Texas State

UNTflyer · May 16, 2009

http://sjmc.oldmain.txstate.edu/channel23/content/fbs1.wmv

Some interesting highlights of the challenges for the Bobcats such as:

Impact of NCAA's FBS moratorium

State's denial of authority to sell bonds

Difficulty raising private donations

Possible conference destinations

Poor attendance

NT80 · May 16, 2009

UNTflyer said:
http://sjmc.oldmain.txstate.edu/channel23/content/fbs1.wmv
Some interesting highlights of the challenges for the Bobcats such as:
Impact of NCAA's FBS moratorium
State's denial of authority to sell bonds
Difficulty raising private donations
Possible conference destinations
Poor attendance

It is an interesting talk about their situation. They don't say why bonding was denied by the State (an advantage we have in being the flagship of our own System). A constant theme throughout is outside donations need to increase. While Texas State has quickly jumped in enrollment it's football team has never played at the top level like NT did before dropping to 1-AA, and SWT was D-II for many years before moving to 1-AA fairly recently. It will be interesting to see who progresses faster toward FBS: UTSA, TSU, or USA.

FirefightnRick · May 17, 2009

Can't get the link to work.

We just got back last night from Texas State for the Texas Federation of Music Clubs' state competition. Their stadium renovation is going to be really nice. If they just didn't have that track?

I have to say, anyone who is against that school being a conference mate is insane. The place is just incredibly nice and would be a fantastic road game every two years us. They would be a great conference mate in the Sunbelt.

Rick

Baby Arm! · May 18, 2009

FirefightnRick said:
Can't get the link to work.
We just got back last night from Texas State for the Texas Federation of Music Clubs' state competition. Their stadium renovation is going to be really nice. If they just didn't have that track?
I have to say, anyone who is against that school being a conference mate is insane. The place is just incredibly nice and would be a fantastic road game every two years us. They would be a great conference mate in the Sunbelt.
Rick

I certainly wouldn't mind a UNT game every other year just 10 minutes up the road.

Chrisattsu · May 19, 2009

NT80 said:
It is an interesting talk about their situation. They don't say why bonding was denied by the State (an advantage we have in being the flagship of our own System). A constant theme throughout is outside donations need to increase. While Texas State has quickly jumped in enrollment it's football team has never played at the top level like NT did before dropping to 1-AA, and SWT was D-II for many years before moving to 1-AA fairly recently. It will be interesting to see who progresses faster toward FBS: UTSA, TSU, or USA.

Bonding-

While, I do not know if this is true, I have heard rumors that the inablilty to sell bonds comes from the Texas State System Office rather than the state. Apparently a number of schools in the system are trying to sell bonds for campus improvements.

Flagship-

Sometimes I wish that Texas State was the flapship of the system. I think it would make things easier and cut through the bureaucratic tape faster.

Outside Donations-

This is a pretty significant problem. The students have ponied up their money and we have seen some deep pocketed alumni step up to the plate, but in order to make our athletics a success we need to get the alumni donating back to the athletic program. Corporate money needs to happen as well. We are still trying to sell the naming rights to all of our facilities. I keep hoping one of them is going to step up to the plate with With HEB, Frost Bank, Time Warner, Grande Communications, and a number of other companies based in our backyard.

Never playing at the top level-

We moved from D2 to IAA in 1983. We were largely unsuccessful because the university did not deem it a priority. Since the name change, a new group of students have come into the university. They believe that Texas State will be able to compete. They were so committed to this idea that they voted to increase the athletic budget from $12M to $25M by 2011. Money helps make programs successful, you cannot operate a program on a shoestring budget and expect to be competitive across the board.

Who will progress faster-

Texas State- already in our 'Drive'. The mentality on campus has shifted from being complacent in the Southland (in reality- Apathetic to our current program) to demanding better for our athletics. We are pumping money into facility improvements, increasing to the athletic budget to comfortable FBS level, and striving for success in all of our programs. This year we won our fourth SLC Commissioners Cup (athletic program of the year), Our woman won the All Woman's cup for the 9th consecutive year (11th overall), we won conference titles in Football, Volleyball, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, and finished as runner up in 3 other sports.

UTSA-They are a sleeping giant. San Antonio is hungry for football, but they will not be content with an FCS team. For the Alamo city to embrace this team, it will need to bring in marquee teams. People talk about UTSA being the next South Florida. It could happen if things get rolling in the right direction. They have Larry Coker at the helm and access to the Alamodome. SA can host conference tournaments and potentially another bowl (which could be a selling point to a conference like the SBC) While the top caliber players will still end up at a Big XII school, their recruiting backyard includes SA, Austin, and all of South Texas. They may also have the advantage of accessing corporate money because of their location in a large city.

