PDA

View Full Version : Texas State: Bobcat Stadium Update



TXST_CAT
May 23rd, 2008, 09:22 PM
Check this out:

http://www.athletics.txstate.edu/thedrive/

Bobcat Stadium Expansion Study:

http://www.athletics.txstate.edu/thedrive/Documents/BroaddusandAssociates_FinalReport_Draft_042107.pdf

I don't see any other SLC team keeping up but if you ask TT and SlowPOKE they will try to convince you TXST is on the way down. After hiring a new DC I see TXST making a good run for the Conference Title again. It's a new Era at TXST.

Just to bad we may not get to stick around long enough to see all 40000 (possible) seats filled in another playoff run. xoopsx

TXST_CAT
May 23rd, 2008, 09:38 PM
Phase I will put our capacity over 20000. xnodx

McNeese75
May 23rd, 2008, 11:14 PM
Phase I will put our capacity over 20000. xnodx

Cool, now you will have 8-10,000 empty seats xlolx xpeacex

ButlerGSU
May 24th, 2008, 10:52 AM
That's a great site but one thing that really struck me, you've only sold 16 season tickets so far and your goal is 2,500?

Better get on it.

LarryBoy
May 24th, 2008, 11:18 AM
"It's time for the Bobcats to be where they belong and compete at the highest level"? Shouldn't they prove that they can compete at their current level first?? No offense intended, but we've seen how these I-A/FBS jumps go...even successful I-AA teams are mostly left for dead at the next level.

MplsBison
May 24th, 2008, 11:31 AM
"It's time for the Bobcats to be where they belong and compete at the highest level"? Shouldn't they prove that they can compete at their current level first?? No offense intended, but we've seen how these I-A/FBS jumps go...even successful I-AA teams are mostly left for dead at the next level.

UConn. Wow, that was easy.


Oh right, they don't count since they got automatic Big East membership. xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx

FormerPokeCenter
May 24th, 2008, 11:40 AM
I don't see any other SLC team keeping up but if you ask TT and SlowPOKE they will try to convince you TXST is on the way down. After hiring a new DC I see TXST making a good run for the Conference Title again. It's a new Era at TXST.

Just to bad we may not get to stick around long enough to see all 40000 (possible) seats filled in another playoff run. xoopsx


When's the construction scheduled to be finished? Wait, scratch that. When's the construction scheduled to begin? Wait, scratch that.
When's the construction feasibility study scheduled to be finsihed..Wait...scratch that.
When's the construction feasibility study scheduled to begin? Wait. Scratch that...
When's the construction fund raising scheduled to be completed? Wait....

When's the construction fund raising scheduled to begin?

JoshUCA
May 24th, 2008, 11:56 AM
I love how that video claims they may win more championships when they move up!! LOL!!!

centexguy
May 24th, 2008, 12:03 PM
That's a great site but one thing that really struck me, you've only sold 16 season tickets so far and your goal is 2,500?

Better get on it.

Is that 2,500 MORE season tickets or 2,500 TOTAL season tickets, because that doesn't seem like a lot. Doesn't McNeese have over 5,000 season tickets holders? Even back in '89 when the Lamar Board of Regents killed the football program they had sold over 4,000 season tickets for the next season. Since Texas State averages about 13K a year does that mean only a few thousand are actual paying customers?

How does Texas State plan to fund the stadium upgrades. Will they do what Lamar's doing and issue bonds to help pay for stadium upgrades and use some of the new student fees to help pay them off? For such a large school they seem to have trouble getting big donors to help pay for athletic facility upgrades. I'm not trying to put Texas State down, just curious if they already have some big donors lined up behind the scenes to help make this happen.

McNeese72
May 24th, 2008, 12:52 PM
I love how that video claims they may win more championships when they move up!! LOL!!!

Well, if they somehow get into the Sunbelt, that might be feasible. xlolx

Doc

TXST_CAT
May 24th, 2008, 01:55 PM
When's the construction scheduled to be finished? Wait, scratch that. When's the construction scheduled to begin? Wait, scratch that.
When's the construction feasibility study scheduled to be finsihed..Wait...scratch that.
When's the construction feasibility study scheduled to begin? Wait. Scratch that...
When's the construction fund raising scheduled to be completed? Wait....

When's the construction fund raising scheduled to begin?

Texas State meets with Broadus & Associates
On March 25th and 26th the Department of Athletics meet with Broadus and Associates with SportsPlan Studio to prepare a preliminary study to consider seating configuration options relating to the potential expansion of Bobcat Stadium. The product of the visit was a summary presentation document which will assist the University in communicating the potential seating options associated with the stadium expansion and anticipated pros and cons of each alternative. The workshop focused on such items as operational requirements for stadium grandstands, sight line analysis, food and beverage services, spectator restrooms, football team locker rooms, stadium suite locations, and press box features.

This high-level, preliminary study better provided the Athletic Department an understanding of the feasible options for growth. It was also the first step toward a future more in-depth planning study, which will include analysis of building, infrastructure and preliminary cost projections, as well as rendered illustrations to better communicate the long-term vision for the stadium expansion.

xreadx

Although Baseball is not relevant here it shows the speed in which our program is moving now that the students have stepped up with the fee increase.

Texas State begins plans for construction of our brand new baseball and softball stadiums
On Tuesday, May 20th, Texas State Officials and the Texas State Athletic Department announced the awarding of the design build contract for a brand new state of the art baseball and softball facility to Flintco Constructive Solutions. The Flintco team represents expertise in all facets of athletics facilities, with the key team members, Flintco and O’Connell Robertson, having just completed renovation on the University of Texas UFCU Disch-Falk field. Among other projects, Flintco is also responsible for the Texas A&M University Bright Athletic Complex and Academic Center, and the new City of San Marcos Conference Center.

That same day, the initial Baseball/Softball Stadium enhancement kickoff meeting was held in the Darren B. Casey Athletic Administration Complex . The initial meeting was used to introduce all of the Project Team participants representing all of the participating stake holders. The meeting was also used to review the budget and schedule, review the project program and the scope of the work, and included an on-site visit. The proposed plan is to locate the stadiums around the existing fields. Actual demolition and site work is not slated to begin until August 1st, 2008, with a projected completion date of February 1st for the project.

More schedule details, architectural designs, and facility progress will be posted after future meetings.
:D

McTailGator
May 24th, 2008, 03:29 PM
I don't see any other SLC team keeping up but if you ask TT and SlowPOKE they will try to convince you TXST is on the way down. After hiring a new DC I see TXST making a good run for the Conference Title again. It's a new Era at TXST.

Just to bad we may not get to stick around long enough to see all 40000 (possible) seats filled in another playoff run. xoopsx

Ha!

"Another run"...


Repeat after me...

THE 2008, SLC TITLE BELONGS TO McNEESE..

THE 2009, SLC TITLE BELONGS TO McNEESE..

I'll need another signing class to see beyond that, but with 10 Million dollars being spend to place our facilities BACK at the BEST the SLC and any SBC school has, it will be a long time before we have another 2004 or 2005 (unless another hurricane it us).

A new AD that is hell bent on breaking new season ticket sells every year, by increasing our sells by 1,000 seats per year, and a great coaching staff with a larger budget and a determination to bring back the "60 minutes of Hell" defense's of the 1990's. It looks to be a long few years AGAIN for most of the SLC.

McTailGator
May 24th, 2008, 03:33 PM
Phase I will put our capacity over 20000. xnodx

WOW,

That's great that someone is thinking about how to increase the amount of EMPTY seats in Bob-Cat stadium.xsmiley_wix

McTailGator
May 24th, 2008, 03:43 PM
Is that 2,500 MORE season tickets or 2,500 TOTAL season tickets, because that doesn't seem like a lot. Doesn't McNeese have over 5,000 season tickets holders? Even back in '89 when the Lamar Board of Regents killed the football program they had sold over 4,000 season tickets for the next season. Since Texas State averages about 13K a year does that mean only a few thousand are actual paying customers?

How does Texas State plan to fund the stadium upgrades. Will they do what Lamar's doing and issue bonds to help pay for stadium upgrades and use some of the new student fees to help pay them off? For such a large school they seem to have trouble getting big donors to help pay for athletic facility upgrades. I'm not trying to put Texas State down, just curious if they already have some big donors lined up behind the scenes to help make this happen.

McNeese has averaged around 6,500 tickets or so for about 15 years or so, with a big jump and fall off in 1998 when we signed Cecil Collins for about 2 weeks. He didn't do much on the field for us, but he sold a hell of a lot of tickets in just a few days. xsmiley_wix


Our AD want's to increase season ticket sales in ALL sports but he wants about 1500 more this year in football and another 1000 more in football alone in each of the next couple of years. That will get us up to the 10,000 season ticket sales mark in football. The most I have ever seen is around 7,000 in 1977 or so.

He seems to be on track. We typically don't have this many sold until August, so he's running a couple of months ahead of previous years. Looks like he will make his goal.

http://people.delphiforums.com/tailgateguy/SeasonTickets523.gif

TexasTerror
May 24th, 2008, 03:59 PM
McNeese's AD is very aggressive. He's a young guy with plenty of energy who wants to make things happen in Lake Charles...

Upgrades are needed to Burton if they want to draw some fans. That facility is great for what it is, but they need to upgrade the facility some more. Not a big fan.

McTailGator
May 24th, 2008, 04:08 PM
McNeese's AD is very aggressive. He's a young guy with plenty of energy who wants to make things happen in Lake Charles...

Upgrades are needed to Burton if they want to draw some fans. That facility is great for what it is, but they need to upgrade the facility some more. Not a big fan.

We are spending the money on our FB stadium this year and next. We just built a new Softball complex for the ladies, and they are now moving into a really nice new Female FieldHouse near the womens athletics fields. So that Title IX crap is now done.

Our next project after our football EZ complex will be to build a brand new baseball complex, and THEN... We will have to look into a brand new ON-CAMPUS arena.

There are some people just beginning to talk about a new arena on campus, which would be the first time since 1973 that McNeese has played a mens basketball on campus.

So if anyone has an extra 30 or 40 million laying around, please send it our way and make it payable to the McNeese "On-Campus" Assembly Center. xsmiley_wix

FormerPokeCenter
May 24th, 2008, 05:43 PM
Texas State meets with Broadus & Associates
On March 25th and 26th the Department of Athletics meet with Broadus and Associates with SportsPlan Studio to prepare a preliminary study to consider seating configuration options relating to the potential expansion of Bobcat Stadium. The product of the visit was a summary presentation document which will assist the University in communicating the potential seating options associated with the stadium expansion and anticipated pros and cons of each alternative. The workshop focused on such items as operational requirements for stadium grandstands, sight line analysis, food and beverage services, spectator restrooms, football team locker rooms, stadium suite locations, and press box features.

