Conversation with an AD Part Two - Behind the Scenes of a New Sport

In the first part of my sit-down interview with UT Arlington Athletic Director Jon Fagg, we had a great discussion regarding the Mavericks current home, the Western Athletic Conference, and its transition to the United Athletic Conference starting next year. It was a great talk with some behind the scenes information that wasn't generally known.

In that same theme, particularly the behind the scene workings, the Maverick Rambler looks behind the curtain of UTA's next, newest sport, coming at the dawn of the UAC. At the end of this edition, the topic starts to shift organically to one of the most common topics on campus. 

Here's part two of the one-on-one with the UTA Athletic Director.

The Maverick Rambler: We're going to go back to ... to, to your President for a second. Because, one of the other big headlines: women's flag football.

Jon Fagg: Yeah, women's flag football!

Top 10 moments in Maverick History

As we near the end of the summer break and the start of the 2022/23 athletic year, excitement is naturally building. Add in the fact that UTA is moving to a new home and will see new faces adds to that excitement.

In preparation for that start, I'm going to list the top 11 moments in Maverick Athletic history. For this list, I'm going to balance what the moment meant for the Department or the University as a whole, the general accomplishment's worth, the attention the accomplishment gathered and what it means today,. While the attention metric starts to sway the meter towards certain sports, I'm going to grade on a curve. I believe that if you are going to sponsor a sport, sponsor it to win. As such, any accomplishment is worthwhile.

Certain accomplishments could diminish others, for example, a postseason win could overshadow a previous high of first conference championship. Others are harder to grade, such as individual sports like the track and field programs. As such, I'm focusing primarily on team sports.

All that said, let's start the countdown.

What to Improve?

I've been hanging on to this the idea of this entry (and this one too) since February when the Shorthorn, UT Arlington's student newspaper, reported on Athletic Director Jim Baker's impending retirement. I added my own commentary a bit later. The link can be found here.

There's a couple of paragraphs at the end of the article that caught my eye that I believe will very much will have an impact on the future of the Athletic Department. And seeing how we've entered the summer months, now is the time to pontificate.

"UTA Athletics has been pursuing an athletics master plan that will address current and long-term needs, improvements and facility expansion for most Division I teams. It will also help revitalize the west side of campus."

There are possibly two things that are being addressed here, though the obvious is "facility expansion." So based on that quote, I want to go down the list of current facilities and give my opinion on what upgrades are best or needed for each facility. The list is in order starting with the least needed facility for upgrades and ending with the venue that needs the most attention.

Real Talk or Disingenuous Argument?

I've really enjoyed UT Arlington President Vistap Kharbhari from afar. The University's enrollment has grown, alumni engagement is the best I've ever seen, he has been present at most every, if not all athletic events that I've attended and I see him all over social media and University releases. I don't know him personally, other than a few casual interactions, but my impression is that he is a quality President and a quality person.

That's why I was somewhat shocked to here something he said recently. One of his interactions with the UTA community is a somewhat regular event called Pizza with the President. It's generally a noon time event where students eat and ask the President a question. The questions vary depending on the season and current events, but there is always one that comes up - football.

The most recent Pizza with the President was this past week, and as usual, he was asked that question. From a recap given by UTA's award-winning student newspaper, The Shorthorn:

High School Football Facility Arms Race

In my last post, I mentioned how many folks in the UT Arlington Athletic Department consider Maverick Stadium a sub-par NCAA DI stadium as a lead in to what I think is possible to help make Maverick Stadium a quality FBS venue. Today, I want to look at a bit why Maverick Stadium has gone from a modern college football venue to needing renovations to become one again.

I don't think anyone but the most casual observers would be shocked if I said there was a facility-arms race in college athletics. Everyone has plans and/or has recently brought something to state-of-the art. Since 2010, UTA built a brand new indoor arena with College Park Center, completed several major renovations to Clay Gould Ballpark as well as Allan Saxe Field and have more on the drawing board (sign me up for the petition to get a shaded grandstand at ASF).

