If Not Now?

If you have a high-level whiplash injury or extreme fatigue from the constant conference reshuffling dubbed conference realignment, you are not alone. I miss the days were college sports were about competition and money wasn't so prominent. Unless it directly touches the UT Arlington Mavericks, I tend to avoid it here on the Maverick Rambler. 

With that setup, guess what is around the corner?

Recently, the remaining two schools of the old Pac-12 (Pac-2?) invited and received acceptance from Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Utah State. Coupled with Oregon State and Washington State, that gave the Pac-2 seven schools (Pac-7?). The five schools departed the Mountain West, who also were left with seven members. Since the NCAA requires eight full-time members in a conference to play at the Football Bowl Subdivision, obviously, each conference needs at least one more FBS school. Meaning more moves are on the horizon.

So what does this all mean for the Maverick Rambler?

First, the Western Athletic Conference is sitting at seven members after this athletic season, one above the minimum for non-FBS conferences. A loss of a member is tough. Two would be catastrophic, with the idea that if they could expand, they would have done so by now. And the end might come to fruition.

First, the Gonzaga Bulldogs have accepted an invite to the Pac-7 (Pac-8?). That leaves the West Coast Conference with ten members, should it stay there. Rumors are swirling now that seem inconceivable, but with the anything goes nature currently, the inconceivable may just be around the corner.

In the past, it was easy to say that teams from far-flung parts of the country wouldn't join a geographically compact conference. Now, nothing seems out of bounds. So each rumor carries a bit of possible if it isn't probable.

Saint Mary's is rumored to join the Bulldogs. That'd drop the WCC to nine. I've seen a rumor that Grand Canyon could too. Eight is still a manageable number. They may stay where they are. The WCC may add members to fend off a future raid, that may not even come. And who is number one of their expansion list?

By all accounts, it has to be California Baptist. It is a private religious institution in the three West Coast states. They have a similar budget, sports sponsorships and competitive nature in the sports they have with the current membership.

If that were to happen, the WAC is down to six. The bare minimum. No problem is no one else leaves. 

Buuuuut, Tarleton State, who has long had FBS aspirations, is rumored to be on the Mountain West radar. "Serious talks" is what I read. If they don't get an invite, the UT El Paso Miners are in serious talks with the MWC too. Should they go, Tarleton is a great candidate for Conference USA to replace UTEP. Either way, the Texans days in the WAC may not last past a 2024 announcement.

As it is, there is nothing substantial surrounding football schools Abilene Christian, Southern Utah or Utah Tech or non-football UT Arlington or Utah Valley.

Well, actually I have seen someone suggest GCU and UTA to add an Olympic sports balance in one of the conferences, but nothing from a serious source. 

And that's the problem. 

I've said it before. Our peers used to be Arkansas State, Louisiana, Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, North Texas, Sam Houston State, Texas State and UT San Antonio, to name a few. While Lamar, McNeese State and Northwestern State have accepted their role in the Southland (though I think the Cowboys are nearing the end of their patience), the rest are in CUSA (3), the Sun Belt (4) and American Athletic Conference (2). Increasingly, the SBC is gaining, joining the AAC as the better conferences in the Group of Five conferences. UTA used to be a part of one, and could be a part of any of them, and even the Mountain West in this iteration...if they just had football. 

UTSA is our greatest example. In 2000, other than women's golf, the schools sponsored the same sports, had a similar budget and were fairly competitive. They were both members of the Southland Conference from 1991/92 when UTSA joined until both left for the WAC. The two split a year later with UTA in the SBC and UTSA in CUSA.

The SLC first awarded a Commissioner's Cup in 1997/98. UTA won the Commissioners Cup three times in the first six years, was second twice and third once. UTSA finished second in the year UTA finished third. Otherwise, they were a middle of the pack athletic program most years, finishing several spots below UTA. The Roadrunners didn't pass the Mavericks consistently in the standings for the first eight years of the cup until 2005/06. And that occurred with the addition of a second sport in women's soccer, giving them a two-sport advantage. In 2007/08, they won their first cup. In 2012/13, they both were members of the WAC, where the Roadrunners took the WAC's Commish cup, with a now three-sport advantage.

