Would A New Stadium Really Make A Difference?

[Green to the Bone]

I was wondering if the predictions of a new stadium making a real difference in recruiting and victories had much basis in fact. So I looked up SMU's record.

SMU has played eight full seasons (2000-07) since upgrading to Ford Stadium, a very nice facility. To make an apples-to-apples comparison, I looked at the eight seasons before they built the new place, 1992-99 (1992, 5-6, was the year they showed they were bouncing back from the death penalty; in fact, they've only matched or exceeded 1992's success four times since then).

Eight seasons before Ford Stadium: 29-56-3

Eight seasons after Ford Stadium: 25-69 (including yesterday's loss)

Unquestionably worse since the upgrade.

Of couse, one school doesn't prove anything, especially given the Ponies' 1987-88 difficulties.

But has anyone has ever done a national study of before-and-after successes for new stadiums. Is the belief that a new stadium is the key just another case of "if only," like a guy thinking, if only I bought a big, new house, I'd have a happier marriage and a better job?

Edited August 31, 2008 by Green to the Bone

[UNTflyer]

SMU is not a good example, as their admission standards are (were, until this year) much higher and they still suffer the stigma of the Death Penalty.

[Green Buckeye]

I don't put a lot of stock in the stadium "fixing" a program overnight. Don't get me wrong, updated facilities never hinder a program, especially if we're replacing Fouts. With a new stadium up south of 35, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were some posts on this forum wondering where all the wins are. A brand new glistening building does not mean NT's made it to the promised land, it only means the journey's on its way. The gameday experience MUST improve before a move is made across the highway, and that mostly means winning BEFORE dirt is turned. Gameday experience means filling up Fouts win or lose. Fill the current stadium and you can be sure that results of some kind will follow. The Navy game was awesome to see Fouts bristling with people...I'll be there against Tulsa.

[houstonmeangreen]

Yes it would, a great deal, in fact ...no stadium and UNT football is doomed...it will never go anywhere. The Wall STreet Journal had an extensive article on this very topic last Thurs, the 29th, talking about how BYU and Utah ? had much lower coaching salaries, but winning programs due to there stratagies of build good facalities so they could recruit better...and it worked. Check out the artilce...fits UNT exactly...good article.

[drex]

The main thing that a new stadium would do for us is to schedule the 'body bag' games here in Denton. It is so tough to win on the road against the caliber of competition that we schedule. Schedule KState here and see what the score would be ....certainly not the score from last night.

[island eagle]

The main thing that a new stadium would do for us is to schedule the 'body bag' games here in Denton. It is so tough to win on the road against the caliber of competition that we schedule. Schedule KState here and see what the score would be ....certainly not the score from last night.

A new stadium enhances the credibility of the program and that is good in many different ways.

[Travis]

I don't believe our football program will exist much longer if we don't get a new football stadium.

[meangreendork]

The stadium is really only as good as the team it showcases. I don't get why people think a stadium will suddenly mean a whole slew of wins and whatnot. No one wants to fill up a brand new stadium for a 1-11 team.

[UNTflyer]

Yes it would, a great deal, in fact ...no stadium and UNT football is doomed...it will never go anywhere. The Wall STreet Journal had an extensive article on this very topic last Thurs, the 29th, talking about how BYU and Utah ? had much lower coaching salaries, but winning programs due to there stratagies of build good facalities so they could recruit better...and it worked. Check out the artilce...fits UNT exactly...good article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219968204...=googlenews_wsj

[island eagle]

The stadium is really only as good as the team it showcases. I don't get why people think a stadium will suddenly mean a whole slew of wins and whatnot. No one wants to fill up a brand new stadium for a 1-11 team.

Because having a decent stadium reflects on your image as a program which affects recruiting, which eventually affects the amount of success in the win column. No it is not a panacea, but having inadequate resources are like trying to fight a heavyweight match with one hand tied behind your back. Sure, it can be done, but most often it leads to failure.

I, frankly, find it hard to comprehend why this simple point is so difficult to grasp. Or to make it simple...

try running a restaurant that looks old and run down and competing with one that is new and well-cared for. Sure, you still might succeed, but you aren't making it easy on yourself.

