More First Steps

Football is a topic of never-ending speculation, gossip and desire in the UT Arlington community. Football was again on the ballot of a two-day election that was held on campus this past week. The results were announced on Tuesday and unsurprisingly, students voted for it in a large number, 1,004 in favor to 625 against.

Now, before I proceed, let me be clear that this is a non-binding referendum that asked if students supported increasing the athletics fee from $8.50 a credit hour for a maximum of $115 per semester to $18.50 an hour for a maximum of $250 per semester. The funds would go to the Athletic Department and be used to fund a football team and women's sports programs, presumably beach volleyball and a soccer team. It's non-binding, meaning the University has no requirement to follow through with the vote.

But it does fulfill the requirement the administrators and power-brokers have said for decades, the students have to care.

Before I proceed with the current events, let me give a brief history lesson. 

The demise of the program has been widely reported and I don't want to go into it too much. A simple internet search will reveal that then-President Wendell Nedderman pulled the plug due to a $950,000 Athletic Department deficit, largely blamed on the football team. Supporters rallied, raised $600,000 in less than a month in an effort that ultimately was in vain.

Athletics drew its budget from essentially the general fund. There was a lot of competition for that money on campus. Nedderman said he would justify the money if students showed up to the games. The 5,600 attendance average for 1985 has been cited a lot in the program's demise (more on that later). The rallies at Maverick Stadium drew less people than expected. That and the quickly raised money did not sway the University President and his decision stood.

UTA went on as normal, save no football in the fall in the years that followed. There was a brief hiccup as the Southland Conference required its full-time members to have the sport. For the 86-87 athletic year, the men's team were an independent. It was a weird time in the NCAA as the women's team was in the SLC under a different governance structure. It wasn't until the '90's that the term all-sports would actually mean all-sports of both genders.

The Mavericks actually became competitive in all-sports following dropping of the sport. Prior to 1985/86, UTA won one men's conference championship outside of football - men's cross country in 1985. Basketball came close a couple of times and baseball was runner-up to Lamar a lot in the early to mid-1980's. The women's teams earned championships, primarily volleyball. In the 1970's the AIAW was the governing body for women's sports, so the success wasn't measured by the conference until the NCAA took over in 1982.

But real success came in the 1990's. UTA won baseball championships in 1990 and '92. Men;s basketball were runner-ups in '90-'91 for the first time in a decade. Men's cross country earned a title in 1992. Men's Indoor Track won their first conference title in 1990, the first of seven in the decade. Men's Tennis became first-time champions in 1995 and would get a total of three in the '90's. Men's golf also claimed their first title in 1995. Men's outdoor track shared the same type of success as their indoor counterparts, getting their first title in 1989, and getting six more in the '90's. The women didn't have the same success, but were competitive, finishing top three in the SLC in most sports, except women's basketball.

Yet, the budget still remained a problem. UTA leaders, including Pete Carlon, who served a lot of roles in the 1990's, ultimately becoming Athletic Director faced a lot of problems. I talked about this time period on several occasions with Mr. Carlon when I was a student. Several of the details may be lost to an aging memory, but the Department was facing a drop to a lower division if they couldn't get a steady revenue source. I'll quote the following from the 2003-2004 men's basketball media guide.

"In 1997-98, Carlon teamed with then University President Dr. Robert Witt to join forces with student and faculty leaders to spearhead the campaign for referendum on a Student Intercollegiate Athletics Fee. This student athletics fee won overwhelming support from the student body and was enacted by the legislature and then-Governor George W. Bush in 1999. This source of funding assures UTA a financially secure future for its intercollegiate athletic program. The fee was the first of its kind in the State of Texas, and since being implemented many other institutions have followed in the footsteps of UTA."

Now while, not a specific promise of football, the idea was in the UTA community that this was the budget stabilizer needed to resurrect a football program. The Dallas Morning News and Fort Worth Star Telegram ran several articles quoting UTA sources that the athletic fee could spur the return of football. 

From a 1999 Dallas Morning News article when the Texas Senate approved the measure:

"'In my mind, this is the first step that we need to take to potentially bring back football," Mr. Carlon said. "There are a lot of other steps that have to take place, but potentially this is the first step."'

In reality, UTA enacted what would be the lowest athletic fees among schools that did choose that route. It effectively gave all existing programs a dedicated revenue stream. Carlon mentioned on many occasions how every sport was fully funded when compared to their Southland colleagues. The run of success in the athletic department was based on that philosophy. But football was not part of that equation.