This high-level, preliminary study better provided the Athletic Department an understanding of the feasible options for growth. It was also the first step toward a future more in-depth planning study, which will include analysis of building, infrastructure and preliminary cost projections, as well as rendered illustrations to better communicate the long-term vision for the stadium expansion.

xreadx

Although Baseball is not relevant here it shows the speed in which our program is moving now that the students have stepped up with the fee increase.

Texas State begins plans for construction of our brand new baseball and softball stadiums
On Tuesday, May 20th, Texas State Officials and the Texas State Athletic Department announced the awarding of the design build contract for a brand new state of the art baseball and softball facility to Flintco Constructive Solutions. The Flintco team represents expertise in all facets of athletics facilities, with the key team members, Flintco and O’Connell Robertson, having just completed renovation on the University of Texas UFCU Disch-Falk field. Among other projects, Flintco is also responsible for the Texas A&M University Bright Athletic Complex and Academic Center, and the new City of San Marcos Conference Center.

That same day, the initial Baseball/Softball Stadium enhancement kickoff meeting was held in the Darren B. Casey Athletic Administration Complex . The initial meeting was used to introduce all of the Project Team participants representing all of the participating stake holders. The meeting was also used to review the budget and schedule, review the project program and the scope of the work, and included an on-site visit. The proposed plan is to locate the stadiums around the existing fields. Actual demolition and site work is not slated to begin until August 1st, 2008, with a projected completion date of February 1st for the project.

More schedule details, architectural designs, and facility progress will be posted after future meetings.
:D

While the PDFs in the original message were nice, my questions - all of them - are still valid. Basically, you've got some architectural rendersings. That's nice. So do a lot of other people. How many games can you play in architectural renderings?

When's the money gonna get raised?
When's the plan gonna be finalized?
When's construction gonna start?
Having a PROPOSED Architectural Rendering is a far cry from having the first spadeful of dirt turned over.

patssle
May 24th, 2008, 07:10 PM
Since Texas State averages about 13K a year does that mean only a few thousand are actual paying customers?


Texas State does not average 13k...not even close. Officially they claim 11,400...but unofficial Texas State is known for very much inflating their numbers. The number is probably a good thousand below that official number.

TexasTerror
May 24th, 2008, 07:19 PM
Texas State does not average 13k...not even close. Officially they claim 11,400...but unofficial Texas State is known for very much inflating their numbers. The number is probably a good thousand below that official number.

They learned from a few former SLC institutions that fudged numbers to leave the conference. I recall stories about a few schools that would put attendances of over 15,000 when there were obviously less than half that.

TXST_CAT
May 25th, 2008, 01:38 AM
They learned from a few former SLC institutions that fudged numbers to leave the conference. I recall stories about a few schools that would put attendances of over 15,000 when there were obviously less than half that.

xoopsx

Man you caught us what were we thinking. We can't pull a fast one on ol' eagle eye Texas terror.xcoffeex

TXST_CAT
May 25th, 2008, 01:43 AM
While the PDFs in the original message were nice, my questions - all of them - are still valid. Basically, you've got some architectural rendersings. That's nice. So do a lot of other people. How many games can you play in architectural renderings?

When's the money gonna get raised?
When's the plan gonna be finalized?
When's construction gonna start?
Having a PROPOSED Architectural Rendering is a far cry from having the first spadeful of dirt turned over.

well the money is there already there from the student fee increase. See our students want us to go FBS. Plain and simple. So they are financing uch of the upgrades.

When will it be finalized. Well since we just received funding it may take a while to get a final date but after seeing the Baseball dates posted I should think the final construction dates should be posted within the next year. Since our students are driving the bus on this ride they are presuring the AD to move quickly. They want our University to be FBS ready by 2012. xcoffeex xreadx

FormerPokeCenter
May 25th, 2008, 09:01 AM
well the money is there already there from the student fee increase. See our students want us to go FBS. Plain and simple. So they are financing uch of the upgrades.

When will it be finalized. Well since we just received funding it may take a while to get a final date but after seeing the Baseball dates posted I should think the final construction dates should be posted within the next year. Since our students are driving the bus on this ride they are presuring the AD to move quickly. They want our University to be FBS ready by 2012. xcoffeex xreadx

So, have you guys started the bond process yet? If not, you're gonna be doing a whole helluva lot of incremental work waiting for each year's assessment to come in. Whatcha gonna do, build the stadium one row at a time?

There's a lot more to it than simply tacking on student assessments, particularly if your goal is to be ready by 2012. That's the thing about these whole discussions.

The Texas State crowd, at least on these message boards, display an incredible naivete about what's going to be required to be successful in the FBS Subdivision AND about what it's going to take to accomplish the facilities upgrades you want.

Nobody wishes you any ill-fortune, but it's hard to read these dilettantish claims that are demonstrably ignorant of the practical hoops you have to jump through to do what you say you want to do.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this ain't Star Trek, Captain Picard, and merely wishing will not "make it so."

The first thing that jumps out at most knowledgeable football fans is the schism that exists between what you've been unable to do on the FCS level that you're assuming will be a given at the FBS level. There's some serious disconnect with reality going on here.

Good luck to you, but if you're expecting the rest of the FCS crowd to be as overly optimistic about the move as you are, maybe you should try putting together a string of dominant performances between now and 2012?

As I see it, these plans give you yet another crutch to use in your arguments for why you don't win...

"Well, we're the team of the future. We're recruiting for FBS opponents, but we don't have FBS funding yet, so 'just wait'....Just wait till we move up, just wait till we can recruit more athletes...just wait"

The thing is, if a coach can't be successful with 63 scholarships against other 63 scholarship teams, what makes you think he's gonna be successful if he's got 85 scholarships. He's gonna have to play teams with 85 scholarships, ya know?

Anyway, Good Luck. I wish you much more success in the FBS than you've ever had in the FCS.

TXST_CAT
May 25th, 2008, 01:11 PM
So, have you guys started the bond process yet? If not, you're gonna be doing a whole helluva lot of incremental work waiting for each year's assessment to come in. Whatcha gonna do, build the stadium one row at a time?

There's a lot more to it than simply tacking on student assessments, particularly if your goal is to be ready by 2012. That's the thing about these whole discussions.

This isn't our first construction project. If you visited our campus or Website for that matter you would see there are a lot of upgrades going on all over campus. Like I posted earlier we're about to break ground on our new baseball/ softball complex. What makes you think this will be any different. Everyone knows the hardest part is getting the financial backing.


Good luck to you, but if you're expecting the rest of the FCS crowd to be as overly optimistic about the move as you are, maybe you should try putting together a string of dominant performances between now and 2012?

That is the goal.


As I see it, these plans give you yet another crutch to use in your arguments for why you don't win...

"Well, we're the team of the future. We're recruiting for FBS opponents, but we don't have FBS funding yet, so 'just wait'....Just wait till we move up, just wait till we can recruit more athletes...just wait"

No crutch or excuses. Just progress.

FormerPokeCenter
May 25th, 2008, 02:24 PM
No crutch or excuses. Just progress.

Progress is a measurable advance, often time in steady incremental chunks.

Progress is not having ONE good season in 23 and then failing to follow up on it.

slycat
May 25th, 2008, 10:53 PM
good to see some updates and timetables set for the baseball and softball stadiums.

evilcat
May 26th, 2008, 03:47 PM
As a Texas State fan I have to say that the non-Texas State fans are correct. I love the Cats too, but we need to first prove that we can compete in our current division before we try to move up. Moving up anytime within in the next 10 years is ludicrous!!

FormerPokeCenter
May 26th, 2008, 04:10 PM
You, Sir, are a brave soul. And, might I add, obviously the smartest BobCat fan/alum on the planet. ;)

McTailGator
May 26th, 2008, 07:56 PM
Moving up anytime within in the next 10 years is ludicrous!!


As I stated in another tread.

You already play in Division I.

You can NOT move up...

All you can do is move OVER from the current D-I sub-division (FCS) to the other D-I SUB-DIVISION (FBS)...

Once people get that through their heads, maybe they will realize that more costs to play in a crappy conference and lose 7 or 8 games EVERY year for 20 to 30 years (see UL-Lafayette, and most of the SlumBelch and MAC schools), is not worth it.

I have a question for all the TxSU fans, (SIZE="1"]and most fans of SlumBelch schools[/SIZE]) who are pushing their schools to go are remain in FBS... xconfusedx

What good does it do to be a good looking guy with a great big penis if the only women you get to screw are all ugly whores? xeekx

TXST_CAT
May 26th, 2008, 08:34 PM
Ha!

"Another run"...


Repeat after me...

THE 2008, SLC TITLE BELONGS TO McNEESE..

THE 2009, SLC TITLE BELONGS TO McNEESE..

I'll need another signing class to see beyond that, but with 10 Million dollars being spend to place our facilities BACK at the BEST the SLC and any SBC school has, it will be a long time before we have another 2004 or 2005 (unless another hurricane it us).

A newAD that is hell bent on breaking new season ticket sells every year, by increasing our sells by 1,000 seats per year, and a great coaching staff with a larger budget and a determination to bring back the "60 minutes of Hell" defense's of the 1990's. It looks to be a long few years AGAIN for most of the SLC.


It's still sitting on some yahoo's desk in Baton Rouge.

The McNeese staff and the Architect are all finished, McNeese made the mistake of making changes in the form of more bells and whistles and it delayed the entire thing again, EVEN though the project is fully funded, and receiving more funds and pledges all the time, the state is just being the state.

Probably will not do any SIGNIFICANT work other than a ground breaking, few Geo technical borings and maybe a big bill board showing the plans until late in the summer.

I doubt that the coaches will want to disrupt the team during the season, so any significant work will not start until late December or early January.

Some of the new plans include new entry gates, Wrought Iron fencing, and a pretty nice End zone and entry Plaza from what I understand.

The once 6.5 Million dollar facility will no doubt exceed $10 Million now. But hopefully a lot of the donor money can be spent in house and not have to go to the state approval process, which is designed to protect the tax payers by costing them more money and time. xrolleyesx

xoopsx

TXST alreay has a field house and turff. Our eyes are set on expansion now. Have fun playing catch up. xthumbsupx By the way what prompted all this new spending?!?! I Think I already know the answer....xreadx

As for 2008 and 2009. We'll let the players decide that minor detail. xpeacex

TXST_CAT
May 26th, 2008, 08:37 PM
As I stated in another tread.

You already play in Division I.

You can NOT move up...

All you can do is move OVER from the current D-I sub-division (FCS) to the other D-I SUB-DIVISION (FBS)...

Once people get that through their heads, maybe they will realize that more costs to play in a crappy conference and lose 7 or 8 games EVERY year for 20 to 30 years (see UL-Lafayette, and most of the SlumBelch and MAC schools), is not worth it.