No sport has seen more in the last decade to decade-and-a-half than football. Locally, SMU has built Gerald J. Ford Stadium, which opened in 2000 and has since seen renovations twice since 2010. TCU's Amon G. Carter Stadium has almost been a constant construction zone, seeing renovations in 1985, 1991, 1992, 1996, 2002 and 2008. All that was then dwarfed by a $164 million rebuild of the stadium coinciding with TCU's entrance into the Big XII in 2012. North Texas opened Apogee Stadium in 2011, a very nice venue built primarily with student fees (I used to be able to comeback against my UNT associate's when they let me be know UTA didn't have a football team that at least the Mavs stadium was still better).

Is Maverick Stadium FBS Worthy?

I'm the Maverick Rambler, so prepare for some rambling. It's the doldrums of the summer, so be glad I'm talking about anything UT Arlington-related.

One of the biggest challenges (maybe THE biggest) facing the return of a UTA football program is facilities. That point was made clear in the Nienas Report from over a decade ago-more on that in a moment. Those that I have talked to about the subject believe Maverick Stadium would need a lot of work and that the biggest obstacle to the return of football is a playing venue.

To some degree, I agree. Maverick Stadium was built in 1980 and as far as stadiums go from that era for schools our level, it was nice, but not state of the art. College Park Center is better than any other college basketball venue in Texas, but Maverick Stadium was nice for what it was. It hasn't aged well and the fact that U hasn't played a down in 30 years has meant only minor renovations to the stadium.

But one athletic official described Maverick Stadium to me as a dump. And that's where I disagree. I toured several Southland Conference venues when I was the sports director for UTA Radio back in the day. Texas State, who joined us in moving to the Western Athletic Conference and then the Sun Belt Conference had a worse stadium then than UTA does now. They have spent money and all of a sudden, it is one of the nicer venues in the Group of 5 conferences.

I see no reason why Maverick Stadium can't go through something similar. So with that set-up, here's a list, in order of priority, of the expansion/renovations I think needs to happen in order for Maverick Stadium to be the home of a Sun Belt football team.

Next New Sport?

I've been hearing some interesting rumors and wanted to wait until the summer to begin the discussion out of respect for the sports in play, as well as give me some fodder for the summertime lull.

The UT Arlington Athletic Department will begin women's golf intercollegiate play following this coming academic year. The sport will be the first addition since 1983. By all accounts, that will not be the last sport as the department is in the very preliminary stages of looking at another sport.

I thought about creating a tease indicating something else, but thought that just might be a bit cruel, so I'll just come out and say it. It is not football. But before the reveal, let me give some context to the thinking in UTA land.

UTA Football Find

Apologies if you've read the article I'm about to start a discussion on, as it was initially published in December, but I ran across this, a football faces uphill battle article, posted online from the Arlington voice.

It begins by noting that the University of Alabama-Birmingham has dropped its football program and it might bring sore feelings for UTA faithful (they have since announced they are bringing it back). However, that is really all I have to agree in the article with as there is little fact, quotes or references in there, only loose connections that don't really apply.

The author transitions from UAB to UTA with this:

An Open Letter to the Men's Basketball Team.

To the players, coaches and those who help the outcome on the court,

For better or worse, you are the spotlight of the Athletic Department. The perception of the entire Department, and to a lesser extent the University as a whole, lays on your performance. It may not be fair and it certainly isn't right, but it is what it is.

For years, the University just let the Athletic Department get by with no real active involvement. This is evident from the time the UTA Rebels joined the highest ranks of the NCAA until a few years ago. There was a long stretch of time where UTA was one of the worst performing teams in the Southland Conference from top to bottom with some of the most sub-par venues in the SLC.

But all that has changed. The University is actively involved now and has made Athletics a higher priority. Of course, College Park Center is one of the most visible signs. Going from Texas Hall, which never really was an athletic arena, to one of the finest basketball and volleyball places to play in all of the NCAA and would make many Big 12 teams jealous is the most obvious example, but nearly every sport is receiving some form of facility upgrade. Allan Saxe Field is almost an entirely new softball stadium. Clay Gould has received several upgrades of the last few years. Even Maverick Stadium has seen some improvements. With the baseball and softball teams now in their own locker rooms and the plans for doing so been in the works for years, the six track teams have better facilities at their disposal to train and practice. 11 of UTA's 14 teams has seen some facility upgrades in the last few years. That was unheard of when I was a student at the turn of the century.