USA- To be honest, I know they are in the Sunbelt already and that is about it. Having a conference already in place gives them a leg up in starting FBS football.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Chrisattsu

Shof · May 19, 2009

FirefightnRick said:
Can't get the link to work.
We just got back last night from Texas State for the Texas Federation of Music Clubs' state competition. Their stadium renovation is going to be really nice. If they just didn't have that track?
I have to say, anyone who is against that school being a conference mate is insane. The place is just incredibly nice and would be a fantastic road game every two years us. They would be a great conference mate in the Sunbelt.
Rick

Rick,

I couldn't agree more. Love going up to San Marcos. Would love to have another opportunity to see my Cajuns closer to San Antonio.

Shof

NT80 · May 19, 2009

Chrisattsu said:
Bonding-
While, I do not know if this is true, I have heard rumors that the inablilty to sell bonds comes from the Texas State System Office rather than the state. Apparently a number of schools in the system are trying to sell bonds for campus improvements.
Flagship-
Sometimes I wish that Texas State was the flapship of the system. I think it would make things easier and cut through the bureaucratic tape faster.
Outside Donations-
This is a pretty significant problem. The students have ponied up their money and we have seen some deep pocketed alumni step up to the plate, but in order to make our athletics a success we need to get the alumni donating back to the athletic program. Corporate money needs to happen as well. We are still trying to sell the naming rights to all of our facilities. I keep hoping one of them is going to step up to the plate with With HEB, Frost Bank, Time Warner, Grande Communications, and a number of other companies based in our backyard.
Never playing at the top level-
We moved from D2 to IAA in 1983. We were largely unsuccessful because the university did not deem it a priority. Since the name change, a new group of students have come into the university. They believe that Texas State will be able to compete. They were so committed to this idea that they voted to increase the athletic budget from $12M to $25M by 2011. Money helps make programs successful, you cannot operate a program on a shoestring budget and expect to be competitive across the board.
Who will progress faster-
Texas State- already in our 'Drive'. The mentality on campus has shifted from being complacent in the Southland (in reality- Apathetic to our current program) to demanding better for our athletics. We are pumping money into facility improvements, increasing to the athletic budget to comfortable FBS level, and striving for success in all of our programs. This year we won our fourth SLC Commissioners Cup (athletic program of the year), Our woman won the All Woman's cup for the 9th consecutive year (11th overall), we won conference titles in Football, Volleyball, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, and finished as runner up in 3 other sports.
UTSA-They are a sleeping giant. San Antonio is hungry for football, but they will not be content with an FCS team. For the Alamo city to embrace this team, it will need to bring in marquee teams. People talk about UTSA being the next South Florida. It could happen if things get rolling in the right direction. They have Larry Coker at the helm and access to the Alamodome. SA can host conference tournaments and potentially another bowl (which could be a selling point to a conference like the SBC) While the top caliber players will still end up at a Big XII school, their recruiting backyard includes SA, Austin, and all of South Texas. They may also have the advantage of accessing corporate money because of their location in a large city.
USA- To be honest, I know they are in the Sunbelt already and that is about it. Having a conference already in place gives them a leg up in starting FBS football.

Good answers. IF Texas State actually does increase their athletic budget to $25M and keeps focus of the goal they should get a shot. The trip to San Marcos would be easier than any we make now for a conference game. Good luck.

Dodge2007 · May 19, 2009

NT80 said:
Good answers. IF Texas State actually does increase their athletic budget to $25M and keeps focus of the goal they should get a shot. The trip to San Marcos would be easier than any we make now for a conference game. Good luck.

Texas State wants no part of the sun belt based on what I have read. They are looking for a completely different conference.

The track sucks but that could change. Much easier to build a simple track somewhere else than to build a new stadium, as we all know to well.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Dodge2007

Chrisattsu · May 19, 2009

Dodge2007 said:
Texas State wants no part of the sun belt based on what I have read. They are looking for a completely different conference.
The track sucks but that could change. Much easier to build a simple track somewhere else than to build a new stadium, as we all know to well.

This is the current master plan for Bobcat Stadium. As you can see they have removed the track. I admit that we will not see this completed stadium for some time, but we are chipping away at it.

Phase 1a- Build a new Pressbox. This is coming along nicely. It is expected to be ready to go by this August. Pictures of progress can be found here - http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55088

Phase 1b - Build a T&F Complex / Remove the track. The University has a obtained a couple pieces of land, and they are trying to determine the best location to place at new T&F complex. Once the track has been removed, they will look to extending the lower bowl down to the field level shown in the picture. From what I have heard, the track should happen before the 2010 or 2011 season.