College Park Center is far superior to the UTSA's Convocation Center. I'd put up Clay Gould Ballpark over the baseball Roadrunner Field any day. Same thing with Allan Saxe over softball's Roadrunner Field. The UTSA Tennis Center is comparable to the UTA Tennis Center, though I'm not sure about the player amenities. Heck, even Maverick Stadium is a better football facility on-campus as UTSA plays 18 miles off-campus at the oversized Alamodome. The only true facility investment by the University is the Roadrunner Athletics Center of Excellence, which really was done with football at the forefront. They also partnered with their respective City and County on the Park West Athletics Complex for track and field, soccer and football practice facilities.

So how'd they get to the doorstep of the P5 and we are on the verge of homelessness? They invested in football and all their sports reap the benefits. Basketball plays Memphis and whatever high-level talent is going at the time, like Florida Atlantic, yearly. Baseball gets Rice or East Carolina. In fact, most sports have a national competitor or two. There's a full Texas contingent to drive attendance. All with a facility disadvantage to their peers. CUSA, AAC and Pac-# have all expressed an interest in them, though as of now, they have rebuked the Pac. 

Using this as a comparison, UTA should have added football yesterday.

The UTA Athletic Department left the SLC to elevate their athletic profile. They wanted to play more games with meaning against better competition. And while they didn't dominate like they did in the SLC, they did rise to the challenge. There have been 22 combined regular season and tournament championships in the WAC or SBC.

As of now, if things stay static, the only real options are the Atlantic Sun Conference, the Missouri Valley Conference, the Ohio Valley Conference or the SLC. Other than Central Arkansas, every other ASUN school is two states or more away and less than the caliber of the SLC UTA left in 2012. The MVC is losing Missouri State, who'd be the closest to UTA, and has already passed on the Maverick Athletic Department once this decade. The OVC accepted Little Rock when they were cast out of the SBC with UTA. The Trojans would be the closest to UTA, with everyone else two states or more distant from Arlington. The SLC has rebuilt itself and has a good scheduling balance between football and non-football schools. Save them losing schools, the SLC could say thanks but no.

Other than the MVC, all of these are a big step down from the caliber of competition UTA wanted to compete against when they left the SLC in 2012. The ASUN and SLC are chock full of DII call-ups who tend to lose big to UTA teams. Except for the occasional team like McNeese St in men's basketball, the Mavs would be winners the vast majority of the time.  Little Rock tied for first in the OVC Commish Cup last year. They were last or second-to-last in the Sun Belt equivalent with UTA placing ahead of the Trojans by a long shot every year.

I was talking to someone within the department several months after the latest student vote to reinstate the sport. He said something to the effect of the students don't support the teams now. I tire of that argument as it misses the forest for the trees.

UTSA averages less than half of their capacity. Extreme example I know, but what's in a number? More on that in a moment. 

But first, here's what I think is the more important point of reinstating a team. Would having a football program be worth the price if it got the entire athletic department into the AAC, SBC or MWC? Of course it would. I've heard many times of the desire for UTA to be the Gonzaga of the south. With the geographical disparities between the Southwest US and the Pacific Northwest. there is no practical way to group with likeminded institutions. Oral Roberts, Texas A&M-Commerce and New Orleans are about it. Where do you draw the line? Is Division II okay to get that goal? The other in the PNW doesn't value football the way they do up there and the SW doesn't value basketball the way the PNW does.

When UTA eyed their move the WAC, it was with the intent of elevating their profile and competing daily against higher grade competition. There is a great chance, very high probability, that UTA would have more NCAA tournament appearances in every sport had they stayed in the lower rated conference. The idea is that sacrifice was made to build something. Without football, that sacrifice is for naught and the last decade and a half were a waste when they could have made some exposure in the postseason appearances.

In reality, the "they don't attend with what's offered" argument is really a bogus one anyway. Attendance has increased across the board. I keep track of these, as well as with UTA's conference peers. Of the ten best attended averages in Volleyball, eight have come since they left the SLC. In women's basketball, all ten have come in that time frame. On the men's side, three seasons in the top ten occurred prior to UTA leaving the SLC, and one was in the last year of it as CPC opened. In baseball, there was a great stretch where attendance was double it's SLC days. The vast majority of best attended seasons are in that stretch. Softball is just as striking, one season over 200 prior to the WAC/SBC tenure. Nine since, with a best of 467 in the COVID-shortened 2020 campaign and 417 in the full 2023 season.