But it doesn't end there. The admin was active in upgrading UTA's conference. The Mavericks went from a FCS/1-AA-football-centric conference with decent baseball and softball competition and bottom-level everything else to the nationally-known Western Athletic Conference. When the WAC had to exercise their nuclear option, the admin was active in securing membership into the Sun Belt Conference. While not as nationally-recognized, it was unmistakeably a step up from Southland and the now-WAC competition.

The budget is about double from when I was a student just a decade ago too. More money doesn't guarantee success, but it sure makes getting there a bit easier. The cynicist would say that is a byproduct of UTA's growth and the student fee, but the fact remains the Athletic Department is spending far more money now than at the rate of inflation.

The other big difference is the admin support. I try to make one of every sport played on campus a year, and in the higher-profile sports it is multiple. I have yet to attend any sporting event that President Vistasp Karbhari wasn't there, minus one baseball game. I can't recall one game of any kind where President Witt, President of UTA at the time I attended UTA, was in attendance. Though I concede I didn't really care then about presidential attendance and may have missed it.

All of this is a long way for me to say the U cares about your performance and is giving you the resources you need to compete. The downside is that expectations are there for a team to compete. One of the things I love about the UTA fan base is the incredible realism that we have. We know what to expect and don't have delusions of granduer. Keep that in mind as I go forward.

I know you guys as a whole are quite a young team. You are talented, but young. However you have shown an ability to compete, no matter the opponent. Problem is it ranges from the ranked team in the top 25, to an RPI-300 team. How can UTA claim wins over the top two teams in the conference, but have been swept by the last place team? It is very defeating seeing a team that should be a Sun Belt leader fighting for fourth place with little chance for third. Beat the teams that aren't even above .500 in conference play and you are at the top of the conference.

As a fan, most of us would like to see some consistency that has been missing the last few years. I'd rather be consistently middle of the pack and beat who we are supposed to, rather than do well against the top and poorly versus the bottom. As a fan, this yo-yo action and inconsistency on the court is tough to take. I'm a die-hard and will support regardless. The fairweather fans may be lost forever because of it. That hurts every athletic team in the process.

All UTA fans ask is a Maverick team playing at an even level night in and out. We are okay with losing to a better team. We get frustrated when the last place team in the conference sweeps you. We get frustrated when we have more wins over the top two teams than the bottom two.

So please, help build the fan base and don't play to the level of your opponent. Please don't look past anybody on the floor. Please take it one game at a time and do what you have to against those that you should do it too. Don't take any team for granted.

Beating ULM, Georgia Southern and Louisiana-Lafayette is a great accomplishment. Losing to Troy and South Alabama tarnishes that. You, the University and us fans deserve better.

UTA Football Game Six: Bumblin' instead of Movin'

Prior to the October 11, 1980 home game against the West Texas State Buffaloes, the UT Arlington Mavericks 1980 preseason expectations seemed to be a millennia away. The new home smell had worn off, the 1979 record of 9-2 was a very distant memory and the team was 0-4 heading into the third home game of the season. On top of that, the team just looked generally uncompetitive at times and mistake prone at the worst of times.

A loss to a team like SMU and the Pony Express was understandable. But the previous week was a home loss to the Drake Bulldogs. The Mavs held a halftime lead but lost three fumbles and threw three interceptions en route to a 30-20 loss in front of a paltry crowd of 6,300.

At worst UTA should have been 2-2, but untimely mistakes, a hallmark of Coach Harold "Bud" Elliott's ten-year career, really cost the team. The same would ring true during this game

Remedy for Lonely Fall

I posted this to the UTA forum a while back, so if you go to both, it will seem familiar.

For many UTA fans, support for adding a women's soccer program is purely as a way to be compliant with Title IX while the Athletic Department adds football. I have a different view about the reasons for adding the sport.

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. As of the 2012/13 academic year, there were 327 DI women's soccer programs (There are 323, not counting those schools transitioning from Division II). Comparatively, there were 347 men's basketball teams and 345 women's basketball programs. So UTA was one of only 24 DI teams without it, a percentage of 7 percent. That disparity is even smaller now. For example, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi debuted their program this year, while UT-Pan American will begin theirs next year.

