(12-10-2021 06:11 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  UTA program stop playing due to Bevo not wanting them to compete for recruits and fan attention. I guess there still suffering from that hangover. Admins just not supportive of reviving the program. It seems they have a viable stadium just need some updates. . They would do well if they started one imo.

It had nothing to do with UT-Austin. We didn’t compete for many of the same recruits.

There were a lot of reasons for the demise. That is a not one of them.

(12-10-2021 06:44 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:11 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  UTA program stop playing due to Bevo not wanting them to compete for recruits and fan attention. I guess there still suffering from that hangover. Admins just not supportive of reviving the program. It seems they have a viable stadium just need some updates. . They would do well if they started one imo.

It had nothing to do with UT-Austin. We didn’t compete for many of the same recruits.

There were a lot of reasons for the demise. That is a not one of them.

Better tell UTA admins to quit telling that story that is the narrative they told my daughter at her freshman orientation, me and my wife attended with her

In my opinion, UTA's football stadium would be good for FCS football or high school football, but I don't think UTA should revive a football program. It most certainly would be too costly. UTA should hire a good basketball staff and concentrate on making basketball and baseball their focus. Changing conferences to the MVC would be a good move.

(12-10-2021 07:03 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:44 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:11 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  UTA program stop playing due to Bevo not wanting them to compete for recruits and fan attention. I guess there still suffering from that hangover. Admins just not supportive of reviving the program. It seems they have a viable stadium just need some updates. . They would do well if they started one imo.

It had nothing to do with UT-Austin. We didn’t compete for many of the same recruits.

There were a lot of reasons for the demise. That is a not one of them.

Better tell UTA admins to quit telling that story that is the narrative they told my daughter at her freshman orientation, me and my wife attended with her

Cliff notes.
UTA was one of the best DII schools in the ‘60’s. So they moved up. They didn’t add any extra money or staff, changed the mascot controversially and moved off campus to a baseball stadium, played all of September on the road, where they played better competition and were losers for the home opener and there were no other successful teams. Not one program won a Southland conference title in any sport in the 1970’s. One winning record (9-2), two second place finishes, and three times a win in one game was the difference between a championship and were they actually ended up. Twice they could have represented the SLC in the Independence bowl. They finished 5-6 four times. Add that an increase in enrollment based on older and traveling students, the program struggled.

I kid you not, the change was overnight. I’m 1969, the last in the College Division (equivalent to today’s DII) and playing on campus, they led the SLC in attendance and missed a championship by a game to Arkansas St. In 1970, they moved to the University Division and off-campus to Turnpike Stadium, the old home of the Rangers. They went winless that year, attendance shrank by over 50% and they finished last in attendance in the conference.

Basketball never was good and played a Texas Hall (on a stage in an auditorium for those who don’t know), baseball started in 1969, took a few years to get average, the track team never was in the top half. Swimming was good, but was disbanded.

UTA is the case study for how not to move up.

They made progress in the 1980’s, winning a title in 1981 (ironically the first year the independence bowl did not place the SLC champ and last year in today’s FBS. Basketball put together the best string of seasons, culminating in a 1981 NIT. Baseball was ranked nationally a couple of times, but could never win a title. The cross country team won a championship in 1985.

But I’m the end, the athletics department was losing $915,000 in 1985 and the athletics budget was 2 mil total. Nederman saw a tiny student attendance at football and made the call based on that alone.

(12-10-2021 10:57 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 07:03 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:44 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:11 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  UTA program stop playing due to Bevo not wanting them to compete for recruits and fan attention. I guess there still suffering from that hangover. Admins just not supportive of reviving the program. It seems they have a viable stadium just need some updates. . They would do well if they started one imo.

It had nothing to do with UT-Austin. We didn’t compete for many of the same recruits.

There were a lot of reasons for the demise. That is a not one of them.