I have a question for all the TxSU fans, (SIZE="1"]and most fans of SlumBelch schools[/SIZE]) who are pushing their schools to go are remain in FBS... xconfusedx

What good does it do to be a good looking guy with a great big penis if the only women you get to screw are all ugly whores? xeekx

Because their women sleep at the playboy mansion and well everthing else is just Hustler....:D If we must go there...xnonox

FormerPokeCenter
May 26th, 2008, 08:42 PM
xoopsx

By the way what prompted all this new spending?!?! I Think I already know the answer....xreadx



If you're trying to suggest that it's because we felt envious of Texas State, you're more delusional than I thought. This has been in the works for quite a while. We had the opportunity to have the field turfed years ago, but had a less than proactive AD, who let the donor's offer go to seed.

Our Field House has been fundamentally the same since the 1960's...

Cap'n Cat
May 26th, 2008, 08:43 PM
Cool, now you will have 8-10,000 empty seats xlolx xpeacex


Rep points.

TXST_CAT
May 26th, 2008, 08:47 PM
You, Sir, are a brave soul. And, might I add, obviously the smartest BobCat fan/alum on the planet. ;)

It's a matter of Old Guard and New Guard. See a few posters like your self keep asking why TXST has had so much failure in the past. Well it's because many of our old Alumni/Fans lacked confidence in our University. They would wear UT garb buy and attend UT tickets and games faithfuly, not realizing the potential that existed on their own campus. But the new guard, and by this I single out no specific class or age, But the new gaurd of TXST fans are committed to seeing TXST reach its potential. Not allowing anyone or thing (TT) stand in its way. When you walk the quad of TXST you see sea of Maroon and Gold. Fans Chant their University name with Pride and they see themselves second to none. Fans old and young have joind this new wave and TXST has seen more progress in the last five years than it has seen in the previous twenty. Failure is no longer an option.....xnonox It doesn't matter if we are FCS or FBS our fans want to see us succeed. xthumbsupx

FormerPokeCenter
May 26th, 2008, 08:51 PM
It's a matter of Old Gaurd and New Gaurd. See a few posters like your self keep asking why TXST has had so much failure in the past. Well it's because many of our old Alumni/Fans lacked confidence in our University. They would wear UT garb buy and attend UT tickets and games faithfuly, not realizing the potential that existed on their own campus. But the new gaurd, and by this I single out no specific class or age, But the new gaurd of TXST fans are committed to seeing TXST reach its potential. Not allowing anyone or thing (TT) stand in its way. When you walk the quad of TXST you see sea of Maroon and Gold. Fans Chant their University name with Pride and they see themselves second to none. Fans old and young have joind this new wave and TXST has seen more progress in the last five years than it has seen in the previous twenty. Failure is no longer an option.....xnonox It doesn't matter if we are FCS or FBS our fans want to see us succeed. xthumbsupx

Until you can learn to spell guard correctly, I don't wanna hear any more BS about the exclusive admissions and superlative educational opportunities at Southwest Texas State....

TXST_CAT
May 26th, 2008, 08:52 PM
Rep points.

Yea I laughed at that post too. But Cap'n didn't you make it out to TXST durring our playoff run? What were your thoughts on the energy in the stadium.

TXST_CAT
May 26th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Until you can learn to spell guard correctly, I don't wanna hear any more BS about the exclusive admissions and superlative educational opportunities at Southwest Texas State....

xcoolx

TXST_CAT
May 26th, 2008, 08:57 PM
If you're trying to suggest that it's because we felt envious of Texas State, you're more delusional than I thought. This has been in the works for quite a while. We had the opportunity to have the field turfed years ago, but had a less than proactive AD, who let the donor's offer go to seed.

Our Field House has been fundamentally the same since the 1960's...

Durring our run in the playoffs many ADs and Presidents discussed the facilities we have at TXST.

FormerPokeCenter
May 27th, 2008, 06:10 AM
Durring our run in the playoffs many ADs and Presidents discussed the facilities we have at TXST.

Psssssssssssssst.....it's "during"....with ONE "r"...

Texas State doesn't perchance offer "Hooked on Phonics" as part of it's honors level English Composition curriculum, does it? If so, you might wanna consider applying for graduate school in San Marcos ;)

Our facilties, or lack thereof, have been the topic of much discussion during our playoff runs...Not that we've made one since 2002, but our need for facilities upgrades have been the topic of much discussion since the early 90's ;) Well, actually, before then...We were bitching about our facilities since NLULM was in our conference with their then flashy indoor practice field/weight room under the stands back in the early 80's...

McTailGator
May 28th, 2008, 09:44 AM
Because their women sleep at the playboy mansion and well everthing else is just Hustler....:D If we must go there...xnonox


Pssst!

Your getting the pretty ones (i.e. LSU, UT, and Texas A&M) all mixed up with the Skanky ones, (i.e. North Texas, UL-Laughayette, ULM, and Ark. State.).

The BCS whores are in the Playboy Mansion. Your whores are getting on their knee's (no Balif pun intended) and giving BJ's for $5 or a little Crack.

FiniteMan
August 5th, 2008, 12:11 PM
I admire the hell out of the Texas State student body for making the FBS move a priority for their school. That said, I think the Texas St. Stadium planning looks like it would create a bad stadium out of a really good FCS stadium. I have studied a lot of stadiums to try to figure out why some don't ever seem to draw fans and why some do very well in that regard. I think stage 1 would turn Bobcat stadium into a lopsided stadium ala E. Michigan's stadium --- chronic attendance problems. From there each additional stage adds more bad seats until you end up with the Texas equivilant of UBuffalo stadium --- another bad attendance FBS stadium.

It is tough, because you guys are under the gun to upgrade ASAP while support is there for it.

I think a better expansion plan for your stadium would have the following priorities.

1) build a 1K track "stadium" elsewhere
2) Remove the track from bobcat stadium
3) dig down ala the Kibbie Dome in Idaho, lowering the feild to add more space to extend sideline seating closer to the feild. I would add chair backed seats for this premium upgrade. I think you could likely (like Idaho) add up to 5K seats. Drainage may require more modifications, but I still think it is both doable and optimal.
4) Add as many rest room facilities as possible.
5) build the new weightroom as soon as possible to help competitiveness.

From there, your options are a lot better.

The chair backed seats will likely turn that entire expansion area into regulary sold season tickets, doubling your season ticket holder numbers and giving you much better financial standing.

You could from there go on to build the planned phase 1 albeit one that extends down further to match the new build. Then since the turf is Astroplay, you could move the entire feild 20 yards south, and then rather that the current 5 yard line to 5 yard line seating you currently have, you could have a 27K or so stadium with seating running from end zone to end zone --- very few truly bad seats. Because the stadium would be lower, the worst seats would have better perspectives. Eventually bulldozers can move the north hill closer and you could years down the road add some end zone seating on that end.

I think you guys should readjust your goals to make adding GOOD seats a higher priority than adding seats. You don't want to end up like my local school UNT with a 20 stadium with 10K additional seats no one wants. That will just make it seem like people are not interested in the sport and will make fundraising harder. Build a 20,25, 30, 35K stadium where every seat has a good shot of selling.

IMO.

FiniteMan
August 5th, 2008, 12:16 PM
If I was really scratching for money and/or didn't have the support for a dig down, I would still try to push for the relocation of the track. In a worst case scenario --- being prisioner to the existing plan due to administrative support for it--- I would still try to get the feild moved 20 yards south ASAP, so the new seats are not as bad for watching games as they appear they would be.

FiniteMan
August 5th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Finally, I would like to say that is a real shame McNeese doesn't feel a need to play FBS. IMO, the UTSA, Texas St., Lamar, SHSU block is likely McNeese's only avenue to an FBS conference unless the Sunbelt falls on truly despirate times. Even then, McNeese will never have the TV viewership to ever move up in the FBS level beyond the sunbelt.

If they were smart they'd join those four and invite UTA as a non-football 6th and make the jump. There are a LOT of TVs there. If CUSA shuns UNT in 2011-2012 after UNT completes their upgrades, you could see UNT jump to that conference. UNT shunned the WAC over travel distances. This conference would be in almost most major TV market in Texas and has much smaller travel distances, which would make it much more financially profitable for a school like UNT than the Sunbelt. (Shorter travel distances equal more visitors swelling a school's average home attendance. Attendance averages are one of the key measurables of a program's athletic health. UNT envisions eventually joining TCU & SMU in a conference. Swelling attendance is the only way to make that ever happen. The sunbelt likely will not deliver that.) Add in the fact that if CUSA splits west/east in 2010-2012, CUSA East will raid the sunbelt's best media markets/schools like Troy, FAU, and FIU, making the sunbelt w/ its large travel costs and lack of TV far less compelling.

I would not be suprised to see outlier FBS schools who have had their program's competitiveness bled by travel costs like La Tech, ULL, Arky St., NM State, and even UTEP (if they get stuck in CUSA East after a CUSA split), join this conference for its TV potential and sensible footprint (Basically the same reasons as UNT). If the choice for member #8 is McNeese or NM State...that's a no brainer. Furthermore, if LA Tech and ULL join, McNeese will never get an invite.

TV #s defines the pecking order. Texas has a ton of TVs. The new "Southwestland" FBS conference is probably going to exceed the Sunbelt in short order. McNeese needs to really consider their future options if they let the 4 go and stay at the FCS level. As a member of the Southland, McNeese today has more appeal to the southland 4 as they help satisfy the 6/5 rule. If McNeese doesn't move with them, they lose that edge over better FCS schools. Missouri St., Wichita St., S. Illinois ... plenty more in the region are better potential FBS schools.

No FBS conference is going to be rushing to add that media market.

McNeese really only has to dig up the money for the added scholarships and a few coaches. Unlike the other schools, their stadium is big enough for today and support is strong --- they have all the other pre-requisites for an FBS jump. (I would still say they need to get up to a 21K stadium though at minimum to be "comfortable" at the FBS level.) To me, the question is "will they not recognize the opportunity in front of them?"

I think you might see the Southland 4 add SFA and UTA as non-football members to satisfy the 6/5 rule. Both schools would likely prefer the travel with the upgrading schools to the remaining Southland.

Frankly if they decline, ANY 2 of the remaining southland schools would do after 2011 as non-football members -- even newbies Corpus and UCA. Just cut them a little slice of the TV money and they are in. Looking at the remaining 8 southland schools as non-football members of a "southwestland" conference, McNeese is one of the weaker candidates. They add travel costs with no market. Football would get them in.

I think McNeese is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. (SFA too.)

McNeese75
August 5th, 2008, 02:47 PM
Most McNeese fans could care less about a transition to FBS and certainly have no visions of grandeur like TX State students or our friends down I-10 (ULL) have had for years. The football team plays an occasional FBS team and the new AD is doing a good job of scheduling a competitive OOC schedule. Why would we want to be in a bottom dwelling conference like the Sunbelt or a new SWC? FCS is all about settling things on the field. If we are not competitive enough to make the playoffs then why bother trying to go to some toilet bowl?

I personally think Tx State is living in a dream world, but, it is their world so more power to em.

TexasTerror
August 5th, 2008, 02:58 PM
I personally think Tx State is living in a dream world, but, it is their world so more power to em.