Addendum to the Last Post

In the last post, I chronicled what I thought were many of the reasons that led to the football programs demise. There is another reason I thought attendance was a little suppressed, but it came after Maverick Stadium was opened, and really didn't seem to fit the flow of the post.

I think the location is poor. I received  a Masters Degree from UTA in City Planning. One of the fields of planning is how we lay out the built environment, things like cities, urban areas, shopping centers, subdivisions, etc. There are so many factors that come into play, and many are unique with the project.

Most of the athletic venues are labeled on this map...and isolated from the rest of campus.

In the case of Maverick Stadium, it is obvious that the location was chosen because it was either the cheapest option or the easiest, maybe both. Somewhere more visible, like Cooper, Abrams or Division Street would have been better but I have suspect there was an feeling that we couldn't get rid of a parking lot on the major streets because we need those for students as a commuter school.

UTA had a tendency to put athletic facilities wherever they could fit. Clay Gould was put where it was because that's what UTA acquired in the late '60's to early '70's. They purchased the land at the edge of campus (and even edge is used a bit loosely), demoed the homes that were there and put up a field. It is well over a mile away from the edge of the heart of campus, and completely invisible from it. Alan Saxe was put next to it using the same thinking. The intramural fields were added there as well.

But look at the map above and see just how non-contiguous Maverick Stadium, Clay Gould Ballpark and Alan Saxe Field are from the rest of UTA. East of Davis Street, there is a large section that seems to be one big, contiguous section of the UTA campus. East of Nederman, it is a virtual square. Moving west and it becomes obvious that Maverick Stadium and the Clay Gould/Alan Saxe section are basically square parcels that touch the adjacent part of campus at the corner.

UTA built Maverick Stadium on the old football practice fields. It was the easiest location. At that time, most of the campus-owned land between Nederman and the stadium were not part of the everyday use that students would take a part in at UTA. It was virtually invisible.

When comparing UTA to other Universities and the lack of planning the location of athletic facilities
becomes even more noticeable. Most often, all the athletic venues are at the same place.

 

This is TCU. Notice how every athletic venue is clustered around Stadium Drive and then to the west. The campus also is quite contiguous. Most of the venues are visible from the portion of campus the students use and occupy everyday.

College Park Center works, even though it too is on the edge of campus. However, it is on the eastern side, integrated into the campus, visible and was part of a bigger plan to build residences, retail and other amenities. If you look back at the UTA map, you'll clearly see the eastern edge of Arlington is a line that ends on Center Street. There are multiple ways to get there, it can be seen, is on one of the more well used streets. It fits nicely into the campus and is the best integrated athletic facility at UTA.

Basketball attendance has increased from a rough average of 800, to 2,000 during the first full year. A proper venue, which Texas Hall really wasn't helps, but so does the location.

In 1985, when football was disbanded, UTA averaged 5,600 the last year of the program. Counting all the students dorms, campus-owned apartments and nearby non-University apartments, there were more students on and near campus than football attendees. Much of the reasons were detailed in the previous post, but a better location, say on the South 40 parking lot which is located on the southeast corner of Cooper Street, would have increased the attendance.

I'm not saying the program would have been saved or attendance would have shot through the roof if the stadium was on Cooper, but it would have been better than in a stadium no one sees when they are on campus. Memorial Stadium was in a prominent, visible place on campus and UTA commonly had standing room only for the games. Knowing and seeing the stadium are two different things.

This leads to other considerations. For the existing sports, increased signage, getting rid of dead ends to increase connectivity on the western part of campus to the main section and a marketing effort increase awareness of the far flung sports.

In the football revival effort, a serious question could be raised over whether Maverick Stadium, which will need some renovations, is the proper venue. I ultimately think it should be renovated, for reasons other than location. But it will need help for the mainstream student to know it is there.

Some have suggested that that a new stadium be built for football and Maverick Stadium be renovated for track and field as well as soccer. That could easily be done too, but I think it is more expensive and land gobbling.

Either way, something would have to change from the current for the sport to gain visibility on its own campus.