Better tell UTA admins to quit telling that story that is the narrative they told my daughter at her freshman orientation, me and my wife attended with her

Cliff notes.
UTA was one of the best DII schools in the ‘60’s. So they moved up. They didn’t add any extra money or staff, changed the mascot controversially and moved off campus to a baseball stadium, played all of September on the road, where they played better competition and were losers for the home opener and there were no other successful teams. Not one program won a Southland conference title in any sport in the 1970’s. One winning record (9-2), two second place finishes, and three times a win in one game was the difference between a championship and were they actually ended up. Twice they could have represented the SLC in the Independence bowl. They finished 5-6 four times. Add that an increase in enrollment based on older and traveling students, the program struggled.

I kid you not, the change was overnight. I’m 1969, the last in the College Division (equivalent to today’s DII) and playing on campus, they led the SLC in attendance and missed a championship by a game to Arkansas St. In 1970, they moved to the University Division and off-campus to Turnpike Stadium, the old home of the Rangers. They went winless that year, attendance shrank by over 50% and they finished last in attendance in the conference.

Basketball never was good and played a Texas Hall (on a stage in an auditorium for those who don’t know), baseball started in 1969, took a few years to get average, the track team never was in the top half. Swimming was good, but was disbanded.

UTA is the case study for how not to move up.

They made progress in the 1980’s, winning a title in 1981 (ironically the first year the independence bowl did not place the SLC champ and last year in today’s FBS. Basketball put together the best string of seasons, culminating in a 1981 NIT. Baseball was ranked nationally a couple of times, but could never win a title. The cross country team won a championship in 1985.

But I’m the end, the athletics department was losing $915,000 in 1985 and the athletics budget was 2 mil total. Nederman saw a tiny student attendance at football and made the call based on that alone.

Great history lesson. I lived in the Dallas area from 1962 to 2002. I had friends that went to UTA. From now and into the future, I think that UTA has the potential to be a great basketball power. So far they have lacked the will. It's an institutional decision.

(12-09-2021 06:21 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  If you visit the SBC board, they are ready for us to leave; despite the fact we are a top third program in virtually every sport. But hey, football.

As for where to go. I’d prefer WAC at this point, but the rumor mill is strong with the Missouri Valley, both in our interest there and their’s toward us. I’d hate it. Nearest conference rival would be Missouri St at 7-8 hours away. Our travel costs would skyrocket as we can bus now to the Arkansas and Louisiana schools as well as Texas St.

So why leave on your own then.

(12-11-2021 10:47 AM)panite Wrote:  

(12-09-2021 06:21 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  If you visit the SBC board, they are ready for us to leave; despite the fact we are a top third program in virtually every sport. But hey, football.

As for where to go. I’d prefer WAC at this point, but the rumor mill is strong with the Missouri Valley, both in our interest there and their’s toward us. I’d hate it. Nearest conference rival would be Missouri St at 7-8 hours away. Our travel costs would skyrocket as we can bus now to the Arkansas and Louisiana schools as well as Texas St.

So why leave on your own then.

If they dropped athletics altogether, I don't think 99% of the students would care. So maybe the answer would be to wait until the SBC kicks them out.

(12-11-2021 10:47 AM)panite Wrote:  

(12-09-2021 06:21 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  If you visit the SBC board, they are ready for us to leave; despite the fact we are a top third program in virtually every sport. But hey, football.

As for where to go. I’d prefer WAC at this point, but the rumor mill is strong with the Missouri Valley, both in our interest there and their’s toward us. I’d hate it. Nearest conference rival would be Missouri St at 7-8 hours away. Our travel costs would skyrocket as we can bus now to the Arkansas and Louisiana schools as well as Texas St.

So why leave on your own then.

Likely we are leaving to get ahead of the curve. If you are forced out, it both looks bad and leaves you scrambling. We know the SBC is unhappy with out football. We have an interim president, so we are going to stay pat in sport offerings. Better to be proactive now than wait and hope.

(12-11-2021 02:21 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 10:47 AM)panite Wrote:  

(12-09-2021 06:21 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  If you visit the SBC board, they are ready for us to leave; despite the fact we are a top third program in virtually every sport. But hey, football.