Phase 2- Start Horseshoeing away from the End Zone Complex (the curved building at the end) and rebuild the visiting lockerroom side (the flatside). TBD

Phase 3- bowl it in. TBD

Phase 4- ???

Phase 5- PROFIT!

Edited May 19, 2009 by Chrisattsu

Chrisattsu · May 19, 2009

Dodge2007 said:
Texas State wants no part of the sun belt based on what I have read. They are looking for a completely different conference.
The track sucks but that could change. Much easier to build a simple track somewhere else than to build a new stadium, as we all know to well.

"Texas State wants no part of the Belt" -- Depends on who you ask. If you look at the propaganda used to sell the Athletic Fee increase to the students, it indicates that we are pushing for CUSA.

If you ask the bobcatfans, most think a new "Southwest Conference" is more likely than us getting into CUSA. They figure it is going to be WAC or Sunbelt. Our WAC advocates (and detractors) cite the same reasons that I read on this messageboard. It is basically a toss up.

If you ask me, from what AD is doing, they are positioning us for the Sunbelt. Our new baseball facility opened this season. I decided to compare the max capacity of our complex (It holds 2200 people) and compare it to the three "potential" conferences. I found that most SBC baseball stadiums fall in the 2000 - 2500 range. WAC (except NMST) in the 3500-5000 range, and Conference USA is on par or larger than that. I think they are hoping to expand the stadium to around 35,000 which could go either way as that looks to be middle of the pack in both the SBC and WAC. Fiscally speaking, The $25M budget puts us where we need to be in either SBC or WAC, but the savings in travel costs alone make me thing that they will lean towards SBC.

There are only two reasons that I could see us going to the WAC over SBC-

1. There may not be an open spot in the SBC. Sunbelt Commish has stated that you guys are good right now (especially with USA adding football).

2. Formation of a WAC-East. I have read all over the net that WAC wants to get back into Texas. Especially if LaTech is staying in the Conference. Maybe WAC picks up Texas State and UTSA.

Follow up question to the posters on this board---.

If there was an WAC-East that consisted of

NM St, UTEP, TxSt, UTSA, and LaTech would North Texas come on board?

Edited May 19, 2009 by Chrisattsu

Baby Arm! · May 19, 2009

Chrisattsu said:
Follow up question to the posters on this board---.
If there was an WAC-East that consisted of
NM St, UTEP, TxSt, UTSA, and LaTech would North Texas come on board?

UNT has a standing invitation to join the WAC as it is today (or so says the WAC commish). I would imagine if a WAC east did develop with the schools you mentioned UNT would definately take a look at it.

But I seriously doubt UTEP would move back to the WAC from CUSA, and UNT is a more likely to go to CUSA if it expands anytime soon

May 19, 2009

Dodge2007 said:
Texas State wants no part of the sun belt based on what I have read. They are looking for a completely different conference.
The track sucks but that could change. Much easier to build a simple track somewhere else than to build a new stadium, as we all know to well.

I've read that there has been a "feeler" from the WAC at one time but other than that I've only seen the Sun Belt mentioned in conference aspirations.

Those are their only two options as I see it. The Belt will need a replacement for UNO and Denver. That might also be true for UALR in the future. I believe that we would help sell them to other SBC members, making that the easier way to 1-A/FBS status. The WAC is looking for established 1-A teams for expansion and it only wants one at this time. They have a 1-AA/FCS team at the waiting in Portland State. Cal State-Sacramento is another that has been mentioned. If they should decide to go to twelve then Montana and Montana State might be available. CUSA and the MWC are not options at this time, nor is the MAC. That leaves the Belt as the most viable option.

P.S. I don't think that TSU will need an athletic budget of $25M; 20 should do nicely. It can be done on even less (see La Tech and ULM).

Chrisattsu · May 19, 2009

Baby Arm! said:
UNT has a standing invitation to join the WAC as it is today (or so says the WAC commish). I would imagine if a WAC east did develop with the schools you mentioned UNT would definately take a look at it.
But I seriously doubt UTEP would move back to the WAC from CUSA, and UNT is a more likely to go to CUSA if it expands anytime soon

I get the idea of CUSA having a better perception than WAC, but it seems like the UTEP is the geographic outlier in CUSA much like LaTech in the WAC. You would think their fan base would prefer playing Nevada, Utah, and NMSt rather than Marshall, UAB, or Memphis. and likewise, you have to think that everyone else in the conference hates going to El Paso.

