UTSA brings College Football To San Antonio

[casual fan]

The NFL will place a team in LA before San Antonio.

You might be right. If so then it gives UTSA a huge advantage as they are the only football in a football hungry BIG city with a vacant domed stadium. If they can recruit then they could be big stuff in a few years because of their location.

[buff64]

UTSA is in such a unique situation. I can't think of another school in such a big city with only one college team and no NFL team. I can see why they have the city behind them. If you live in San Antonio and want football, they are it. However, I have a hunch if they continue to draw well the NFL might put a team there. If that happened it would really steal their thunder.

Incarnate Word University and Trinty University also play football in San Antonio. IWU is in the process of moving to DI.

[casual fan]

Incarnate Word University and Trinty University also play football in San Antonio. IWU is in the process of moving to DI.

I stand corrected. I didn't realize that UTSA was up against such stiff competiton for San Antonio's sports dollar. However, Incarnate Word University was founded by the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word in 1881. By definition playing them would be playing against the sisters of the poor.

[KRAM1]

Personally, I am glad to see San Antonio get a D-1 college football team and I wish UTSA luck (except, of course, when it plays the Mean Green). It will be a good thing for San Antonio and give UNT a nice travel spot down the road. I have no problems with whatever competition this might bring to UNT as far as recruiting goes, fan loyalty or anything else. The folks that moan about UTSA "passing UNT by" or doing this or that better or with more fanfare than UNT are just spewing sour grapes. This is good for UNT and good for San Antonio and for Texas. Bring 'em on...I'll enjoy seeing the Mean green play and beat a "local" team for a change.

[casual fan]

Personally, I am glad to see San Antonio get a D-1 college football team and I wish UTSA luck (except, of course, when it plays the Mean Green). It will be a good thing for San Antonio and give UNT a nice travel spot down the road. I have no problems with whatever competition this might bring to UNT as far as recruiting goes, fan loyalty or anything else. The folks that moan about UTSA "passing UNT by" or doing this or that better or with more fanfare than UNT are just spewing sour grapes. This is good for UNT and good for San Antonio and for Texas. Bring 'em on...I'll enjoy seeing the Mean green play and beat a "local" team for a change.

Amen brother.

[SilverEagle]

Well, PLUMM, a nice new stadium with a lot of taxpayer buy-in and taxpayer obligations. Like it or not that Texas Stadium is in Arlington, there public/private sports arena deals are often great deals...for the teams and the team owners. While I support professional sports teams and think they do "add" to a city's tax base over time (in many different ways), I am not a fan of using public money in support of rich guys building new arenas and stadiums when they could easily afford it on their own...along with their team.

By the way...just a question...why doesn't the NFL develop a fund that would support new stadium construction? That would seem beneficial to the league as a whole...BUT, I guess why do it when you can get the local taxpayer to cough up the funds and have the taxpayer on the hook financially, right? And, before one posts...no, I am not a big fan of tax incentives to private industry and businesses as a whole...matter of principle...using taxpayer funds for the benefit of private business seem odd to em, and I cannot find many studies that actually reflect that it turns out, in the long run to be THAT good of a deal for the taxpayer...contrary to what the Chamber of Commerce of the City leaders who support the incentives might tell you. My Libertarian leanings just have a problem with the whole concept.

So, are you suggesting that there might be such a thing as Corporate Welfare?..... That sounds like liberal rhetoric to me. What ever will your conservative buddies think?...............

[SilverEagle]

Personally, I am glad to see San Antonio get a D-1 college football team and I wish UTSA luck (except, of course, when it plays the Mean Green). It will be a good thing for San Antonio and give UNT a nice travel spot down the road. I have no problems with whatever competition this might bring to UNT as far as recruiting goes, fan loyalty or anything else. The folks that moan about UTSA "passing UNT by" or doing this or that better or with more fanfare than UNT are just spewing sour grapes. This is good for UNT and good for San Antonio and for Texas. Bring 'em on...I'll enjoy seeing the Mean green play and beat a "local" team for a change.

Actually this is "we-might-have-to-get-off-our-collective-asses-and-actually-do-something-to-support-North Texas-at-a-higher-level- and -that-might-be-too-inconvenient" rhetoric. After all, doing relatively nothing and complaining lots is an old North Texas tradition.

Now, what did I do with those wrinkled $100 bills..................

[Baby Arm!]

I am amazed that so many sports fans try to make an economic argument for spending other people's money on pro sports venues. They seldom deliver what they promise and even when they do actually have a positive financial impact, it never is really returned to the tax payer.

I don't buy the economic argument for a minute, but I also don't have a problem with public financing of stadiums. Why, because that's how the game is played if you want a pro football team in your town. It's the price to be paid. An election was held and the voters agreed they are willing to pay to have a pro team in their town. It's their choice. Just like they agree to tax themselves to pay for parks, museums, concert halls, etc, and any number of things that add to the quality of life for the residents of that town. I just wish cities would be honest and say they believe having a pro sports team adds to the quality of life in their city and they are willing to pay for it. Stop with all the ecomomic BS,

[shaft]

Stadiums have a minor economic impact. A downtown Dallas stadium would have been the catalyst to make the area around the ACC work and brought some life back to the West End. A Fair Park Stadium would have made enough money to cover the operating cost for the entire park, wouldn't have spurred any real development in the area.