As for where to go. I’d prefer WAC at this point, but the rumor mill is strong with the Missouri Valley, both in our interest there and their’s toward us. I’d hate it. Nearest conference rival would be Missouri St at 7-8 hours away. Our travel costs would skyrocket as we can bus now to the Arkansas and Louisiana schools as well as Texas St.

So why leave on your own then.

Likely we are leaving to get ahead of the curve. If you are forced out, it both looks bad and leaves you scrambling. We know the SBC is unhappy with out football. We have an interim president, so we are going to stay pat in sport offerings. Better to be proactive now than wait and hope.

Pretty much this. I don't think any bridges are being burned yet, but our interests aren't really the same. Both UTA and LR both explored restarting football but chose against it. That would have kept them in the conference. The official position of the conference right now is that we're not kicking them out...just suggesting they find a conference that values basketball more. Will that position change in the future? I'm not gonna speculate.

We haven’t looked at restarting football since the mid-2000’s, we’ll before we joined the conference.

No way UTA would restart football. If they did, the SBC would have uneven divisions and UTA would lose money on athletics and have to increase the fees to students. That won't happen.

You would have thought if UTA was going to restart football, they would have already done so. Even small Texas Wesleyan in Fort Worth has restarted their football program in the last 4 years and they hadn't played since WW II. Texas Wesleyan is even raising money for their new football stadium on campus. UTA just has not shown much inclination to boost their sports programs. It's a shame too. They do have a huge student population and alumni base.

UTA would be better in the WAC.

(12-11-2021 03:03 PM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 02:21 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 10:47 AM)panite Wrote:  

(12-09-2021 06:21 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  If you visit the SBC board, they are ready for us to leave; despite the fact we are a top third program in virtually every sport. But hey, football.

As for where to go. I’d prefer WAC at this point, but the rumor mill is strong with the Missouri Valley, both in our interest there and their’s toward us. I’d hate it. Nearest conference rival would be Missouri St at 7-8 hours away. Our travel costs would skyrocket as we can bus now to the Arkansas and Louisiana schools as well as Texas St.

So why leave on your own then.

Likely we are leaving to get ahead of the curve. If you are forced out, it both looks bad and leaves you scrambling. We know the SBC is unhappy with out football. We have an interim president, so we are going to stay pat in sport offerings. Better to be proactive now than wait and hope.

Pretty much this. I don't think any bridges are being burned yet, but our interests aren't really the same. Both UTA and LR both explored restarting football but chose against it. That would have kept them in the conference. The official position of the conference right now is that we're not kicking them out...just suggesting they find a conference that values basketball more. Will that position change in the future? I'm not gonna speculate.

Sounds like the Sunbelt conference is doing all the bridge burning. Isn't this the 4th team they've kicked out of the conference? New Mexico St., Idaho, UTA and UALR. That's not good business. These teams helped the conference survive during previous realignments and this is the loyalty they showed to them. Unfortunately, they've just invited the "fox in the hen-house" with their recent adds, especially in the east division. Karma will rear its ugly head soon once the Eastern Division of the Sunbelt breaks away from the Western Division.

NMSU and Idaho weren’t full equity members and they weren’t kicked out. They were football only affiliates. A contract was signed for them to play SBC football only for 4 years. The contract was fulfilled. The SBC did not elect to enter into a new contract once the terms were fulfilled.

The SBC is not kicking out Little Rock or UTA. After adding 4 new members, all of which play football, the SBC is offering to waive all exit costs if Little Rock and UTA found another league by 2023. Now, does the Sun Belt want them out? Yes. It doesn’t make the most sense to keep two non-football schools in the league that don’t also have to fork out 8-12+ million in football expense each year. Keep in mind, we only have the one guaranteed NCAA bid, so each sport would have just 1 guaranteed bid among 16 teams. UTA and Little Rock isn’t adding an at-large bid in the other money maker, basketball, so it’s in the Sun Belt’s best interest for them to leave.