They are the next La Tech! xnodx

MaximumBobcat
August 5th, 2008, 04:29 PM
They are the next La Tech! xnodx

Hush, hater.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/59/187825347_b189e17a15.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/57/187825343_cc43fcd3ef.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3183/2680666462_5968f4383d_o.jpg

McNeese72
August 5th, 2008, 04:40 PM
They are the next La Tech! xnodx

Nah! With the name change, they equate more with ULL or ULM. Of course, technically, ULL never moved up, they just stayed I-A when the rest of the Southland moved down.

Doc

TexasTerror
August 5th, 2008, 05:26 PM
Nah! With the name change, they equate more with ULL or ULM. Of course, technically, ULL never moved up, they just stayed I-A when the rest of the Southland moved down.

The Bobcats have strong women's sports teams (at least by SLC standards) right now. I really feel a move up may deteriorate those teams the most, which is what happened when La Tech moved from SBC to WAC. ULM's women's sports also have tumbled in recent years, probably due to the move from SLC to SBC.

MaximumBobcat
August 5th, 2008, 05:31 PM
The Bobcats have strong women's sports teams (at least by SLC standards) right now. I really feel a move up may deteriorate those teams the most, which is what happened when La Tech moved from SBC to WAC. ULM's women's sports also have tumbled in recent years, probably due to the move from SLC to SBC.

Eh, I've spoken to most of our Women's Head Coaches, I think we'll do fine. ;)

TheRiver
August 5th, 2008, 07:47 PM
MaximumBobcat

Where did you find that pic of the Poster at?

Thanks

MaximumBobcat
August 5th, 2008, 08:42 PM
MaximumBobcat

Where did you find that pic of the Poster at?

Thanks

google led me to flickr xthumbsupx

FiniteMan
August 6th, 2008, 08:05 AM
Most McNeese fans could care less about a transition to FBS and certainly have no visions of grandeur like TX State students or our friends down I-10 (ULL) have had for years. The football team plays an occasional FBS team and the new AD is doing a good job of scheduling a competitive OOC schedule. Why would we want to be in a bottom dwelling conference like the Sunbelt or a new SWC? FCS is all about settling things on the field. If we are not competitive enough to make the playoffs then why bother trying to go to some toilet bowl?

I personally think Tx State is living in a dream world, but, it is their world so more power to em.

I think you are, with respect, missing a big point of this. Montana, Delaware, App. State---all are content FCS powers, but they are not absolutely closing the door on FBS. Even Montana, which recognizes their connection at the hip to Montana State and their small TV market are FBS anchors and as such is clearly leaning hard at staying in FCS does not totally write off an eventual upgrade.

Look around at the number of schools who have announced plans about starting FBS play by 2011. Look at the number of FCS schools who have or will have stadiums of 17K or more by 2011.

It is entirely possible that when the NCAA lifts its moratorium you will see a flood of schools upgrading---possibly as many as 25 in the next 20 years. The southland 4 are wise to make the jump now, where they have the ability --- potentially --- to bring people in to their own conference. They could potentially pick and chose and quickly emerge as one of the better non-BCS conferences in short order.

Consider if there are (low number) 12 more FBS schools in 10 years. The BCS crew will certainly feel pressure (legal pressure) to expand its ranks. The MWC and probably the SWC (CUSA west) ---will probably be admitted as at least Jr. Members of the BCS (9M share instead of 17M) to prevent lawsuits. Those two conferences would account for all of the remaining non-tier 1 or tier 2 academic schools at the FBS level.

Who then is at the top of the Non-FBS level? CUSA East? The MAC? The WAC? A new Eastern conference? The Sunbelt? Or the Southland 4's conference?

With non-BCS conferences you look at TV revenue and travel distances. The MAC and the Southland 4's conferences will be near the top in both categories. If this is their plan --- and I am pretty sure it is --- it is a very solid plan.

FCS is not profitable for the vast majority of it's members. FBS is not profitable for conferences like the sunbelt and lower WAC. I am almost certain the southland 4 with their media markets would surpass that tier in short order and quickly become profitable. FBS is a very, VERY good idea for Texas State, Sam Houston, and UTSA. I would not have pushed Lamar to make the jump, but I will admit there are a number of at least somewhat promising arguements for them. I think with the other 3 making the jump, Lamar would be smart to get in with them --that may be enough to get them over the hump. Just like McNeese.

Finally, I think if you asked a handful of San Marcos student 15 years ago whether they should play FBS they would mostly say no. Today's Texas State student body wants FBS status to legitimize and promote the school nationally.

What will the next generation of McNeese State students say about your leadership's choices today? My guess is that they will say you doomed your school to athletic irrelevance and that you guys missed the boat with the Southland 4.

FiniteMan
August 6th, 2008, 08:34 AM
They are the next La Tech! xnodx

This is just silly. La Tech was doing quite well as an FBS school before they moved to the WAC (a move that I think has quadrupled their travel budget draining the school's ability to compete) and ULM upgraded. LA Tech used to be THE FBS school of N. Louisiana and frankly Southern Arkansas.

Texas State is in the Austin/San Marcos Media Market. They are not in Austin, so they have a chance to build a local and sizeable and most importantly MEASUREABLE TV base in San Marcos.

Consider enrollments

LA Tech 12K

UTSA 28K
Texas State 28K
Sam Houston 16K

Which schools have more alumni kicking around? The odds of filling a stadium and having good TV viewership are simply much much better with more alumni. The ease of increasing your athletic budget and paying for facility upgrades is much easier at a larger university where students athletic fees can turn around a department overnight. Look at USF and UCF's meteoric rise.

Consider Media Markets

Monroe/El Dorado = 178K TV Households
(if you want to throw in Shreveport=383K, I won't begrudge that)

San Antonio = 792K
Austin/San Marcos = 635K
Houston (Conroe is in the Houston DMA) = 2.050M

UTSA is the largest school in SA and Texas State is the largest school in San Marcos and the second largest in the Austin DMA. Sam Houston is technically in a Houston suburb--- Conroe --- but they are in the Houston DMA and outside of the Texans NFL Kill Zone. I don't see any hurdle preventing SHSU from pulling 22K or so within 5 years of upgrading ---assuming a sensible stadium enlargement plan is in place (don't know if it is).

All 3 of these schools will almost certainly be much better FBS schools than they are FCS schools.

McNeese - Lake Charles DMA 94K
enrollment -9K

McNeese at the FBS level --- if they aren't grandfathered in with the Southland 4 --- would likely have a lot more in common with LA Tech than Texas State.

McNeese75
August 6th, 2008, 09:37 AM
This is just silly. La Tech was doing quite well as an FBS school before they moved to the WAC (a move that I think has quadrupled their travel budget draining the school's ability to compete) and ULM upgraded. LA Tech used to be THE FBS school of N. Louisiana and frankly Southern Arkansas.

Texas State is in the Austin/San Marcos Media Market. They are not in Austin, so they have a chance to build a local and sizeable and most importantly MEASUREABLE TV base in San Marcos.

Consider enrollments

LA Tech 12K

UTSA 28K
Texas State 28K
Sam Houston 16K

Which schools have more alumni kicking around? The odds of filling a stadium and having good TV viewership are simply much much better with more alumni. The ease of increasing your athletic budget and paying for facility upgrades is much easier at a larger university where students athletic fees can turn around a department overnight. Look at USF and UCF's meteoric rise.

Consider Media Markets

Monroe/El Dorado = 178K TV Households
(if you want to throw in Shreveport=383K, I won't begrudge that)

San Antonio = 792K
Austin/San Marcos = 635K
Houston (Conroe is in the Houston DMA) = 2.050M

UTSA is the largest school in SA and Texas State is the largest school in San Marcos and the second largest in the Austin DMA. Sam Houston is technically in a Houston suburb--- Conroe --- but they are in the Houston DMA and outside of the Texans NFL Kill Zone. I don't see any hurdle preventing SHSU from pulling 22K or so within 5 years of upgrading ---assuming a sensible stadium enlargement plan is in place (don't know if it is).

All 3 of these schools will almost certainly be much better FBS schools than they are FCS schools.

McNeese - Lake Charles DMA 94K
enrollment -9K

McNeese at the FBS level --- if they aren't grandfathered in with the Southland 4 --- would likely have a lot more in common with LA Tech than Texas State.

Although a lot of what you write sounds reasonable there is still a lot of ifs and buts in your theory. Why should we assume Texas State or Sam Houston, etc would be any more successful in FBS than a ULL? What is there to indicate a move up will guarantee success or a bigger fan following? SHSU going to 20,000+ for games in 5 years seems like a stretch (I assume you have attended some of their games). Tx State has the potential to fill a 20,000 capacity stadium with their student base but nothing has been there to indicate it will happen (filling the stadium in 2005 for the playoffs was nice but we all know there were a lot of bandwagon members in the house then).

Most of the success enjoyed by both of those team over the last decade can be attributed to some key FCS (or I-A then) transfers. What happens when those players cannot transfer and play immediatley?


"All 3 of these schools will almost certainly be much better FBS schools than they are FCS schools."

I guess that depends on the definition of "much better". If you mean better facilities and better funded, maybe so. If you mean more successful on the field, ummmmm not so sure about that one. Trying to pull Lamar into this equation is pretty silly. If USTA jumps in then IMO that hurts Tx State.

McNeese was at the I-A level and played in the Independence Bowl several years. As a fan, the thrill of watching the Cowboys play in those bowls vs the trips to the playoffs over the last two decades is not even a question. It will be the playoff system every time (IMO of course).

FiniteMan
August 6th, 2008, 09:44 AM
Considering travel costs, not discouraging future members, and the specs of the southland 4:


Texas State University-San Marcos; San Marcos, Texas;
Enrollment=27,171; Bobcat Stadium=15,218; Strahan Coliseum=7200;
Austin/San Marcos DMA = 635K

University of Texas at San Antonio; San Antonio, Texas;
Enrollment=28000; Alamo Dome=65,000; Convocation Center=5100;
San Antonio DMA = 792K

Sam Houston State University; Huntsville, Texas;
Enrollment=15300; Bowers Stadium=14,000; Bernard Johnson Coliseum=6100;
Houston DMA = 2.050M

Lamar University; Beaumont, Texas; Enrollment=10000;
Cardinal Stadium=17,000; Montagne Center=10080;
Beaumont DMA = 164K


If no other southland school wants to jump to FBS, which 2 Southland schools do you invite to be non-football members...?