Arlington bought themselves an identity with the stadium. San Antonio tried the same thing with the Alamo Bowl.

[buff64]

I stand corrected. I didn't realize that UTSA was up against such stiff competiton for San Antonio's sports dollar. However, Incarnate Word University was founded by the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word in 1881. By definition playing them would be playing against the sisters of the poor.

Not poor with Tom Benson paying for the football program.

[Mark Gommesen]

But wait.. isn't the Alamodome twenty miles away from UTSA? I mean, completely across town. I guess there is plenty of parking on campus during games...that's a plus.

Along with placating the San Antonio Spurs ownership's demands for a larger basketball venue, the multi-purpose facility was intended to increase the city's convention traffic and attract a professional football franchise which has not occurred. The Spurs played basketball in the Alamodome for a decade, then became disenchanted with the facility and convinced Bexar County to construct a new arena for them now called the AT&T Center at the San Antonio Livestock Exposition Inc

Visiting the Alamodome is interesting. It used to the the home of the Spurs, but now sits empty most of the time, a tribute to poor urban planning. It is located in the heart of the city, but lacks adequate parking, forget about tailgating.http://www.utsatailg...g-damn-straight There are approximately only 2,100 on-site parking spaces and 12,000 parking spaces within a mile walking distance to the dome.

Eventually, the dome will likely be torn down, as the occasional concert and football game can't cover the costs of keeping it running.

The city is currently exploring selling the naming rights to the Alamodome in an attempt to offset rising costs.

UTSA's five contract with the city is a real stinker for the Roadrunners.

This agreement is expected to generate approximately $40k-$130k per game in City revenue based on estimated attendance of 5k-30k per game.

UTSA will reimburse the City for event staffing and other costs estimated at $25k-$37k per game, based on estimated attendance of 5k-30k. In addition, the City will retain the following revenue:

1. $1.00 ticket fee on incremental tickets sold in excess of 20k per game (not including student tickets)

2. All concessions and catering commissions, including beer sales commissions

3. All sales of parking at $10.00 per car

4. City and UTSA to share equally in suite rental on 10 suites sold by either party.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Mark Gommesen

[GL2Greatness]

But wait.. isn't the Alamodome twenty miles away from UTSA? I mean, completely across town. I guess there is plenty of parking on campus during games...that's a plus.

Along with placating the San Antonio Spurs ownership's demands for a larger basketball venue, the multi-purpose facility was intended to increase the city's convention traffic and attract a professional football franchise which has not occurred. The Spurs played basketball in the Alamodome for a decade, then became disenchanted with the facility and convinced Bexar County to construct a new arena for them now called the AT&T Center at the San Antonio Livestock Exposition Inc

Visiting the Alamodome is interesting. It used to the the home of the Spurs, but now sits empty most of the time, a tribute to poor urban planning. It is located in the heart of the city, but lacks adequate parking, forget about tailgating.http://www.utsatailg...g-damn-straight There are approximately only 2,100 on-site parking spaces and 12,000 parking spaces within a mile walking distance to the dome.

Eventually, the dome will likely be torn down, as the occasional concert and football game can't cover the costs of keeping it running.

The city is currently exploring selling the naming rights to the Alamodome in an attempt to offset rising costs.

UTSA's five contract with the city is a real stinker for the Roadrunners.

This agreement is expected to generate approximately $40k-$130k per game in City revenue based on estimated attendance of 5k-30k per game.

UTSA will reimburse the City for event staffing and other costs estimated at $25k-$37k per game, based on estimated attendance of 5k-30k. In addition, the City will retain the following revenue:

1. $1.00 ticket fee on incremental tickets sold in excess of 20k per game (not including student tickets)

2. All concessions and catering commissions, including beer sales commissions

3. All sales of parking at $10.00 per car

4. City and UTSA to share equally in suite rental on 10 suites sold by either party.

1. UTSA is not just marketing their team to students and alumni they are marketing their team to the entire city

2. what do the spurs have to do with anything?

3. they may not have what you consider adaquate parking, but they still get 60K+ there for bowl games most every year and more than that for final fours

4. why would it be torn down it still gets final fours, concerts, a bowl game that is moving up in the pecking order, high school football, WWE, Soccer, rodeo, Cowboys training camps, and many other events all of which provide benefits to the community and the surrounding hotels and restaurants

5. the deal is such a "stinker" that UTSA made a million or more over their projections on football last year and that is before they are even D1-A and before they have several well known teams coming in to play them......it probably beats paying 78 million for a stadium that host 5 home games per season and can't even get a high school game after that

6. in spite of all you said UTSA still had 60K+ for their home opener and they averaged at least 2X what unT did in their new stadium that the students are paying a large portion of

[Mark Gommesen]

1. UTSA is not just marketing their team to students and alumni they are marketing their team to the entire city

2. what do the spurs have to do with anything?