In 2004, Student Congress President Casey Townsend orchestrated the first vote by the students directly related to football. I was a student at the start of the push and was the sports director at UTA Radio. I graduated in the fall of '03, but assisted in the canvasing and promotion of the vote. For an increase of $2.00 a credit hour, UTA would fund a football team, women's golf and women's soccer. For the life of me, I can't find the vote totals, other than 2-1 for and it was a record turnout.

It was an awkward time for the President at the time. Bobby Witt, was on the way out while James Spaniolo was on the way in. President Spaniolo did the proper thing and commissioned a feasibility study, which broke down the basic costs. UTA was looking at $13-17 million needed in a five-year period. They estimated the new fee would cover about $1.25 million a year.

Unlike what current Shorthorn reporting says:

"Students passed the 2004 referendum by a two-to-one margin, but the University declined to pursue football as funding fell short of the $17 million needed to maintain the team, according to previous Shorthorn reporting."

....there never was an attempt to raise the funds. The feasibility study estimated $17 million with the maximum facility enhancements, primarily a new fieldhouse in an endzone at Maverick Stadium. The $13 million needed less and utilized what was available with minor changes. On the low end of the estimates, the fee was anticipated to bring in $6.25 million, or a little less than half. Add in other revenue streams, tickets, sponsorships, naming rights, guarantee games, etc. and the needed capital outlays start to decrease.

The main point is that instead of attempting to raise any funds, President Spaniolo went ahead with a plan to have a better arena. Obviously, we know how that worked out, College Park Center came to fruition and football is still a dream. CPC allowed UTA to elevate above the Southland Conference. Football might have too, but right now UTA has some of the best player-amenity facilities in the WAC. That would not have happened without CPC. 

President Spaniolo pledged to look into football within five years. CPC was a much harder endeavor than he imagined and it wasn't until 2012 that the arena opened. While you won't find anything in print, I have it on good authority from a reliable source that Jim Baker, who took over the Athletic Director title from Pete Carlon, came to Spaniolo's radar when he was in Austin asking around about football.

There were minor student movements, petitions and other efforts here and there, some documented in this post I made in 2015.

While there were rumors and whispers from 2004 onward, the next concrete step, albeit a minor one, came in 2015 when the University announced the would add women's golf. for the 2017/18 season. While done predominantly to assist in the Bubas Cup competition, where UTA came within two points of being the best overall program in the Sun Belt Conference, the move does satisfy components of Title IX, in the advent of football returning to campus. 

The momentum continued to build when a couple of news items broke. Much of the news reporting was done by the Dallas Morning News, and therefore behind a paywall. In 2018, UTA commissioned a second feasibility study while simultaneously working with Les Miles, former LSU coach, about restarting the program. The article was posted to the Sun Belt Board at least. I've never seen this second study, nor has anyone been willing to speak to me about it. Jim Baker was involved in the e-mails obtained via an open records request. I've never seen the report itself. I'm not certain what the numbers show, what it says was needed or any other needed detail. 

It likely was made with the idea of UTA going straight to FBS, as the Mavs resided in an FBS conference in the Sun Belt at the time. It seems the move to the WAC has opened up a different possibility for a football resurrection. FCS is cheaper, while also not as revenue rich.

Ultimately, the President at the time, Vistap Karbhari, had to resign due to an ethics scandal in early 2020, though the scandal followed him many months prior. Tiek Lim served as an interim president for well over a year before current President Jennifer Crowley took over a little less than a year ago. Then COVID happened. Hardly the recipe for restarting a major sports endeavor.

Now don't worry, my Cliff Notes history lesson does not include a quiz, but it sets the foundation for two very important points. 

The first, football is a never-ending topic on campus. A lot has happened over the years event-wise. What's even more telling is that the topic ALWAYS COMES UP. When Karbhari would do his pizza with the President, football was the most common question. Before the Shorthorn changed to its....current reporting standards and topics, it was one of the most common, recurring stories. Students constantly talk about it on campus. Alumni are always bringing it up. The 2004 vote broke election day records at the time. Turnout was higher than normal this year. It's a popular topic all the time.

Second, you don't see that everywhere. A lot of California schools dropped their Division I football program. Wichita State did the same. But they don't have the same buzz for a restart. There's no clamor at Utah Valley, Grand Canyon or Seattle to start a team. An internet search shows no activity when you add football to those schools. It is something unique to this University and will never die until the Mavericks retake the field.