University of Central Arkansas; Conway, Arkansas;
Enrollment=12400; Estes Stadium=8,035; Farris Center=6000;
Little Rock/Pine Bluff DMA = 552K

McNeese State University; Lake Charles, Louisiana;
Enrollment=8784; Cowboy Stadium=17,410; Burton Coliseum=8000;
Lake Charles DMA = 94K

Nicholls State University; Thibodaux, Louisiana;
Enrollment=7500; John L. Guidry Stadium=12,800; Stopher Gym=3800;
New Orleans DMA = 600K

Northwestern State University; Natchitoches, Louisiana;
Enrollment=10159; Harry Turpin Stadium=15,971; Prather Coliseum=3900;
Shreveport DMA =383K

Southeastern Louisiana University; Hammond, Louisiana;
Enrollment=16000; Strawberry Stadium=7,408; University Center=7500;
New Orleans DMA = 600K

Stephen F. Austin State University; Nacogdoches, Texas;
Enrollment=11408; Homer Bryce Stadium=14,575; William R. Johnson Coliseum=7203;
Tyler DMA = 260K

University of Texas at Arlington; Arlington, Texas;
Enrollment=25297; Non-football school=N/A; Texas Hall=4200;
DFW DMA = 2.435M

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi; Corpus Christi, Texas;
Enrollment=8355; Non-football school=N/A; American Bank Center=8000;
Corpus Christi DMA= 195K

My take is that any conference commisioner worth a damn would insist on UTA as #5. Even though they are worthless as an FCS school, they have a ton of TV value in an FBS conference and with their enrollment could quickly right their athletic ship. #6? Do you invite McNeese and hope they come to thier senses and play FBS football? Do you invite UCA on condition of an FBS status upgrade in 6-10 years? SFA on the same terms because they are closer and a rival of Sam Houston? Do you invite one of the New Orleans DMA schools or would that turn away other potential members like LA Tech? Or do you just invite Corpus because as the southland isn't thrilled with them over football, they'd say yes and you could potentially dump them later?

What path do you take?

(This is, of course, assuming they don't immediately and foolishly split apart after upgrading. Not a given. :P)

Still... How does a southland of 2020 look?

McNeese State University
Nicholls State University
Northwestern State University
Southeastern Louisiana University
Stephen F. Austin State University
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi (non-football)

Not a lot of TV relevance there for basketball (small numbers in poor communities) and not a lot of good DII teams in the wings. (Best I can come up with are Arkansas Tech and MAYBE Southern Arkansas, but that is REALLY pushing it. They are very small. Maybe they steal non-football school Houston Baptist from the Great West? That might be their best play.)

If the 4 grab two schools like I think they will, the Southland may start a slow slide to FCS irrelevance if not to Div II.

McNeese75
August 6th, 2008, 10:16 AM
To begin with, you are "assuming" there will be a SLC 4.

centexguy
August 6th, 2008, 10:38 AM
The Southland was beginning to make some noise as a D1 conference in the late 70s and early 80s. McNeese went to the Independence Bowl a few times and was actually ranked in the top 20. Lamar and La Tech both made it to the Sweet 16 in basketball. La Tech had a dominate women's basketball team.

Then Lamar, UNT, La Tech, Ark State and ULL left to form the American South conference and none of these schools have done much in any sport since they left. The Southland brought in newbie D1 schools such as SHSU, Texas State, UTSA, etc., and as a conference it hasn't accomplished much on the national scene.

Now the Southland is in some nice TV markets and starting up a TV network. The question is can this conference stay together and become relevant at the national level or is it doomed to split up and reload with D1 newbies again? I think a big part of the answer lies in whether they stay FCS or go FBS.

FiniteMan
August 6th, 2008, 11:02 AM
I can certainly respect a love of the FCS playoffs. I agree that that is a strong reason to love FCS. That said, look at what might be left of the Southland. Do you want to tie your school to that long term? McNeese will get few offers due to their DMA. This is a pretty hot ticket they are ignoring today.

Concerning whether or not Texas State, UTSA, and Sam Houston get the upgrade right... I'll freely admit a LOT of schools who make the jump don't. As I said in my initial post on Texas State's stadium expansion plan, I think their plan is just awful. Adding bad seats is not how you get attendance up, as U Buffalo learned to their dismay. Adding bad seats only makes it HARDER to get good turnout and to do further facility upgrades.

There are no guarantees of success at any level.

That said, making the jump is the right move for all 3 universities and an arguement can be made that Lamar HAS to make the jump to get their enrollment back up --- that long term, it is the right move for their school and in the short term, this is their only and best shot at getting it right.

Concerning why the Texas State will be more successful than ULL... Enrollment and DMA. ULL has an enrollment of 18K and the Lafayette DMA has only 226K TV households (which, like the rest of LA are poorer than the national average). ULL has really done a very good job, but the financial realities are they will never be considered for a CUSA level conference and might not even be more than a potential 8th or 12 member of a Southwestland conference. (8th needed for football or 12th needed for a championship game.)

For a public university, 15K enrollment is really USUALLY the dividing line for FBS viability. FBS schools generally need to pull ~20K to games to be anywhere near breaking even. That is often hard to accomplish at a public with less than 15K enrollment, because they are often in small towns.

In terms of attendance, large publics often do poorly because the vast majority of their students think the games are minor league. At smaller publics the perception is usually that "we are playing at an appropriate level/best we can afford." Hence the perception is better. When UCF and USF upgraded, their student body started attending the games in better percentages. When that occurred the size of the student body delivered good attendence.

A public University can charge an athletics fee to thier student body. Lets say "15K university's" student body vote for a $10 a semester hour athletic fee increase. Assuming 15 hours a semester for 2 semesters a year, that means each year, each student will be contributing $300 more to the athletic department. At a university of 15K, that is an extra $4.5M a year. For most 15K universities playing football at the FCS level, that can bump them up to FBS operating levels overnight, or help to get stadiums upgraded.

Now if you deal with larger universities, the student contributions have much greater affect. At Texas State or UTSA, that would add just under 9M to their athletic budget.

That is the advantage large publics have in upgrading --- they can leverage their student body.

As a school like McNeese (9K), that kind of investment by the student body would bump up the athletic budget by a "mere" $2.7M. Ordinarily, I would say, "stay at FCS", because only the sunbelt would consider you. But McNeese already has the facilities to go to FBS and survive. The Southland 4 have the DMAs to generate some TV revenue that might make this a growth proposition for McNeese, just like Lamar.

I cannot totally slam the McNeese thought process, but I would encourage them to consider the ULM example before closing their minds to FBS. ULM took a much bigger gamble, took much more public ridicule, and now their decision totally looks like the correct one for that university's long term growth. It can be argued that they are in the process of displacing La Tech as N. Louisiana's team/university.

If McNeese suddenly lept over ULM and ULL conference-wise, wouldn't that impact the perception of incoming students who like football? All 3 universities have similar caliber academics. It could end up being a spur for univerisity growth.

And don't get me wrong...I freely acknowledge that all 4 schools could make very bad stadium and facility decisions that doom them all to long term financial disaster, but on the positive side they are all in good recruting areas, that are IMO underrecruited.

UTSA will be the only school playing football of any note in San Antonio. There are no pro teams there. It is entirely possible that they hit a home run and fill the Alamo Dome from time to time, even though the idea of having a stadium more than 2 miles from campus is almost always a bad idea. OU, UT, and A&M will want to play home and home with them in SA at the Alamo Dome. 35-40K attendance might be reasonable with 1-2 sellouts each season.

Texas State will have a tougher go of it. They were right to upgrade WITH UTSA, because if UTSA beat them to it, UT and UTSA might block them in two conferences making successfully upgrading even harder for them. Now Texas State and UTSA can be the A&M and UT of their conference. There certainly is enough talent in the Austin and SA DMAs to support 3 FBS schools. I think at the FBS level, considering travelling fans, Texas State could fill a 30K stadium fairly regularly. I am not enthusiastic about their 5 stage stadium expansion plan though. It hits me as something that would HUGELY work against them. UNT, Baylor, UTEP, Houston, and the other CUSA schools would probably play home and home games with FBS Texas State. Even Tech might. Texas State would sell out a properly thought out 30K stadium vs. in conference and local rival UTSA as well as vs. Tech, Houston, Baylor, and possibly even UTEP. 2 sellouts a year of a 30K stadium would have average attendance in the 20K range (= profitability).

Houston can support 3 FBS schools. Sam Houston needs to add at least 6K to their 14K stadium and probably 10K to survive long term in FBS. In the short term though an annual "rivalry game" between UH and SHSU at Reliant Stadium (cap 69,000) would swell both schools' average attendance numbers so it could be put together. SHSU could claim it ever other year, keeping their attendance average above NCAA FS minimum 17K for consectutive years, even without a stadium upgrade. All of the nearby CUSA privates (Rice, Tulane, Tulsa) would love another nearby opponent who can travel fans. Frankly they could sell out every game. I hope a serious stadium expansion is in the works though. Not doing it is leaving money on the table.

East Texas talent and Houston leftovers could probably support Lamar. Lamar's Cardinal Stadium seats 17K but inspite of upgrades to it, it hasn't been used for football in 20 years. Lamar is a total crapshoot. Their fan base did not want to downgrade to FCS, but that was over 20 years ago --- frankly a lot of those folks are dead. Who knows what happens with Lamar. It is probably the right decision to make the jump with Billy Tubbs as their front man as his personal relationship with several ADs will help scheduling, but man that is an uphill battle... Rice would do a home and home...probably. LA Tech. Sunbelt western schools. Other than that, they are relying on Billy Tubbs pressing flesh. They more than any of the others really need the Southland 4 to stay together.

Go Poly
August 6th, 2008, 11:15 AM
I admire the hell out of the Texas State student body for making the FBS move a priority for their school. That said, I think the Texas St. Stadium planning looks like it would create a bad stadium out of a really good FCS stadium. I have studied a lot of stadiums to try to figure out why some don't ever seem to draw fans and why some do very well in that regard. I think stage 1 would turn Bobcat stadium into a lopsided stadium ala E. Michigan's stadium --- chronic attendance problems. From there each additional stage adds more bad seats until you end up with the Texas equivilant of UBuffalo stadium --- another bad attendance FBS stadium.

It is tough, because you guys are under the gun to upgrade ASAP while support is there for it.

I think a better expansion plan for your stadium would have the following priorities.

1) build a 1K track "stadium" elsewhere
2) Remove the track from bobcat stadium
3) dig down ala the Kibbie Dome in Idaho, lowering the feild to add more space to extend sideline seating closer to the feild. I would add chair backed seats for this premium upgrade. I think you could likely (like Idaho) add up to 5K seats. Drainage may require more modifications, but I still think it is both doable and optimal.
4) Add as many rest room facilities as possible.
5) build the new weightroom as soon as possible to help competitiveness.

From there, your options are a lot better.

The chair backed seats will likely turn that entire expansion area into regulary sold season tickets, doubling your season ticket holder numbers and giving you much better financial standing.

You could from there go on to build the planned phase 1 albeit one that extends down further to match the new build. Then since the turf is Astroplay, you could move the entire feild 20 yards south, and then rather that the current 5 yard line to 5 yard line seating you currently have, you could have a 27K or so stadium with seating running from end zone to end zone --- very few truly bad seats. Because the stadium would be lower, the worst seats would have better perspectives. Eventually bulldozers can move the north hill closer and you could years down the road add some end zone seating on that end.