3. they may not have what you consider adaquate parking, but they still get 60K+ there for bowl games most every year and more than that for final fours

4. why would it be torn down it still gets final fours, concerts, a bowl game that is moving up in the pecking order, high school football, WWE, Soccer, rodeo, Cowboys training camps, and many other events all of which provide benefits to the community and the surrounding hotels and restaurants

5. the deal is such a "stinker" that UTSA made a million or more over their projections on football last year and that is before they are even D1-A and before they have several well known teams coming in to play them......it probably beats paying 78 million for a stadium that host 5 home games per season and can't even get a high school game after that

6. in spite of all you said UTSA still had 60K+ for their home opener and they averaged at least 2X what unT did in their new stadium that the students are paying a large portion of

1. UTSA is located in San Antonio having games at the Alamodome does not help to market their program to greater San Antonio. Having games at the AlamoDoMe does not bring visitors or alumni to the campus.

2. With the Spurs leaving the AlamoDoME and the building of the AT&T Center, there no major professional sports franchises that play at the AlamoDoMe. The AT&T Center and the Alamodome actually compete for events.

3. A Bowl Game once a year and a final four tournament every four years is not enough to support a major sports arena.

4. An empty sports arena benefits no one and costs everyone.

5/6. UTSA receieves no revenue from concessions, parking or permanent advertising or promotions. UTSA has share revenue on suites. UTSA has to pay almost 40k a game to used the Dome and pay ticket fees on sales greater than 20000.. UTSA students pay a sports fee just like UNT students. Unlike UTSA, UNT buyenefits from all the revenues their stadium generates. Yes impressive first game attendance, of course attendance dropped throughout the season by 50%. Once UTSA plays FBS level competition and has several losing seasons, let's compare attendance.

[glick1980]

Well, PLUMM, a nice new stadium with a lot of taxpayer buy-in and taxpayer obligations. Like it or not that Texas Stadium is in Arlington, there public/private sports arena deals are often great deals...for the teams and the team owners. While I support professional sports teams and think they do "add" to a city's tax base over time (in many different ways), I am not a fan of using public money in support of rich guys building new arenas and stadiums when they could easily afford it on their own...along with their team.

By the way...just a question...why doesn't the NFL develop a fund that would support new stadium construction? That would seem beneficial to the league as a whole...BUT, I guess why do it when you can get the local taxpayer to cough up the funds and have the taxpayer on the hook financially, right? And, before one posts...no, I am not a big fan of tax incentives to private industry and businesses as a whole...matter of principle...using taxpayer funds for the benefit of private business seem odd to em, and I cannot find many studies that actually reflect that it turns out, in the long run to be THAT good of a deal for the taxpayer...contrary to what the Chamber of Commerce of the City leaders who support the incentives might tell you. My Libertarian leanings just have a problem with the whole concept.

Today, a large amount of huge commercial developments are subsidized by City's using interlocal agreements. In general, the City's can see a very substantial benefit from them as well. It is usually a win-win, and in the long-run, the increased revenue generated by these developments far outweights any initial tax increases and in time can reduce property taxes.

[shaft]

It is usually a win-win, and in the long-run, the increased revenue generated by these developments far outweights any initial tax increases and in time can reduce property taxes.

I make economic development incentives for a living and I wouldn't say these deals "far outweigh" the costs. And for what it's worth the NFL does have a fund that contributes to new stadium construction.

[casual fan]

1. UTSA is located in San Antonio having games at the Alamodome does not help to market their program to greater San Antonio. Having games at the AlamoDoMe does not bring visitors or alumni to the campus.

2. With the Spurs leaving the AlamoDoME and the building of the AT&T Center, there no major professional sports franchises that play at the AlamoDoMe. The AT&T Center and the Alamodome actually compete for events.

3. A Bowl Game once a year and a final four tournament every four years is not enough to support a major sports arena.

4. An empty sports arena benefits no one and costs everyone.

5/6. UTSA receieves no revenue from concessions, parking or permanent advertising or promotions. UTSA has share revenue on suites. UTSA has to pay almost 40k a game to used the Dome and pay ticket fees on sales greater than 20000.. UTSA students pay a sports fee just like UNT students. Unlike UTSA, UNT buyenefits from all the revenues their stadium generates. Yes impressive first game attendance, of course attendance dropped throughout the season by 50%. Once UTSA plays FBS level competition and has several losing seasons, let's compare attendance.

1. Doesn't UTSA have a large hunk of their campus within a mile or so of the Alamo Dome?

2. Doesn't that give UTSA a bit of a monopoly on football in San Antonio?

3. The city needs UTSA to draw well for that reason.

4. I agree. I was at our last home game.

5/6. They may pay $40,000 a game but they also don't have up keep, etc.

But let's see, 5 home games x $40,000 = $200,000 x 390 years = $78,000,000. Might be a bargain.

Predicting their attendance over the next several years is tough, but since they play in a 65,000 seat domed stadium in the 7th largest US city, they might do better than we think.

We need to stop worrying about how UTSA is doing and worry more about UNT attendance. Nothing would please me more than to sit in a full house and watch us consistently beat them in football, basketball, and some day baseball.