Last year, UTA's men's basketball attendance was higher than the numbers at Abilene Christian, Southern Utah, Tarleton State and Utah Tech. The only football school higher than UTA was Stephen F. Austin. UTRGV is bringing football to campus and were second to last in the conference. By this logic either those other schools should drop the sport. Either that or the Athletic Department is lagging behind its conference peers in not offering. I know which one I think it is.

I would also suspect a bump in attendance if there's a fall spirit provider. There was a 20 percent drop in MBB attendance after UTA announced the program was disbanded. UTA averaged 1,000 plus 15 times when Texas Hall hosted every game prior to disbanding the program. They hit that mark once afterwards. 15 times in 21 seasons versus 26 after football was dropped. Seems pretty correlated. Note: my records are incomplete as seasons are missing when Texas Hall opened and a few seasons afterwards as well as in the very late '80's and early 90's when the program was competitive. 

Another argument I hear is that Dall/Fort Worth is a challenge. I can hear some say San Antonio is not the same as DFW. True, but there's a different case study that is applicable. What about Atlanta? Georgia State seems to be doing well, despite the Atlanta Braves, Falcons, Hawks and Thrashers among the four major sports, a huge in-state school in the University of Georgia and another major institution in-city with Georgia Tech. DFW has a metro population of roughly 8.1 million, compared to 6.3 million in the Atlanta area. Virtually every year, every sport UTA sponsored drew more fans that any Georgia State sport (softball in 2015 and men's basketball in 2019/20 outdid UTA). Yet their football team still average 15,000 to 17,000 fans. I don't think any sport in the Georgia State Athletic Department is upset by the inclusion of football.

If you say something can't be done, you'll be right. 

Maybe what needs to happen is UTA hits rock bottom. Playing as an independent out of necessity rather than desire showing no matter what happens on the field, court or course might change some minds. I can't imagine the nightmares of scheduling in the current era as an independent. TCU is so much better today because the Southwest Conference dissolved and they had to look in the mirror when they were left out. They are now nationally relevant in a lot of sports because they rebuilt their football team. Maybe the same would happen in Arlington if they can't find a home or regress to a much, much weaker one.

I just don't see how K.T. Turner or Sherika Wright would be negatively impacted because people go to Maverick Stadium. He's going to build a winner. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Or, more accurately, an excuse.

And the kicker is, the students will vote for it. Time and again, when football is directly or indirectly mentioned, the vote is two-thirds for. This could have been done many times over. The student fee is the only consistent source of money that is needed on a year in, year out basis.

Of course, money will be needed on the front end. I know there will need to be facility considerations to house a team. Everyone official report names a field house. But, as I mentioned in a highly viewed post, the space where the locker, training, weigh and other rooms are now in is expandable. The area underneath the west stands is nothing more than a one-story basic structure. The space could be added for much cheaper than what they are suggesting now.

And I don't want to hear about how poor a football venue Maverick Stadium is. One, there's Choctaw Stadium up the road if that is truly the case. But two, I've made a list and toyed with the idea of making a post about Maverick Stadium as an FCS venue. I wish I had now because Maverick Stadium would be in the top half of FCS stadiums right now if it were host to one. There are a lot of ugly, old or small stadiums in that classification. There wouldn't be much drop off. Heck, I'd put Maverick Stadium ahead of several schools in CUSA and the Mid-American Conference right now. Either way, there is a place to play tomorrow if they chose that route.

I know a lot of folks thinks the Mav is ugly, and suggest it isn't suitable to host football because it looks dated. I don't give a hoot how Maverick Stadium looks cosmetically. I care that our basketball teams might be left in limbo despite what they are building. Or baseball won't make another NCAA tournament run because they are in conference purgatory. I want softball to win another championship and break their drought. Volleyball has had a fun season building to something so far. Without football, there may not be many more seasons like this one. And that's truly a shame.