With that said, UTA is a full equity member. If they decided not to leave then it’d take a vote to expel them. I just don’t think the Sun Belt presidents would do that. It’s not a good look. I’d imagine they’d chug along with 15 while UTA continued to find a new landing spot. But UTA doesn’t want that situation either so they’ll find a new conference.

(12-12-2021 06:49 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  NMSU and Idaho weren’t full equity members and they weren’t kicked out. They were football only affiliates. A contract was signed for them to play SBC football only for 4 years. The contract was fulfilled. The SBC did not elect to enter into a new contract once the terms were fulfilled.

The SBC is not kicking out Little Rock or UTA. After adding 4 new members, all of which play football, the SBC is offering to waive all exit costs if Little Rock and UTA found another league by 2023. Now, does the Sun Belt want them out? Yes. It doesn’t make the most sense to keep two non-football schools in the league that don’t also have to fork out 8-12+ million in football expense each year. Keep in mind, we only have the one guaranteed NCAA bid, so each sport would have just 1 guaranteed bid among 16 teams. UTA and Little Rock isn’t adding an at-large bid in the other money maker, basketball, so it’s in the Sun Belt’s best interest for them to leave.

With that said, UTA is a full equity member. If they decided not to leave then it’d take a vote to expel them. I just don’t think the Sun Belt presidents would do that. It’s not a good look. I’d imagine they’d chug along with 15 while UTA continued to find a new landing spot. But UTA doesn’t want that situation either so they’ll find a new conference.

I should probably know this but is there a reason that non-football schools are problematic for the SBC? I could even see them replacing UALR with an eastern school with decent basketball, a Charleston or UNC Greensboro if they were game, and then going to four-team pods for basketball scheduling. Easiest way to improve basketball is to add good basketball programs, which the SBC is doing with Marshall/ODU/JMU. But there's probably valid reasons for wanting to not have non-football schools in (see the Big East/AAC divorce and CUSA nudging Charlotte and Saint Louis out the door).

(12-12-2021 06:49 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  NMSU and Idaho weren’t full equity members and they weren’t kicked out. They were football only affiliates. A contract was signed for them to play SBC football only for 4 years. The contract was fulfilled. The SBC did not elect to enter into a new contract once the terms were fulfilled.

The SBC is not kicking out Little Rock or UTA. After adding 4 new members, all of which play football, the SBC is offering to waive all exit costs if Little Rock and UTA found another league by 2023. Now, does the Sun Belt want them out? Yes. It doesn’t make the most sense to keep two non-football schools in the league that don’t also have to fork out 8-12+ million in football expense each year. Keep in mind, we only have the one guaranteed NCAA bid, so each sport would have just 1 guaranteed bid among 16 teams. UTA and Little Rock isn’t adding an at-large bid in the other money maker, basketball, so it’s in the Sun Belt’s best interest for them to leave.

With that said, UTA is a full equity member. If they decided not to leave then it’d take a vote to expel them. I just don’t think the Sun Belt presidents would do that. It’s not a good look. I’d imagine they’d chug along with 15 while UTA continued to find a new landing spot. But UTA doesn’t want that situation either so they’ll find a new conference.

How nice of the Sunbelt to waive their exit fees. Those 4 teams literally kept the Sunbelt from dissolving and this how they're being repaid. Idaho had to drop to FCS because the Sunbelt abandoned them. Fortunately, New Mexico St. is finding a new home in CUSA.

(12-12-2021 06:58 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-12-2021 06:49 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  NMSU and Idaho weren’t full equity members and they weren’t kicked out. They were football only affiliates. A contract was signed for them to play SBC football only for 4 years. The contract was fulfilled. The SBC did not elect to enter into a new contract once the terms were fulfilled.

The SBC is not kicking out Little Rock or UTA. After adding 4 new members, all of which play football, the SBC is offering to waive all exit costs if Little Rock and UTA found another league by 2023. Now, does the Sun Belt want them out? Yes. It doesn’t make the most sense to keep two non-football schools in the league that don’t also have to fork out 8-12+ million in football expense each year. Keep in mind, we only have the one guaranteed NCAA bid, so each sport would have just 1 guaranteed bid among 16 teams. UTA and Little Rock isn’t adding an at-large bid in the other money maker, basketball, so it’s in the Sun Belt’s best interest for them to leave.

