Go_UTA

She looks very solid and qualified. Lots of experience with teaching, research and publications, and administration. I do agree that there is some repair work to be done with the faculty, and, if she is savvy like she probably is, she will work hard to restore trust, etc. The faculty, after all, IS the university. The faculty need to respect and trust the president to really move the university forward, attract bright people, etc. You simply can't tell if she will be supportive and excited about athletics. I'd say, give her a chance. She may grab on and enjoy all the excitement. Basically, what you want is a president who understands the entire big picture. I'm talking about academics, research, student life, development, athletics, and is savvy with people like legislators, regents, and other movers and shakers. It is really a very big job, and there is no way she will please everybody. Just the way it is. Even if you have personal doubts, I would befriend her and help her become a Mean Green fan. Don't put up a wall of mistrust from the beginning. Support the lady and give her a chance. Just my two cents.

Got one from the Maverick Nation, too. ...a very, very emotional time for the family.

My pleasure, Plumm. That's my understanding of the situation. $50 million should get you a heck of a show place of a business building. I bet they put some nice amenities in it...big career center, break-out rooms for students to meet, student lounge, and some "professional" finishes, e.g., wood paneling in certain areas. These are the things going in new business buildings, it seems. Science buildings and engineering buildings typically cost more per square foot. For instance, in chemistry labs, you have to install hoods and emergency equipment. With a business building, you don't have all the expensive equipment needs. Yeah, likewise, I'm betting UT Arlington does everything humanly possible to move forward with the just-approved Engineering Research building. They have been clamoring for that for sometime. Engineering is considered to be one of that campus' hallmark strengths, and they are chomping at the bit big-time to add more research space at the engineering complex clustered at the north end of campus.

As with everybody else, unfortunately, the legislature didn't appropriate any money to help pay for these. In the past, the legislature appropriated funds to pay back the bonds. Now, to get all these projects done, universities would actually have to pay back with tuition. We'll see how all this shakes out. For instance, it may be impossible to get all those projects for UNT by paying them back with tuition proceeds...at least not without huge tuition increases and/or robbing other needs (which are usually already stretched thin). It may be 2007 before this issue is taken-up again in the next legislative session. Right now, they have technically given universities the authority to get these buildings with the tuition revenue bonds, but, whether the schools can in reality is another question.

Holy Mackerel. This is huge for UTEP. This is sorta like the ultimate in athletic legitimacy to have the "mighty" UT and defending national champs agree to this. Looks like the regents are set to approve a $10+ million practice facility for their two basketball teams, too. Supposed to have three gyms and all the other amenities. Pretty impressive. Will be located next to their arena. Of course, somebody is donating all or a lot of the cash. There are advantages to being geographically isolated and the only show in a pretty good sized town.

The program may be for North Texas Agricultural College (NTAC) which had the nickname of Aggies. This college was the northern outpost of the Agricultural & Mechanical College of Texas. The latter is now called Texas A&M University, and the former is now called The University of Texas at Arlington. Nice find, 91.

SouthernMustang, you are too nice of a guy. Come on, man, live up to expectations. To do this rivalry some good, you need to come over here and be a real ass. You might be able to single-handedly draw an extra dozen or so fans to the game. Hell, I might even go. They will hate you but love doing it.

Yes, UTD is a quality university and their athletic program is small, but it is not true that they are not advancing and are stagnant. In fact, they are extremely aggressive and are to be taken very seriously. They have a good-sized endowment allowing them to attract a bunch of bright students with scholarships (including National Merit winners) and supplement faculty salaries to attract some of the brightest. Besides UT Austin and A&M, they are the third university in the state which can realistically be said to have "selective admissions." Their annual external research budget is running around $33 million a year and growing (UT Arlington's is about $23, and UNT's is about $17). Their student life stinks and their campus isn't very appealing (in my opinion), but it is a university on the move. They are in the "emerging research" group of universities (along with UTA and UNT and a few others), but they may be the next Tier I university in Texas. The competition to increase research budgets and advance the academic profile of universities is a lot quieter and less public than athletics, but this is where the real race is. If there is any reorganization of higher education in Texas and changes in funding based upon classification, we all want to be positioned as favorably as possible for this possible eventuality. Yes, they would be "better" with a more visible athletics program for all the reasons we on this board appreciate, but it really isn't affecting their rapid ascension. In fact, they have a very clear idea of who they are and not having major athletics (due to their unique history) has helped them focus on academic excellence. Frankly, I keep my eye on UTD more than anybody else in the metroplex.

Oh, yes, Dexter was a talented fullback. I'm pretty sure I still have the program to that game in my trunk with all my other programs. I don't save them any more, but that was a fun thing for a kid to do.