[UNTflyer]

The stadium is really only as good as the team it showcases. I don't get why people think a stadium will suddenly mean a whole slew of wins and whatnot. No one wants to fill up a brand new stadium for a 1-11 team.

Nobody says a new stadium will "suddenly" mean more wins. But a new stadium will bring in better recruits, and by the time the stadium is opened we should have a good team. It worked for UCF.

[JesseMartin]

The stadium is really only as good as the team it showcases. I don't get why people think a stadium will suddenly mean a whole slew of wins and whatnot. No one wants to fill up a brand new stadium for a 1-11 team.

I halfway agree with you...and half with the other guys. Nobody wants a new, empty stadium, but any nice, new stadium is better than *blaarrgghhh* Fouts. More than a few times, when I was still in town, I'd try to get some more people to come to the games with me. Excuses were in abundance, but comments about the stadium were among the more common. A new stadium may not fill up as soon as it's built without a winning team, but I think there'd be a lot more people at the nice, new place than in *blaarrgghhh* Fouts.

[Green to the Bone]

All good responses. I still wonder if it's open to debate, however.

The assertion that the death penalty has affected the validity of using SMU as an example seems counter to the data. Their W-L has gotten worse since building their stadium. How could the death penalty 20 years ago make them get worse as the memory fades? I also have a hard time seeing how SMU's admission standards are relevant. Rice has a significantly higher academic status than SMU but still stomped SMU yesterday.

The Utah schools mentioned in the WSJ story seem to have gotten more recruiting benefit out of their new new indoor practice fields than anything else. Those are the improved facilities that both schools single out as having made the recruiting difference.

I'm not saying scrap the stadium and build indoor fields. I'm looking forward to sitting in a nice stadium and being able to read jersey numbers without binoculars. I'm just saying the magic stadium formula might not be as magical as some expect.

[Poneez]

SMU is not a good example. We had no choice---Ownby Stadium was old (1926) and tiny. From 1946 until the Death Penalty we played at the Cotton Bowl and then Texas Stadium. Ownby was renovated for our return after the DP but it was not an adequate on campus facility.

[DeepGreen]

Nobody says a new stadium will "suddenly" mean more wins. But a new stadium will bring in better recruits, and by the time the stadium is opened we should have a good team. It worked for UCF.

For the record, UCF entertained 42,000+ at their erector set stadium, beating South Carolina State. Are they D1AA or D2? The fans didn't seem to care.

[Green to the Bone]

SMU is not a good example. We had no choice---Ownby Stadium was old (1926) and tiny. From 1946 until the Death Penalty we played at the Cotton Bowl and then Texas Stadium. Ownby was renovated for our return after the DP but it was not an adequate on campus facility.

I understand, but I think that's exactly why it is a good example. The analytical question is whether replacing an inadequate facility with a brand new stadium necessarily results in better recruiting and more victories. If the answer is yes, SMU should have gotten better since building that excellent stadium.

[JesseMartin]

For the record, UCF entertained 42,000+ at their erector set stadium, beating South Carolina State. Are they D1AA or D2? The fans didn't seem to care.

I think I might get an "erector" if I had a nice stadium too

Not sure if it's the same as when he was looking around, but a friend of mine in 1999 was checking out Law Schools and SMU's admission rate was like 65%. Easier for the average law student to get into than the average undergrad student. Weird.

In Denton...let's never get an indoor practice field like ASU's.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/foo...-facility_N.htm

[buff64]

A new stadium will help when the BCS schools don't want to scheldue your team the first couple of weeks of a new season.

[Green Mean]

I really dont think a new stadium would make a difference. It may the first year or two because of all the hype but if NT continues to suck then we wil have the same number of fans in the new stadium as we had at Fouts. I really think its debatable if it truly brings in better recruits in the end....these days every other program is making the upgrade because the notion is that a new stadium would do wonders. Look at all the sports teams that built new stadiums/arenas saying it would do this and that for the franchise and in reality they did not do anything. Whether we have a new stadium or not, there needs to be consistent winning and it wont matter if we are playing in a new stadium, Fouts, or hell a Safeway parking lot. If you win and do it consistently then things will take care of itself.

[trud1966]

All good responses. I still wonder if it's open to debate, however.