I think you guys should readjust your goals to make adding GOOD seats a higher priority than adding seats. You don't want to end up like my local school UNT with a 20 stadium with 10K additional seats no one wants. That will just make it seem like people are not interested in the sport and will make fundraising harder. Build a 20,25, 30, 35K stadium where every seat has a good shot of selling.

IMO.

Finiteman is on the mark! It sounds like you should apply for a job as Texas St assistant AD! Great points!! Hopefully they are listening to your good ideas!

McNeese75
August 6th, 2008, 11:16 AM
Looks like I brought a knife to a gunfight :D You seem to have plenty of research and background information to support your position and mine is mostly opinoin and emotional so I will cease jousting with you and we shall se what the future will bring. xpeacex

(You are not McNeese_Beat are you? xlolx )

FiniteMan
August 6th, 2008, 12:05 PM
Nope.

To be fair, I mostly post at the Grid of College Football Realignment Forum and we track garbage like multi-year attendance numbers and stuff like that, lol! :)

It is a sickness.

FiniteMan
August 6th, 2008, 12:38 PM
I just thought what Texas State and the Southland 4 member's schedules might look like by in 2018 or so, (assuming #5 non-football UTA and #6 proposed eventual FBS UCA).

Texas State (lets say stadium cap. = 30K by then)
Out of Conference
1) @SMU
2) Baylor
3) @Texas Tech
4) Houston
5) UTEP
In Conference
6) @UTSA
7) Sam Houston
8) @Lamar
9) Central Arkansas
10) @Louisiana Tech
11) UNT
12) @New Mexico State

UTSA (cap.=65K)
Out of Conference
1) @Tech
2) Houston
3) @A&M
4) @UTEP
5) UT
In Conference
6) Texas State
7) @Sam Houston
8) Lamar
9) @Central Arkansas
10) Louisiana Tech
11) @UNT
12) New Mexico State

Sam Houston (cap. lets say 24K by then)
Out of Conference
1) Tulane
2) @SMU
3) Rice
4) @Tulsa
5) @Houston (@Reliant Stadium)
In Conference
6) Louisiana Tech
7) @UNT
8) New Mexico State
9) Lamar
10) @UTSA
11) Texas State
12) @Central Arkansas

Lamar (cap. lets say 25K by then)
Out of Conference (could be much better due to Tubbs)
1) @Rice
2) Tulsa
3) Houston
4) @Tulane
5) ULL
In Conference
6) Central Arkansas
7) @Louisiana Tech
8) UNT
9) @New Mexico State
10) @Sam Houston
11) UTSA
12) @Texas State

* I could easily see a bodybag game with TCU or OU. Although not Home and Home.

FiniteMan
August 7th, 2008, 06:03 PM
Still... How does a southland of 2020 look?

McNeese State University
Nicholls State University
Northwestern State University
Southeastern Louisiana University
Stephen F. Austin State University
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi (non-football)

Not a lot of TV relevance there for basketball (small numbers in poor communities) and not a lot of good DII teams in the wings. (Best I can come up with are Arkansas Tech and MAYBE Southern Arkansas, but that is REALLY pushing it. They are very small. Maybe they steal non-football school Houston Baptist from the Great West? That might be their best play.)

If the 4 grab two schools like I think they will, the Southland may start a slow slide to FCS irrelevance if not to Div II.

I think I was being a little harsh with this. Even if McNeese choses to stay at the FCS level, they will be OK and so will the Southland. The big problem the southland would have is no TV money for basketball at all because their markets are just too small.

Lets assume a Southland 2020 of:

McNeese State University
Nicholls State University
Northwestern State University
Southeastern Louisiana University
Stephen F. Austin State University
Arkansas Tech
Southern Arkansas
TAMU-Commerce
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi (non-football)
Houston Baptist (non-football)

With regards to football that is still an above average FCS conference likely to pull 6-13K per game to almost all of their venues. From a football perspective that is probably still losing money, but it isn't losing money hand over fist. When you throw in the relatively small footprint, a lot of teams could be breaking even if not making a small profit on football. Really for FCS, quite healthy. (I threw TAMU-Commerce in on the chance they get their football act together, but they are a poor Div II team today.)

With regards to basketball, As Houston is a BB hotbed, there are decent odds that Houston Baptist may end up being the class of the GW. If so their addition might really help the conference be TV relevant in Houston. If HB gets a couple good recruits and makes a tourney run, that is very possible. Although future options for Southland schools would be very limited, day to day reality should be a little better than I originally implied.

elcid96
August 7th, 2008, 06:15 PM
It is tough, because you guys are under the gun to upgrade ASAP while support is there for it.

IMO.

Is 13K fans and 1200 season ticket holders really considered support? If this is the good times, then maybe a move to DII would be a better than a move to FBS.

FiniteMan
August 7th, 2008, 07:12 PM
Is 13K fans and 1200 season ticket holders really considered support? If this is the good times, then maybe a move to DII would be a better than a move to FBS.

From 2004-2006 Texas State averaged 12,232 fans per game per the NCAA's official attendance stats. Now how honest were those attendance counts? I can't say. I will say that over that time period they were 20th out of the 122 FCS schools in that time span. (Michigan State was 20th in FBS, so in attendance terms it would not be totally inaccurate to say Texas state is the Michigan State of FCS.)

Are you argueing the 102 schools who drew less than Texas State should downgrade too?

The NCAA minimums for FBS (not really enforced) requires an FBS school's attendance does not drop below 17K for over 2 consecutive seasons. Honestly them drawing 12K in FCS and having a very large student body and an on campus stadium makes that very unlikely anyway. Almost without exception teams' attendance averages go up after upgrading. Buffalo is one pronounced example where it did not, and they did a number of things wrong...IMO.

http://www.athletics.txstate.edu/thedrive/home.htm

As of 8.1.2008 Texas State had exceeded its 2008 goal of selling season tickets. As of that point they had sold 2,508 season tickets.

They are on schedule for their expansion plan and --- IMO --- as such are not subject to ridicule with regards to moving up.

Now if you want to ridicule them for not being a very good athletic program overall, well, that's on them and frankly normal operating procedures on most forums about Texas State that I have read.

About the only thing I don't like about Texas State's current actions are that they are adding bad seats to expand their 15K stadium. That is a recipe for a tough upgrade. A good stadium expansion plan makes it a ton easier to retain new fans and build a large season ticket holder base.

Really Texas State is not going to be hosting UT or OU and probably not A&M (unless the Aggies chose to stick it to UT) regardless of whether they build a 40K stadium. None of those schools have anything to gain from playing Texas State. Now the Baylors and UTEPs of the world will be all over Texas State. They will play home and home with Texas State having a 30K stadium or even probably if they had a 25K stadium. 36 of FBS's schools averaged less than 22K in attendance in the 2004-2007 span. A 25K stadium is not a deal killer.

IMO 25K is a good if not optimal immediate goal, but seats with good views and chair backed seats should just as high of a priority as hitting any seat number goal.

IndianaAppMan
August 7th, 2008, 07:29 PM
From 2004-2006 Texas State averaged 12,232 fans per game. Now how honest are those numbers? I can't say. I will say that over that time period they were 20th out of the 122 FCS schools in that time span.

Are you argueing the 102 schools who drew less than Texas State should downgrade too?

12.2K is still a long, long way from FBS. Even if you do meet the minimum requirements, you don't want to have the worst attendance in the FBS, do you?

I think he was just saying that 12.2K in the good times is still a lot closer to D-II attendance than it is to mediocre FBS attendance. What's gonna happen when support dwindles, say, because of losses on the field or because the economy sucks?

The thing with Texas State that blows my mind is that it is following a failure model. Marshall, whom I say has had a relatively successful move, had great attendance and cashflow and THEN decided to go FBS. Troy, same thing. Boise State--they were ready and it shows. You guys are following FIU's pattern. Is that really what you want? If your goal is to be perceived in a better light, do you really think that making like FIU would help?

Schools like Montana, Georgia Southern, Delaware, and UMass are doing pretty darn well for themselves. If they were determined, they could waltz in to the FBS after the moratorium is lifted, but they seem to choose otherwise because now isn't the right time. There may never be a right time, and that's okay, because they're doing well where they are. Why not try to emulate them? Why not first model what Marshall, Troy, and Boise did, rather than doing what FIU did--diving into FBS waaaaay before you're ready?

TexasTerror
August 7th, 2008, 08:22 PM
From 2004-2006 Texas State averaged 12,232 fans per game per the NCAA's official attendance stats. Now how honest were those attendance counts? I can't say. I will say that over that time period they were 20th out of the 122 FCS schools in that time span. (Michigan State was 20th in FBS, so in attendance terms it would not be totally inaccurate to say Texas state is the Michigan State of FCS.)

a) Talking about FCS attendance and comparing it to FBS attendance is hogwash. If you knew the slightest bit about FCS and the different "categories" (especially as it relates to scholarships being funded) that exist within the classification, there's a big difference.

b) There is no question that the Bobcats flub numbers. This past year, they fell to #28 with 11,408. Dare to take out the playoff year and see where the Bobcats stand? If you don't recall -- Manny Mataskis is the reason they had success in 2005. Recall what he did?

Are you argueing the 102 schools who drew less than Texas State should downgrade too?


As of 8.1.2008 Texas State had exceeded its 2008 goal of selling season tickets. As of that point they had sold 2,508 season tickets.

Incorrect. That husband and wife bought 1,000 tickets. So far, only 1,508 tickets (as of Aug 1) had been sold. If that husband and wife did not step up, it'd be rather embarrassing. The Bobcat faithful overlook that fact -- but it's all the reason for us to laugh.


Now if you want to ridicule them for not being a very good athletic program overall, well, that's on them and frankly normal operating procedures on most forums about Texas State that I have read.

They are a good athletic department by SLC standards. One of the strongest ones. Sure, they could not put a media guide together and have it ready for SLC Media Day (a huge fine in FBS conferences) according to sources, but on the field of play, they aren't too bad.

ULM was not too bad either before they went full throttle into FBS. Remember the basketball teams they used to have? They had lots of good programs. What do they have now? Can't say the same.

That's the direction the Bobcats are heading, especially since the Sun Belt is not interested in them and the WAC is the most likely option -- that travel budget will be fun! You guys assume the Sun Belt wants the Bobcats, but that's far from the truth.


IMO 25K is a good if not optimal immediate goal, but seats with good views and chair backed seats should just as high of a priority as hitting any seat number goal.

If the Bobcats begin to lose, the fan support will dwindle. Has and always will. Times have changed to some extent, but I wonder what would happen if the days of losing return...then again, they never went away considering the Bobcats have what -- 5 winning seasons since coming up to FCS?


The thing with Texas State that blows my mind is that it is not following a failure model. Marshall, whom I say has had a relatively successful move, had great attendance and cashflow and THEN decided to go FBS. Troy, same thing. Boise State--they were ready and it shows. You guys are following FIU's pattern. Is that really what you want? If your goal is to be perceived in a better light, do you really think that making like FIU would help?