It's seen in this blog too. Of my top ten all-time viewed entries, six are football-related, three are men's basketball and one is volleyball-centric. While I try to present a well-balanced approach to covering UTA athletics, it's clear certain sports draw higher views than others. Go out to 15 and football adds four while men's basketball adds one. 

By the way, all the men's basketball entries surround the 2015-2017 men's basketball teams when they had such high-level success, set school records and upset multiple ranked and Power5 teams. My assumption was the national profile was rising for UTA, causing outsiders to research the team.

Change the dynamic of this blog's post stats out to the last 12 months and it's the same story. The top five over the last year are football. In sixth place was the generic post about which sports would UTA be best suited to add. While not a specific post about football, it was contained in the post and likely contributed to its popularity. Seventh was K.T. Turner's hire, while ninth was Greg Young's firing. The remaining two are also football-centric. 

I suspect this one will be in the top ten by the end of the month.

As mentioned, the vote is non-binding, meaning there's no set timetable set by the University for anything. My understanding is the "bills" author, Student Body vice president Dylan Buck, has coordinated with the University administration. So it appears this wasn't one student's rogue attempt to bring back football on his own. I would expect another feasibility study to be on the horizon soon.

With a new president, there's a wild card that those outside the inner circle can only speculate. Jennifer Cowley has appeared at many sporting events and had an active social media support for the Athletic Department. But outside of that, I don't know much else. 

I will say this, if she starts football, her legacy will be cemented in a way that most presidents don't have. Most people know about Nedderman, as he disbanded the team. But how many know who preceded him or replaced him? I do, but I'm sure the average student doesn't. She will be remembered in 50 years if it starts under her tenure.

I want to end by addressing some of the naysayers I've seen speak up about the issue. The primary one I hear is that support was bad in 1985, so that's how it will always be, or the idea that no one would care.

I find that inherently false for a multitude of reasons. Just one year prior to 1985, three of the top five highest attended Maverick Stadium games for UTA occurred. A fourth is in the top eight. Weather started to decline in November and the final two games were half the average of the first four games, almost 9,000. Sure beats the 5,600 thrown out about 1985.

Also, the last game played against North Texas was in a rainstorm. The game drew between 14,000 and 20,000 in the 1970's, is Maverick Stadium's highest all-time game at 18,033 and drew 9,500 in 1982, an all-time low in the series to that point. Had that game drew the 9,500, UTA would have set an all-time total attendance record in 1984. Had the UNT (then-NTSU) game hit it's 1970's average, it would have been the best single-season average on campus. 

A lot of ifs-and-buts, I know. As it was, the 1984 season is fourth on the all-time UTA charts for total attendance and ninth in per-game average. The sample size is 27 seasons, large enough that top ten and top five performances have meaning. To have that success just one season before the program was pulled is a shot to the stomach. Especially when news stories today trot out the 5,600 per game average of the 1985 season, 2,000 lower than in 1984.

To those stuck in 1985, how do they account for every other sport. Men's basketball averaged 922 in 1983/84 and 1,064 in 1984/85. The team completed it second-straight 11-win losing season, third losing season out of four and still averaged 1,500+ per game, much higher than the mid-1980's.

In fact, every sport averaged the highest decade in the 2010's than any other decade in their existence. Volleyball went from the low three-digits in the mid-80's to 700's. Baseball went on a similar trajectory, though a little lower per game average ranging from the 500's to almost 700. Women's basketball hit a 2,000 per game average in 2017/18, more than quintuple their '80's average. Softball is on pace to set a per game average record this year and have seen increases the past decade. 

Why would football be any different?

Finally, let's compare that 1985 attendance average to this past year's FCS schools. I found a website, Herosports.com, that posted this year's attendance average for all FCS schools. Out of 130 FCS colleges and universities, 5,600 would have beat 62 schools. It would have beat two WAC schools. 1984's attendance average would have beaten 84 FCS U's.

Some schools consider their football programs to be amenities, regardless of the attendance average. UTA's worst season, 2,987 in 1974, would have beaten 23 FCS schools this year. Perspective. 

As it stands, Tuesday's news was a positive for the football faction at UTA. Regardless of the eventual outcome, it is another sign the University craves a football team to root for. All the football supporters want is a fundraising effort to put their money where their mouth is.