With that said, UTA is a full equity member. If they decided not to leave then it’d take a vote to expel them. I just don’t think the Sun Belt presidents would do that. It’s not a good look. I’d imagine they’d chug along with 15 while UTA continued to find a new landing spot. But UTA doesn’t want that situation either so they’ll find a new conference.

I should probably know this but is there a reason that non-football schools are problematic for the SBC? I could even see them replacing UALR with an eastern school with decent basketball, a Charleston or UNC Greensboro if they were game, and then going to four-team pods for basketball scheduling. Easiest way to improve basketball is to add good basketball programs, which the SBC is doing with Marshall/ODU/JMU. But there's probably valid reasons for wanting to not have non-football schools in (see the Big East/AAC divorce and CUSA nudging Charlotte and Saint Louis out the door).

I believe all Sun Belt revenues are shared equally with UTA and Little Rock. Considering our income is based on CFP money, TV money, and NCAA Tournament unit money, it doesn't make a lot of sense that UTA and Little Rock would share income based on football. UTA and Little Rock don't have the expense of football weighing on their athletic department. Football alone represents 30-40% of other schools entire athletic budgets.

Now, could the SBC change the way funds are distributed? Sure. But with UTA and Little Rock we'd still have 16 teams competing for 1 NCAA bid each year. I think the Sun Belt recognizes with 14 teams focusing on football, it no longer makes the most sense to have two programs who don't share the same organizational goal. If either or both UTA/LR were consistent top 50 teams in basketball and earning at large bids it might be different, but that isn't the case. Not only is that not happening, but keeping them waters down the NCAA unit split 2 more times.

This is just a business decision. Keeping UTA and Little Rock would take away from the pockets of the other SBC programs - unless the SBC turned into a multi-bid basketball league on a consistent basis. Let's face it, the P6 and selection committee won't allow that to happen. I will miss UTA and especially Little Rock. Little Rock has been an SBC team as long as I followed the Sun Belt. I wish both programs the best, and hope South Alabama can schedule some OOC games against both in the future.

(12-12-2021 07:22 PM)deb025 Wrote:  How nice of the Sunbelt to waive their exit fees. Those 4 teams literally kept the Sunbelt from dissolving and this how they're being repaid. Idaho had to drop to FCS because the Sunbelt abandoned them. Fortunately, New Mexico St. is finding a new home in CUSA.

This is simply not true. When NSMU and Idaho signed the contract to be football affiliates in the Sun Belt, we had the following football playing SBC teams:

App State
Arkansas State
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
Louisiana
South Alabama
Texas State
Troy
ULM
Western Kentucky

That is 10 other teams. NMSU and Idaho were only added to have 12 teams to meet the NCAA's 12 team requirement to hold a championship game. WKU then bailed on the SBC to move to CUSA, so the SBC added Coastal Carolina to get back to 12. CCU started SBC play in 2016. Then the NCAA got rid of the 12 team requirement and the Sun Belt chose not to renew the football affiliate contract with NMSU and Idaho.

By the way, I'm glad NMSU found another home. That program is a class act and has many fans within the Sun Belt. Their geography did them no favors and I hope at some point in my lifetime they're able to move to the MWC which is their natural fit.

Quick summary...here's the actual truth.

1) The Sun Belt is NOT kicking UTA or LR out. I've talked to people at UTA, LR, the Sun Belt offices and other Sun Belt schools. This is a mutual parting. UTA's athletic priorities and the rest of the Sun Belt are no longer in alignment, and as the Sun Belt's leadership further prioritizes football, that gap in alignment will only grow. Yes, UTA (and LR)'s exit fees are being waived.

2) UTA has been in on and off conversations with the MVC since the summer. That has been the top target, and based on the people on the conversations I've had over the last two weeks, I believe they are the clubhouse leader to join the MVC. In the unlikely event that the MVC does not extend an invite this month, UTA will join the WAC.