I mentioned several months ago about Chicago State starting a football team. We were in the middle of an athletic year and I generally try to avoid more esoteric topics when games and competitions are in high gear. We aren't now and I want to briefly touch on their journey to a football team.
For those who aren't familiar, Chicago State is a poor, cash-strapped athletic program with declining enrollment. They have had a hard time finding a conference home for much of this century. They were in the Great West Conference, a coalition of wayward schools that did not have a formal path to the postseason. UT Rio Grande Valley's precursor, UT Pan American, was in that conference. Both schools took advantage of the Western Athletic Conference's desperation and CSU became a conditional member. Essentially, they paid the WAC to be a member. It really didn't help them overall, as they remained a cash-strapped program.
When the WAC added the Texas Four and later UT Arlington, along with other schools, the WAC declined to renew the conditions and the Cougars were independents again. They had no home in the late 1980's and early 90's, and again in the mid-2000's. The third time, they had decided no more.
I've said it before. In the constant shuffling of conference affiliation, UTA is an attractive university. At a minimum, if UTA had football, they'd still in the Sun Belt. They could be an attractive option to pair with Texas State in the new Pac-12. If they started one just prior to COVID, they could have an easy path to Conference USA membership today. Now, they are fortunate to be in one of the top Football Championship Subdivision conferences in the United Athletic Conference. But unquestionably, the UAC is not seen in the same light as Bowl Subdivision conferences.
The impediment Chicago State faced is certainly different. But the main point is clear and shared with UTA. Chicago State would not be independent with a football team, at least in the modern era of this century. The Northeast Conference needed football schools. Chicago State finally gained membership in a stable (as stable as any FCS conference can be in the current climate) home by promising to start a football program.
They joined the NEC in the fall of 2024. For about a year, the rumor was CSU hoodwinked the conference and had little intention to start a program. Then all of a sudden, they announced in February 2025 a head coach search, culminated in a hiring in April. With the hiring, CSU made the surprise announcement they would play their first game in less than a year. Fall 2026.
For almost a year, there were little headlines or news and the rumor mill again said Chicago State over-promised. In February, they announced a signing of 55 athletes, utilizing traditional signings of high schoolers and the transfer portal. The naysayers again were pointing at CSU as being a shyster to those athletes and there was no schedule. A month later, there was a schedule. Then there was talk about how they don't have a home, which was quickly put to rest when SeatGeek Stadium, home to the Chicago Fire FC of the Major League Soccer, was announced to be Cougar home base this year.
Now of course, the naysayers are predicting a poor performance this year. I'm less concerned about that than they showed if there is a will, there's a way. They put together a football program in basically two years, easily the fastest startup in the modern era.
And that is the lesson for UTA. If there's a will, there's a way. I still don't have all the details of the push in the mid-2010's that prompted a feasibility study right before COVID. That study also has a long time from announcement to first game, approximately five years.
I'm not suggesting UTA do that same timeline as CSU. However, there's a real chance that the long delay UTRGV did is not so necessary in the transfer portal era. They announced intentions to start a team in 2021. Their first game was almost a year ago. That kind of timeline is common, if not the standard. Chicago State proved it isn't a requirement.
Speaking of UTRGV, they proved intentions are what is needed too. For years, they were also in conference affiliation limbo. They had wanted to join the Southland Conference for years, going back to their expulsion from the Sun Belt Conference. Had the Vaqueros sponsored football, they would have been working on their fourth decade of SLC membership. As it is, football finally became their home, but just for the last two years.
Playing devil's advocate, UTA has farther to climb and such a short turnaround time could set the program back. Five of the nine Division I schools to start a program this century in the rough southeast area had a winning record within two years. Two of them didn't have a winning record in the following four years. Only Old Dominion made a postseason appearance within five years. UTRGV looked like they have a legit chance in the next few years after their inaugural year.
In the UAC, UTA could do quite a bit of harm by starting so aggressively. The NEC is generally a one-bid conference that exits the FCS playoffs in the first round, However, UTA could potentially shave a year off or so by getting signees at a higher rate than normal.
Either way, I'm not advocating a timeline in any scenario. This post serves two points. The first, if there's an institutional will, it can get done. Chicago State, like UTRGV, said we want this, and mapped out a plan. If you would have told me pre-2020 that the Vaqueros, or Broncos before that, would have figured out the football puzzle before UTA, I would have taken that bet. Same thing with Chicago State, because...
Second, Chicago State being a smaller, cash-strapped school in a declining population city and state figured out a way to bring a team about into existence. CSU enrolls 2,200 compared to UTA's 38,000. The Chicago area has the same professional sports pressures as Arlington. They actually have an extra baseball team. The Chicago area declined two percent in population since the last census. Dallas/Fort Worth grew 11 percent. UTA has an on-campus stadium, regardless of what you think about it (I tend to think it would suite UTA just fine with an expansion designed for players). CSU will play 20-30 miles off campus as they ponder a new home.
As the 2026 football season approaches, the feeling of watching others make it work is defeating.
That said, I'll cover the upcoming athletic year as UTA welcomes six new conference members. This Day in UTA Football History has some great seasons in 1964, 1970, 1981 and the schedule for 1987. I'm working on making an interview with the Athletic Director an annual event. There are other things I'm looking at or working on as well and I think you will be happy if it pans out.
No comments:
Post a Comment