Difference -- FIU had a conference that wanted them in. TXST does not have a conference. Again, the Sun Belt does not want them. 10 football, 12 basketball is ideal for them. If they expand, look for them to fill in the gap between Alabama and Florida.

Bobcats best bet is WAC unless they ride the coattails of UTSA into C-USA. If UTSA gets FBS, the Bobcats chances of a winning football program at the same level as UTSA and Texas is over and done with. They know it in San Marcos...

FiniteMan
August 7th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Will their attendance fluctuate? Absolutely. All of the non BCS school's attendance fluctuates. Will they miss the 17K? Probably more than once. That doesn't mean it is the wrong move for the university.

Frankly there is no way they will have the worst attendance in FBS. A single game against a school like Baylor that might sell out a 30K stadium will drag 10K attendance over 5 games up to 13.3K. That is already puts them ahead of at least 5-6 teams. I think that would be an absolute worst case scenario. A lot of FBS schools do much worse for a single year. I think a more likely worse case scenario though is 2 games in the 25K range and 4 stinkers in the 10K range. That's 15K.

As I have said before, if Texas State allowed UTSA to upgrade ahead of them, they could have been blocked out of a lesser conference by UTSA. Jumping with UTSA is pretty much self-defense if they want to ever upgrade. Additionally the 3 other schools just helps their chances.

The problem with waiting is that your opportunity to upgrade may dry up. FAMU was ready to go in 1998 and they waited and they lost their chance. It is now 10 years later and they are STILL in FCS.

Regarding compairsons. USF was averaging 30K in 1997 & 1998, Buffalo a little under 14K, Troy was averaging a little under 13K. (I apologize I don't have numbers between 1999-2003.)

The point is that BOTH Buffalo and Troy were in the same vicinity as Texas State. It is a solid time frame. The main concern I have about Texas State is not the speed of their upgrade, it is where they are adding their additional seating. Their plan is not very different from Buffalo's plan, where the majority of the new seats were put in the endzones of a football feild with a track.

Compairsons to FAU and FIU are with respect, totally unreasonable. Both schools were not even playing football in the 1998-1999 seasons. They started from scratch. UTSA you can compare to FIU. Texas State on the other hand was averaging a very respectable 8200 per game in that time span.

Could Texas State be Idaho in the FBS? Absolutely. Could they be Buffalo...Even though I hate their stadium plan and it does evoke Buffalo's, I think that would be a worst case scenario and very unlikely considering likely opponents. Could they be Troy? Very possible. I think the thing that might shock you is that I suspect Texas State students, alumni, and administration would consider any of the 3 an upgrade over their current status in FCS AND most importantly they would consider it a very solid starting point for a life at the FBS level.. They just aren't happy in FCS and that should be OK, shouldn't it?

With regards to schools like Montana, Georgia Southern, Delaware, and UMass waltzing into FBS, again I respectfully disagree.

School 2004-2006 att average
Montana 23K
G.S. 16K
Delaware 21K
UMASS 10K

No FBS conference is going to be blown away by any of these school's facilities. Montana's DMAs combined have fewer people than the Austin/San Marcos DMA. Where is the money in adding them? Georgia Southern's DMA is relatively small too. The Big East isn't exactly rolling out the red carpet for Delaware or UMASS. Who else is going to take them? Which conference is willing to take on those travel costs?

TexasTerror
August 7th, 2008, 10:03 PM
Frankly there is no way they will have the worst attendance in FBS. A single game against a school like Baylor that might sell out a 30K stadium will drag 10K attendance over 5 games up to 13.3K. That is already puts them ahead of at least 5-6 teams. I think that would be an absolute worst case scenario. A lot of FBS schools do much worse for a single year. I think a more likely worse case scenario though is 2 games in the 25K range and 4 stinkers in the 10K range. That's 15K.

Of course they would not be the worst attendance, but nothing beats being in the bottom 10%.


The problem with waiting is that your opportunity to upgrade may dry up. FAMU was ready to go in 1998 and they waited and they lost their chance. It is now 10 years later and they are STILL in FCS.

Can't compare the two. FAMU had numerous problems, that were both public and private. Despite CollegeSportsInfo saying they had an invite to the Sun Belt in the works, that's incorrect. Sun Belt was listening, but no interest. They would have been an independent and failed anyway.


Regarding compairsons. USF was averaging 30K in 1997 & 1998, Buffalo a little under 14K, Troy was averaging a little under 13K. (I apologize I don't have numbers between 1999-2003.)

Troy had a lot of money pouring in. They still have an inadequate basketball facility. They are set to upgrade. They had a successful FCS. TXST does not. They had willing sponsors who chipped in million$. TXST does not.


No FBS conference is going to be blown away by any of these school's facilities. Montana's DMAs combined have fewer people than the Austin/San Marcos DMA. Where is the money in adding them? Georgia Southern's DMA is relatively small too. The Big East isn't exactly rolling out the red carpet for Delaware or UMASS. Who else is going to take them? Which conference is willing to take on those travel costs?

We're talking about TXT. Who cares about the other schools? They aren't too interested in FBS. What conference wants the Bobcats? Right now, unless UTSA brings them into C-USA, all they have is the WAC or an upgraded Southland.

FiniteMan
August 7th, 2008, 10:08 PM
Incorrect. That husband and wife bought 1,000 tickets. So far, only 1,508 tickets (as of Aug 1) had been sold. If that husband and wife did not step up, it'd be rather embarrassing. The Bobcat faithful overlook that fact -- but it's all the reason for us to laugh.

1508 + 1000 is still 2508. Upgrading is all about setting goals and reaching them --- however you can. I am sure almost any school that has upgraded has had moments like that.


They are a good athletic department by SLC standards. One of the strongest ones. Sure, they could not put a media guide together and have it ready for SLC Media Day (a huge fine in FBS conferences) according to sources, but on the field of play, they aren't too bad.

ULM was not too bad either before they went full throttle into FBS. Remember the basketball teams they used to have? They had lots of good programs. What do they have now? Can't say the same.

That's the direction the Bobcats are heading, especially since the Sun Belt is not interested in them and the WAC is the most likely option -- that travel budget will be fun!

The size of ULM's student body meant a jump to FBS was going to be quite difficult. Apples and oranges.


You guys assume the Sun Belt wants the Bobcats, but that's far from the truth..... Difference -- FIU had a conference that wanted them in. TXST does not have a conference. Again, the Sun Belt does not want them. 10 football, 12 basketball is ideal for them. If they expand, look for them to fill in the gap between Alabama and Florida.

Find one quote of mine that says I think the Sunbelt wants Texas State. I think the Sunbelt may be hurting for teams bys 2011-2012 depending on what happens to CUSA, and might take Texas State, but I have never said that the Sunbelt wants them.


If the Bobcats begin to lose, the fan support will dwindle. Has and always will. Times have changed to some extent, but I wonder what would happen if the days of losing return...then again, they never went away considering the Bobcats have what -- 5 winning seasons since coming up to FCS?

This is such a childish "zinger". I have no connections to Texas State at all. I am merely a fan of what they are trying to do. The fact that they don't win in FCS and still draw pretty well at this level just means they stand an even better chance of making it in FBS as the transition years will be lean.


Bobcats best bet is WAC unless they ride the coattails of UTSA into C-USA. If UTSA gets FBS, the Bobcats chances of a winning football program at the same level as UTSA and Texas is over and done with. They know it in San Marcos...

UTSA won't jump directly into CUSA. The CUSA West schools are trying to make it into the BCS. Adding a startup football programs doesn't exactly wow the bowls or the other BCS schools. Both schools have the same options. WAC. Try to build their own conference, or go indy for a few seasons.

Any news on Sam Houston? Have they chickened out or are they still looking at upgrading?

TexasTerror
August 7th, 2008, 10:17 PM
1508 + 1000 is still 2508. Upgrading is all about setting goals and reaching them --- however you can. I am sure almost any school that has upgraded has had moments like that.

For a school with as many students and alumni are you do, you would think they would have more. The 1000 donation covers up the shortfall by the athletic department and the road bump in the drive. They will have to do much better in the future...


The size of ULM's student body meant a jump to FBS was going to be quite difficult. Apples and oranges.

You apparently are a bit confused on apples and oranges based on previous remarks and comparisons of TXST to other schools...


Find one quote of mine that says I think the Sunbelt wants Texas State. I think the Sunbelt may be hurting for teams bys 2011-2012 depending on what happens to CUSA, and might take Texas State, but I have never said that the Sunbelt wants them.

Nope, but other individuals from your school and particularly, on the message board have made boastful claims regarding the SBC. The SBC will not take TXST in and they know that this is not the appropriate move for the conference.


This is such a childish "zinger". I have no connections to Texas State at all. I am merely a fan of what they are trying to do. The fact that they don't win in FCS and still draw pretty well at this level just means they stand an even better chance of making it in FBS as the transition years will be lean.

Draw pretty well at this level? Again, for the amount of students they have and the alumni in the area plus location -- they should be at a much higher level than they are now.


Any news on Sam Houston? Have they chickened out or are they still looking at upgrading?

The inner circle is discussing it. If TXST blows the attempt, which is possible, it will hurt the chances of SHSU and Lamar in the future...so, good luck on that alone, but then again -- the current landscape of FBS is not attractive to me.

IndianaAppMan
August 7th, 2008, 10:46 PM
Frankly there is no way they will have the worst attendance in FBS. But if it ranks below #100, is that desirable? Is the goal really to finish above last, as opposed to something more respectable?
I think a more likely worse case scenario though is 2 games in the 25K range and 4 stinkers in the 10K range. That's 15K.Whooptee-stinkin-doo! 15,000! That's pretty great in FCS, but it won't get you far in FBS, not with 85 scholarships to dish out, facilities that are at least better than the best FCS programs, and coaches' salaries that are significantly higher.
Compairsons to FAU and FIU are with respect, totally unreasonable. Both schools were not even playing football in the 1998-1999 seasons. They started from scratch. UTSA you can compare to FIU. Texas State on the other hand was averaging a very respectable 8200 per game in that time span. Totally unreasonable? Sure, TSU isn't a startup, but the point is that FIU made the move to FBS too soon, and TSU is heading that same direction. FAU is different because they had a proven leader who has that program headed upwards fast.

And since when is 8200 per game "very respectable"? That's middle-of-the-road for even an FCS team. It's not even within eyeshot of FBS attendance.


