are 347 Men's Basketball teams and 345 Women's Basketball programs. So UTA is one of only 24 DI teams without it, a percentage of 7 percent.

2) All of our conference mates have it. In the SLC, we were one of two who didn't sponsor it. Texas A&M-Corpus Christi has since announced they are adding it. The new members of the SLC will have it (New Orleans had announced the addition of soccer for moving to DII, so I am assuming they will have it), meaning every full member of the SLC will sponsor the sport. In the WAC we were the only school to not sponsor it and when we join the SBC, we will be the only school to not sponsor it. This leads to -

3) It would increase our Commissioners Cup standings. In the WAC, only Denver, with 9, didn't offer the most sports the conference offered. As it stands now, we (with 54 points) are 7th in the standings and sit 2.5 points behind San Jose St and 10.5 points behind Denver. I know we will catch and pass both of those with our strong spring sport showings, but we won't catch Idaho, Utah State or UTSA, who are all above 70 points right now. With Women's Soccer, we might. We are tied for fourth in average points per sport. As with the SLC, we will finish middle of the pack not because we field middle of the pack teams, but because we don't sponsor as many sports as those ahead of us.

4) It would help fill a void in the fall. I am glad our cross country team is nationally competitive, but it doesn't exactly generate student pride and activity like a spectator sport could. It would also give a University function to Maverick Stadium in the fall that doesn't exist right now.

5) The investment would be manageable. Using the Nienas Report as a guide, which is somewhat off because that was done as a package deal with both Women's Golf and Football, they wouldn't need a practice field, would need 5,000 sq ft for a locker room and other related-facilities and could be had for 1 million or less, adjusting for inflation. The program would cost less than $500,000 a year once it is up and running full, which is about 6-7% of our current budget.

6) Consider these numbers from schools in Division 1: Of the schools that sponsor football, 4 1-A schools don't have soccer and 11 1-AA don't. 92 teams sponsor Women's Soccer who don't football. This would give the admin a way to temper expectations about a future football team.
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

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

#1 [url]

May 8 13 11:09 AM

Re: My case for Women's Soccer

Also, UTA used to be among three schools that did not sponsor the sport in Texas. UTPA will offer the sport when the join the WAC and A&M-Corpus just built a new soccer stadium. We are now the only Texas school to not offer a women's soccer team.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

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

#2 [url]

May 9 13 10:08 AM

Re: My case for Women's Soccer

We are clearly lagging behind. But at least we are the only non-football school with a marching band!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

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

#3 [url]

May 12 13 8:07 PM

Re: My case for Women's Soccer

FoUTASportscaster wrote:
3) It would increase our Commissioners Cup standings. In the WAC, only Denver, with 9, didn't offer the most sports the conference offered. As it stands now, we (with 54 points) are 7th in the standings and sit 2.5 points behind San Jose St and 10.5 points behind Denver. I know we will catch and pass both of those with our strong spring sport showings, but we won't catch Idaho, Utah State or UTSA, who are all above 70 points right now. With Women's Soccer, we might. We are tied for fourth in average points per sport. As with the SLC, we will finish middle of the pack not because we field middle of the pack teams, but because we don't sponsor as many sports as those ahead of us.


Here's an example of this point. The latest WAC commish cup standings are out, with only one sport to go:
Idaho 86.5
Utah State 82
UTSA 81.5
New Mexico State 75.25
Texas State 71.75
UT Arlington 69.75
San Jose State 64.5
Denver 64.5
Louisiana Tech 56.25
Seattle U 43

Idaho and Utah St do not have baseball, so they are done. UTSA could conceivably win the cup, if current baseball standings hold. We sit sixth, two points behind TXST and 5.5 points behind NMSU. We cannot move up anymore than that. If the current standings were extrapolated out and the assumption that the postseason tournament mirrors the regular season standings, we wouldn't move up and finish .5 points behind TXST.

But if you do a per sport point total, the standings would look like this:
Denver 6.45
Idaho 5.41
UTA 5.37
Utah St 5.13
UTSA 5.09
New Mexico St 5.02
Texas St 4.78
San Jose 4.3
La Tech 4.01
Seattle 2.69

So UTSA isn't going to win the cup because they have the strongest overall athletic program, they are going to win it because they sponsor 17 of the 19 total sports and are average overall (compared with Seattle, who sponsors 17 of the overall sports and is terrible in most). If we added women's soccer, and had a similar point total, we would jump 2 spots. (We would win the thing if our football, women's golf and soccer teams scored the average, but that is a whole other story)

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

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

#4 [url]

Jun 12 13 12:28 PM

Re: My case for Women's Soccer

Interesting analysis. It is a good question whether a department that has 14 sports can somehow be considered stronger than one that fields 17 teams. I daresay that if we had all the same sports that UTSA has, it would be easier to make an "apples to apples" comparison. It would also be fun to compare each and all of the facilities that each school offers. In that case, I think we would stack up very well.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

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

#5 [url]

Jun 16 13 9:55 PM

Re: My case for Women's Soccer

Of the ones I have been to, I know CPC is far superior to the Convocation Center and Clay Gould is better than Roadrunner Field. Maverick Stadium is better than the UTSA Track & Field Complex.

I'm not sure about Roadrunner Field (the softball version), but looking at pictures seems to confirm it is on the level with everything else at UTSA. Once the renovations are done at Allan Saxe, then we should surpass that as well. Then there is the tennis, which also looks to be behind UTA's.

Essentially, UTSA still has SLC facilities, but got into C_USA because they half-filled the Alamodome.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Duck

Maverick

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

#6 [url]

Jun 17 13 6:57 AM

Re: UTSa Facilities

I haven't visited San Antonio lately, but that sounds about right. How do you assess the facilities at San Marcos in comparison to ours?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

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

#7 [url]

Jun 17 13 7:26 PM

Re: My case for Women's Soccer

It is so hard to say, because unlike UTSA, TXST already had a team and was prepping for a move up, not a complete start-up. The b
Bobcats have invested in their facilities, unlike the Roadrunners. CPC is far and away beyond Strahan, so our basketball teams and volleyball teams are a cut above. Baseball and softball trail, as their venues were renovated within the last few years, and done pretty nicely from what I understand. The Allan Saxe plans should put us on par, also from what I understand.

For football, their stadium has undergone massive renovations and is now a football only stadium, so it is better. However, I don't know how their new track and field stadium stacks up, but I would wager the Mav is tops.

Unknowns for me include tennis and soccer. I do know that many soccer players don't like playing in football stadiums, so they may have the advantage there.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

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

#8 [url]

Jun 17 13 8:36 PM

Re: My case for Women's Soccer

Do both SA and SM play FB on turf, or do they have grass? If I were a player, I think I would prefer grass.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

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

#9 [url]

Jun 18 13 8:53 AM

Re: My case for Women's Soccer

From the Bobcat website "AstroPlay® artificial turf which is a new concept in field-turf systems. The turf is a grass-like, non-abrasive, polyethylene fiber matrix filled with special rubber granules. AstroPlay® has been engineered to offer the best aspects of natural grass without the inherent drawbacks such as high maintenance, low use levels, game cancellations and uneven footing. AstroPlay® is made by Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc."

The Alamodome has to play on turf. This was the best I could find: http://www.cfbstats.com/stadium/130.html

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

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

#10 [url]

Jul 20 13 8:06 PM

Re: My case for Women's Soccer

That sounds a lot better than Astroturf. If you can't afford real grass, it makes sense to get the closest substitute you can.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help