As a youngster sometime in the early to mid 1970s...at Texas Stadium. Of course, I have not been to that many, and they were all against a single opponent!

I had not seen that. That was quick. The new logo and tagline came out just a few weeks ago. I drove around campus this weekend, and there are banners all over the place with the new logo and tagline. I really like the tagline ("Be A Maverick"), because it very short and capitalizes on the nickname...and has a certain intellectual appeal...that is, being independent thinkers, trailblazers, etc. It is marketing, but I think it works. (I also think yours has appeal: "Discover the Power of Ideas.") Check the March Texas Monthly for a two-page add in the front third of the magazine. A number of bilboards are up or going up: I-30 in Arlington across from the Ballpark, Plano on Central, Lewisville on I-35, and the Woodlands / Conroe area somewhere. These are the ones I heard about. (These are areas that have a lot of college-bound students.) There are also radio & print ads going on in the two major Dailys. I'm sure I've missed something.

That's what I call spirit! Very cool. I can respect that.

I don't believe UT Austin cares squat about football movements at UT San Antonio or Texas State. They occupy such a special, dominating position that, really, nobody is any kind of recruiting threat or fan base threat or financial threat to them. Texas State could switch football classifications and UT San Antonio could add football, and I really believe that UT Austin would barely even notice. Now, they might take notice of a professional football franchise ever moves into the region....

Southland advances in the tournament! Northwestern State just upset Iowa. Respect for the Southland, and, better yet, another game means more money to spread around the conference.

Wow. That's a good column. Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the link.

Very funny. If either of you Aggies want to come over to utamavericks.com, the welcome mat is out. I've been leaving a lot of comments on this thread alone, but somebody keeps coming in with more discussion that is interesting to me. Maybe the next time this thread gets to page 2 it will just slip away. I promise I won't be the one who keeps bringing it back. How's that, Lifer? Probably 1600 hits or so to a UTA topic is enough for a UNT board.

Depending on one's viewpoint, UTA could be in a tough spot or a great spot. Depends on what you are measuring and what your view of the world is. Outside of Texas A&M or UT Austin (which are virtually indisputably in "great" spots), one could probably make similar statements for any university in Texas. Each has their challenges, strengths, and opportunities. "Connecting" with alumni is a definite challenge for UTA, as vast legions went through developing little or no loyalty. In terms of strengths, academically and research-wise, UTA has the goods. Opportunities are to grow this and to grow an enriching student environment (which cultivates eventual alumni ties). Objective, it doesn't surprise me that your friends didn't live on campus. Up until the last few years or so, the capacity and demand was limited. This is one of the big environmental changes that have occured over the past few years: lots of on-campus housing...along with a new real emphases of offering a rich student life experience for all who want to grab on to it. On the logo, I'm still getting used to it myself.

NTAggie, you have a pretty good memory. This did make a lot of news 2 or 3 years ago. The differences were between 2 or 3 Tarrant County legislators in Arlington and Fort Worth (who view UT Arlington as an economic engine) and the system chancellor. State Senator Chris Harris, who is an absolute bulldog for UT Arlington, led the charge. (If he were not on our side, I probably wouldn't like him.) Mark Yudolf came in as the new chancellor of the System and these legislators perceived a tilt in emphases toward UT Dallas in terms of who becomes a full-blown research institution first. I don't know if the tilt was true, but it was enough if the senators & representatives believed it. Anyway, these legislators threatened to introduce legislation to House & Senate to take UT Arlington out of the UT System for an undisclosed location. Well, the regents reacted quickly to squelch this initiative, satisfy the legislators, and retain UT Arlington. They basically jumped through hoops to demonstrate their commitment to UTA as a research institition. The Lt. Gov. visited the campus on behalf of the legislators and agreed to monitor an agreement between the legislators and System. Since this time, I believe we have been on the "A List" in terms of System initiatives to build research capacity, e.g., a new agreement between Vought Aircraft and the college of engineering which was directed by the System, a new chemistry & physics building, etc. As a side note, although A&M had to keep a low profile due to the politics of the situation, I have heard from a well placed source who is close to the A&M leadership that the A&M System would have been most eager to get back the component they lost in 1965. All-in-all, this little rift turned-out to be one of the best things to happen to UTA.

Bison, tell us how you really feel! I tend to agree with the thought put-forth by NT80. We will probably need a trim color. I suppose we could use something besides orange (sanctioned) or red (on the outs), but that would seem to be counter to the current color clarification and definition. We'd probably have to go back and ask the regents for permission to use another color. Of course, if Pete says no orange on the uniforms, I don't have any reason to doubt that he means what he says. I'm an alum, too, and am very glad we are keeping blue as the dominant color, but, at the same time I don't have any hostile feelings toward the color orange. I could elaborate, but, suffice it to say that I'm very much at ease with it.