The assertion that the death penalty has affected the validity of using SMU as an example seems counter to the data. Their W-L has gotten worse since building their stadium. How could the death penalty 20 years ago make them get worse as the memory fades? I also have a hard time seeing how SMU's admission standards are relevant. Rice has a significantly higher academic status than SMU but still stomped SMU yesterday.

The Utah schools mentioned in the WSJ story seem to have gotten more recruiting benefit out of their new new indoor practice fields than anything else. Those are the improved facilities that both schools single out as having made the recruiting difference.

I'm not saying scrap the stadium and build indoor fields. I'm looking forward to sitting in a nice stadium and being able to read jersey numbers without binoculars. I'm just saying the magic stadium formula might not be as magical as some expect.

Yes, of course it's debatable. We've been stuck in this Mexican standoff for years. Some people will always think UNT has quietly thought, "put a great product on the field, and that will get a new stadium" and the team/fans/remaining others think "Build a Stadium and we'll put a better product on the field". Its an argument that's always going to be there. To me, it's not that simple. We need a new stadium, period. If we go 12-0 the next 4 seasons, or 0-12 the next four season, we need a new stadium. People need to remember that it's not THE solution to this program. It's one piece of the big puzzle, just like Todge's re-buiding process. It will take time, there will be pitfalls along the way, but it has got to keep moving a little more forward everyday.

By the way...We SOOOOOOOOOO need a new stadium....

[JesseMartin]

Word.

Regardless of whether it leads to a jump in...well, ANYTHING, bottom line, we still need a new stadium like tulsafan needs new lines.

[meangreendork]

Word.

Regardless of whether it leads to a jump in...well, ANYTHING, bottom line, we still need a new stadium like tulsafan needs new lines.

Bwahaha...he probably needs a new grasp on the English language, too.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

Bwahaha...he probably needs a new grasp on the English language, too.

Maybe he'll get that grasp when he gets to high school.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Promises have been made to coaches and recruits that a new stadium is coming. I don't know if I see getting a stadium as helping us improve so much as I see a failure to get a stadium severely crippling our credibility and program for years to come.

[SilverEagle]

I think that a new stadium's immediate impact would be (as Drex said) getting our body bag games moved to Denton.

Here's my historic perspective about Fouts....and about SMU as well.

A friend of mine, who attended one semester at NT (before transferring to UT) commented that he thought that Fouts was built to be a large track venue, as much as it was a football venue. When it was built, North Texas was experiencing a lot of Football success, but they were just as well known for their track teams. Having said that, I still don't understand why the stands were built at such a low angle. UT used to have a track around their stadium, and their sight lines were much better.

Back when we re-entered D-1, the only thing that we could do to bring NT up to the capacity standards of D-1 football of the mid-90's (when we re-entered D-1) was to add all those crappy metal stands on either end of the field.....outside the track. Those metal stands are what makes the "we-don't-fill-up-Fouts-so-why-should-we-get-a-new-and-larger-stadium" argument by the anti-stadium people mostly invalid. But we won't know for sure until we build a new stadium.

IMHO, if Ford stadium at been built at North Texas instead of SMU, our average attendance numbers for the last 8 years or so would be much different.

Comparing us to SMU is not a good comparison. Even during SMU's last SWC championship run, they didn't have very good attendance numbers. The thing about us and SMU is this. SMU has a past winning tradition that football fans find attractive, but because SMU is so unreachable (socially and academically) for most people in Dallas county (and surrounding areas) people don't identify with SMU. Most people in this region could easily identify with North Texas, but they are turned off by the lack of winning, and the lack of committment to winning by the administration at North Texas. Plus we have a crappy stadium/venue.

Who in hell would want to go and sit in those crappy metal stands? Besides getting cooked on a sunny day early in the season, the sight lines are absolutely abysmal. Those stands only get filled when we get the rare OCC opponent (Baylor, Navy) to come to Fouts and they bring their VERY LOYAL fans. The only other time that they get filled is when we've had a late season championship game, such as NMSU in 02, or Ark St. in 03, and the weather is more tolerable.

I feel very sorry for those people sitting in the metal stands this time of the year.

We need a new Football venue. But it won't do us much good if the administration (and alumni) don't work just as hard on changing the Football culture at North Texas.