Chrisattsu · May 19, 2009

GrayEagleOne said:
I've read that there has been a "feeler" from the WAC at one time but other than that I've only seen the Sun Belt mentioned in conference aspirations.
Those are their only two options as I see it. The Belt will need a replacement for UNO and Denver. That might also be true for UALR in the future. I believe that we would help sell them to other SBC members, making that the easier way to 1-A/FBS status. The WAC is looking for established 1-A teams for expansion and it only wants one at this time. They have a 1-AA/FCS team at the waiting in Portland State. Cal State-Sacramento is another that has been mentioned. If they should decide to go to twelve then Montana and Montana State might be available. CUSA and the MWC are not options at this time, nor is the MAC. That leaves the Belt as the most viable option.
P.S. I don't think that TSU will need an athletic budget of $25M; 20 should do nicely. It can be done on even less (see La Tech and ULM).

It may not be $25M, that is just a rough estimate that I am hearing. We will see what happens with the Athletic budget. In Spring 08, the students authorized an incremental increase to $20/SCH on the Athletic Fee ($10/sch before that)

I based my numbers off the 15 hour load-

At $10/sch -- 15hours x $10 = $150x2semesters = $300x29,000students = $8.7M (this does not include summer classes). Actual budget last year, $13M

At $20/sch (Effective 2010) -- 15hours x $20 = 300x2semesters = $600x30,000students = $18M (again no summer classes) + $4M difference listed above (maybe from donations) = $22M

Edited May 19, 2009 by Chrisattsu

TIgreen01 · May 19, 2009

Chrisattsu said:
Follow up question to the posters on this board---.
If there was an WAC-East that consisted of
NM St, UTEP, TxSt, UTSA, and LaTech would North Texas come on board?

Dang good question. I'd say from a fan's perspective---yes. From the AD/Pres perspective, no. UTEP would never make this move as long as CUSA stays in it's current alignment and we don't have enough proof that LaTech would even be committed/agreed to this. I think LaTech is your biggest detractor. They have the same problem that SMU does---they think they are better, and should associate themselves with better, than they really are.

I honestly do not think that both TSU and UTSA will be able to successfully make the move to FBS--at the same time. If they do end up making the jump, their success will be marginal b/c of the further thinning out of Texas' talent and specifically the talent around the SA/Austin area. Also, any UNT fan that thinks it's a good idea for there to be MORE FBS level schools based in Texas isn't seeing the whole, true, picture. The same reason that SMU, TCU and Houston do not want to associate themselves with us is that WE are diluting both their talent pool and access to greater media exposure/respect by having success and elevating ourselves to their level. These schools were all in the SWC before. That conference broke up b/c the bigger schools couldn't get the national recognition they felt they deserved b/c SMU/TCU/Rice/Houston were diluting their SOS and talent pools. This cost them in the eyes of the media. This is why it is critical that we build the stadium, and start moving on and up. The longer that we stay at our current level, the more likely it is that we'll end up in some second division of the FBS---ala, some semblance of the Southland/redo of the SWC.

Also, to be clear, I do not mean that to move on and up means to move out of the Sun Belt. It means we have to start filling the stadium and constantly be in the race for the conference title. We need to occasionally get players drafted by the NFL. If we can do that, we'll be able to control our own destiny....ala Southern Miss---who we should(and probably the AD actually is) be modeling ourselves after. Nobody really knows what will happen in any of the conferences. With a nucleus of UNT, Troy, one of the Florida schools and rotate MTSU/ULL/ASU as competitors, this conference should be getting better and better. But we need to be one of the top 2-3 programs and not accept less than that.

Shof · May 20, 2009

Chrisattsu said:
If there was an WAC-East that consisted of
NM St, UTEP, TxSt, UTSA, and LaTech would North Texas come on board?

If memory serves me correctly, 3 schools got "offers" from the WAC following the CUSA moves. NT, UL-L, and ASU. Problem was, it was only 1 at a time to be a travel partner for LaTech. Had the WAC offered all 3 to align with Tech in the East, you may have seen the move made.

That said, if the WAC were indeed to recreate an E-WAC, you might see these schools offered again; especially NT. I think it would be a nice geographic fit with Tech, UL-L, NT, ASU, TSU, NMSU, etc; and the possibility of adding UTSA when they had football ready. ASU might feel it best to stay aligned "east" with MT, WKU, Troy, etc. But that's just a guess. No inside info on my Cajuns either. But would be nice to see TSU aligned with the western SBC teams. That could work.