Good list. That was quick. If you add Auburn, there are a few (can't say it is super-scarce), but not many. Okay. Thanks.

Who else uses blue & orange? I can only think of Auburn (check their website, which I think is fairly attractive). If it is indeed at least fairly scarce, then that is an advantage.

I know, everybody is a logo expert. Personally, I think I have a real eye for it. All I can say is that it tested well, particularly amongst students but also among outside people. Freak, I kinda like the corporate-looking logo that showed up in today's Shorthorn as an early example of what they considered. But, heck, I've been in the corporate world too long. I can't trust myself as being representative of John Q. Public or a student on these matters.

Okay, I will take my fellow UTA poster's word about the regents okaying red trim on uniforms at one time. In fact, that makes sense that they would have okayed it, whether they actually knew it or not. Not much happens on campus without at least formal approval from the regents. Every faculty appointment, catalog change, crossed T or dotted i, gets handed to the regents in a big report for their approval. Regardless, red as a trim color on uniforms is out the door. Any disagreements with my fellow UTA poster are more about ranking priorities than overall direction or goals. And, thank you NM Green for your kind remarks! BTW, I am really impressed with some of the work that has been done on your campus, too. Looks like a great place to go to school. I'm just ready to kick some NT tail in men's b-ball! Come-on guys, we need to get this going again, as the rivalry was great!

NT80, the Special Events Center is still in the works. In fact, our president was quoted in today's Shorthorn as saying that the brand launch emphasized the need for it (the turn-out was nothing short of astounding, and hundreds were turned away). The work to put this deal together is still behind the scenes, but as long as our president is putting his neck out there and associating himself with the project, I have high hopes. In fact, if you look at "Support UT Arlington" from the main web site, you will notice that the Special Events Center is one of the initiatives that they are working on. Reportedly, there are two other groups that would like to go in on this with us. This kind of partnership is what it is going to take to raise the funds to get this built. As you doubtless know, the state isn't building these amenities anymore. Our original concept drawings planned for 6,500 permanent seats (plus floor seating), but, according to the papers, both potential partners want something larger (one wants 8,500, and the other 10,000...personally, I don't want it too large). Last I heard, they are trying to put together a financing package within the next 3 or so months. So, I hope we have something take the Board of Regents and Coordinating Board before the year is over. The proposed site is on the South 40. This location seems great to me because it is highly visible, adjacent to plenty of parking, and would define the southern edge of the campus. Football won't be considered at least until this arena is done. I'm not against football, but I definitely want to remedy this arena situation first. Build-up what we already have. The very significant increase in on-campus housing (this isn't the same campus as it was in 1985) and a student turn-out at yesterday's event that apprently blew everyone away makes me very optimistic that we can increase interest and attendance in sports if done right. And, "right" to me means a facility that gets us out of the ditch compared to everyone else in the world and a good coach. Of course, sports is just one component of a rich student life and positive external identity. I think UT Arlington is working on a lot of fronts. I think we have a lot of momentum right now due to an amazing president who knows how to communicate and understands all facets, e.g., research, teaching, student life, etc. Building research capacity is a particular emphases right now. Like UNT, we are classified as one of six "Emerging Research Universities" in by the Coordinating Board. You guys need to get a great president, because this is all-important. A good one can take a university to new heights, while a bad or mediocre one will hinder just about everything.

Whether intentional or not (probably not), the new logo and wordmark follow a pattern used in the highly regarded University of California System. That is, the city is emphasized (larger font) as a differentiator in the market place. If you care to, take a look at the websites of the University of California at Santa Cruz or Berkeley. Not bad examples... The branding keeps blue and white as our predominant colors, but brings in a bit of orange (academic colors since 1965). Blue & white go back deep into institutional history further than I know. Yet, it seems appropriate to me to introduce the orange. It is a great outline color, and has been on campus for a long time, too (but not so well known to the outside public). This logo & wordmark tend to end that schizophrenia that has existed by bringing the colors together. BTW, red has never been a university color. I believe the athletic department - on their own - has used it as a highlight color. That's what athletic departments do if they are not supervised or given direction. Gee, we are approaching 500 hits on this subject! Didn't know so many of you guys were interested in our doings! Hey, we got it done without a logogate, a micro-managing chancellor, or a lot or acrimony and harsh feelings, too! Now, keep your eyes open for advertising in the DFW and Houston markets!