Could Texas State be Idaho in the FBS? Absolutely. Could they be Buffalo... I think that would be a worst case scenario and very unlikely considering likely opponents. Could they be Troy? Very possible. I think the thing that might shock you is that I suspect Texas State students, alumni, and administration would consider any of the 3 an upgrade over their current status in FCS AND most importantly they would consider it a very solid starting point for a life at the FBS level.. They just aren't happy in FCS and that should be OK, shouldn't it?I just can't help but wonder if they're unhappy because they're not winning. If they had a winning tradition like Montana, JMU, Delaware, or McNeese, I would bet that FCS wouldn't seem so deplorable.
School 2004-2006 att average
Montana 23K
G.S. 16K
Delaware 21K
UMASS 10KAll except UMass are better that TSU's, and they're not even driven by the goal of going FCS. TSU can't get over 15K with that goal.
No FBS conference is going to be blown away by any of these school's facilities. Agreed, although the WAC commissioner has commented kindly about Montana's. They basically have an open invitation.
Montana's DMAs combined have fewer people than the Austin/San Marcos DMA. Where is the money in adding them? Georgia Southern's DMA is relatively small too. The Big East isn't exactly rolling out the red carpet for Delaware or UMASS. Who else is going to take them? Which conference is willing to take on those travel costs?DMA size is important, but it's not everything. Va. Tech didn't add any major market to the ACC. I mean, Blacksburg? Roanoke? They did help solidify the east coast, though. Ga. Southern adds Savannah and would garner media attention from Jacksonville, Macon, and Atlanta markets to C-USA or Sun Belt. Montana adds little, at least at first glance, to the WAC. However, they do add another flagship university. They might be needed as a replacement should Boise go to the MWC. Who knows????
This is such a childish "zinger". I have no connections to Texas State at all. I am merely a fan of what they are trying to do. The fact that they don't win in FCS and still draw pretty well at this level just means they stand an even better chance of making it in FBS as the transition years will be lean.TexasTerror isn't giving childish zinger. He's making a solid point that Texas State would have the odds heavily stacked against them. They don't have any history of strong attendance, and their struggles to pull out winning seasons won't help that. Sounds a lot more rational than childish.

I hope that the folks at Texas State are doing some sound economic analysis that disputes my observations because it seems like moving to FBS could dry up their athletic budget. Texans already have lots of teams that capture their hearts and their dollars: Cowboys, Texans, UT, A&M, TCU, Tech, and, to a lesser extent, Rice, Houston, UTEP, and SMU. FCS programs (plus North Texas) are left to find their niche among alumni and the immediate community, and that's okay because FCS programs cost a whole lot less while still putting out quality products (at least in some cases). Grasping the loyalties and attention from the remainder of the state would be an extremely hard uphill battle.

IndianaAppMan
August 8th, 2008, 12:21 AM
If Texas State wants to go FBS, that's their business. But it seems that it would be wise to be really successful in FCS, consistently, not just in number of W's and playoff performance, but in attendance, donations, etc. Take your time if you have to. Do it the right way like FAU, Troy, or Boise.

If they don't, they'll be spending a lot of time here: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/preview08/news/story?page=bottom1008preseason
Certainly that's not what they want, is it?

slycat
August 8th, 2008, 08:01 PM
If Texas State wants to go FBS, that's their business. But it seems that it would be wise to be really successful in FCS, consistently, not just in number of W's and playoff performance, but in attendance, donations, etc. Take your time if you have to. Do it the right way like FAU, Troy, or Boise.

If they don't, they'll be spending a lot of time here: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/preview08/news/story?page=bottom1008preseason
Certainly that's not what they want, is it?

Interestingly these are both going up with the intention of moving up. Sure our season ticket sales are still small but it is still a strong increase from before. Our best bet is to move with UTSA. It will create a strong and close rival and give us a spring board to a better conference. If we blow this strategic move, we blow everything.

I'm not the biggest supporter of the move but I will back the university. Texas St will be sitting in a tight spot if UTSA moves up and we don't.

My dream is that we will both get into CUSA. With local teams, UTEP, UofH, RICE, and SMU, we could not go wrong.

IndianaAppMan
August 9th, 2008, 04:33 PM
Sure our season ticket sales are still small but it is still a strong increase from before.


Montana has sold 19,364 season tickets so far, and has a few more premium seats to be sold (for $1,000 a piece).

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/08/09/sports/sports03.txt

Ticket sales may be increasing, but it's such a long way to go. xnodx I'm just saying that if TSU is going to move up, they need to be more secure.

Look at Montana: based on their stadium improvements & ticket sales, they'd be much more ready for FBS, let alone their winning tradition.

Slycat, I think your idea of a conference with the schools listed would make sense for TSU if they were actually ready to make a move. I'm glad you're not suggesting something totally unrealistic like Big 12 or even MWC membership. That'd be like the goofballs who think App could actually be in SEC or ACC. IF App were to move to FBS, I think that a realistic goal would be a conference with Marshall, James Madison, ECU, Ga. Southern, Troy, & a few other teams in the southeast in who-knows-what conference. But that's just speculation. Nobody knows what conferences will look like after the Big East's TV contract expires. It could have another dramatic trickle-down effect like the ACC started five years ago.
I'm not the biggest supporter of the move but I will back the university. Texas St will be sitting in a tight spot if UTSA moves up and we don't. I can certainly understand why you'd feel that way. I'd support App if they moved up, too, even if I didn't think it was the right move at the right time.

patssle
August 9th, 2008, 04:38 PM
My dream is that we will both get into CUSA. With local teams, UTEP, UofH, RICE, and SMU, we could not go wrong.

Would be nice if the FBS/BCS reorganized to a playoffs system, and created an all-Texas conference. Rice, SMU, UH, UTEP, UTSA, TXST, UNT, SHSU.

IndianaAppMan
August 9th, 2008, 05:14 PM
Would be nice if the FBS/BCS reorganized to a playoffs system, and created an all-Texas conference. Rice, SMU, UH, UTEP, UTSA, TXST, UNT, SHSU.

Uh... that might work to well. Granted, the business model for a conference like that might be different from a BCS conference, but a one-state conference sure didn't work well for the old Southwest Conference.

I think conferences have to find that happy medium between being far too spread out, like the WAC or C-USA, and being too geographically limited, as the old SWC was. It keeps people in multiple states interested without opponents seeming too far off and obscure.

slycat
August 9th, 2008, 05:18 PM
Ticket sales may be increasing, but it's such a long way to go. xnodx I'm just saying that if TSU is going to move up, they need to be more secure.

Look at Montana: based on their stadium improvements & ticket sales, they'd be much more ready for FBS, let alone their winning tradition.

Slycat, I think your idea of a conference with the schools listed would make sense for TSU if they were actually ready to make a move. I'm glad you're not suggesting something totally unrealistic like Big 12 or even MWC membership. That'd be like the goofballs who think App could actually be in SEC or ACC. IF App were to move to FBS, I think that a realistic goal would be a conference with Marshall, James Madison, ECU, Ga. Southern, Troy, & a few other teams in the southeast in who-knows-what conference. But that's just speculation. Nobody knows what conferences will look like after the Big East's TV contract expires. It could have another dramatic trickle-down effect like the ACC started five years ago. I can certainly understand why you'd feel that way. I'd support App if they moved up, too, even if I didn't think it was the right move at the right time.

The difference for Montana is they are the only show in town. Besides Montana St there is no one else. In Texas there are many FBS, FCS, and professional teams. Which leads to the fact that the football market in Texas is already over saturated and harder for Texas St to gain a larger fan base.

There are some Bobcat fans (very small minority) who think Big 12 is achievable and I just shake my head in disbelief. One thing is a guarantee, Texas St will never be in a BCS conference.

I agree with Patssle that the best thing would be an all Texas conference. The conference might not be a national powerhouse but it would create a good in state following and cut way down on travel costs. The only way I saw it happening is if CUSA separated itself on the east coast and a new Southwest Conference was formed.

slycat
August 9th, 2008, 05:19 PM
Uh... that might work to well. Granted, the business model for a conference like that might be different from a BCS conference, but a one-state conference sure didn't work well for the old Southwest Conference.

I think conferences have to find that happy medium between being far too spread out, like the WAC or C-USA, and being too geographically limited, as the old SWC was. It keeps people in multiple states interested without opponents seeming too far off and obscure.

Right so add Tulane, Tulsa, and New Mexico St.

TexasTerror
August 9th, 2008, 06:47 PM
You guys always throw the Univ of Houston on any and all of those lists. They would balk at such a conference unless they had a gun to their head. For Dave Maggard and the Cougars, they feel the Big 12 or SEC is their ultimate destination -- which is what they are building towards. If you've read CoogFans, you'd see as much.

FiniteMan
August 9th, 2008, 06:49 PM
In real business terms, Div 1 Collegiate Football & Basketball teams are loss leaders for the university. The University puts them out there because a segment of the student body wants them, it adds name recognition to their diplomas, and it spurs alumni donations.

(Someone tracked on example of this. Doug Flutie's miracle pass caused a huge spike in applications to Boston College.)

To them a slight loss is acceptable, for what it brings back in. (By slight, I mean a few million dollars a year.)

Now has the BCS broken that FBS business model? Absolutely. When their moratorium is over, I fully expect the NCAA will have to cut scholarships at the top level to at least 75 (and frankly would be wise to cut them to 55 for FBS and 35 for FCS) and introduce a host of other neww rules designed to cut costs at the top level. The Lower tier BCS schools are bleeding too.

There is some basic math that underlies moves like the Texas State upgrade. In 2006, The average FCS school generated 2.345M in revenue and had 9.485M in expenses for a median deficit of 7.121M.

Pretty awful, huh?

Well FBS schools in that same timeframe generated 26.342M in revenue and had 35.756M in expenses for a median deficit of 7.265M. Alumni contributions, students opting to pay student athletic fees, higher ticket sales, bowl revenue....EVERYONE contributing --- it adds up to a point where ON AVERAGE you do just as well --- but you get the addtional hype of playing on the highest level.

I know some would say --- that's crazy! Drop football and just go IAAA. Well... Assuming someone will take you...(the great west?)... you don't stand to save all that much. Perhaps increased travel...? In 2006, IAAA schools generated 1.828M in revenue and 8.918M in total expenses for a net loss of 6.607M.

It is maddening to think about, but when you start looking at it like that, it makes more sense. I am just showing some of the math that people look at. I do get that when you pull out the top 15 or so programs you see about another 1M in debt appear. Sometimes it is worth that too a university to go from what might as well be a Jr. College to being widely viewed as a real university.

The NCAA set their hurdles for FBS membership at a point where you SHOULD be able to break even or make a profit. The problem is all of the universities are being ridiculously competitive about upgrading facilities to stay competitive with the BCS schools --- not going to happen --- which is a big part of why expenses are so high. Debt service on loans and whatnot.

I think to slow the arms race, the NCAA will likely cut scholarship numbers to force more of the talent down --- hopefully helping cool the arms race and cut travel costs.

If you were part of a sensibly run conference with a good footprint, good alumni totals, and good markets --- like what the southland 4 could potentiall have, you could do quite well in FBS even at or near sunbelt attendance levels.


I just can't help but wonder if they're unhappy because they're not winning. If they had a winning tradition like Montana, JMU, Delaware, or McNeese, I would bet that FCS wouldn't seem so deplorable.

This is a good point and there is a lot to it, but the reality is they haven't been able to get there. Sometimes you have to radically shake things up to get out of the rut. Especially if you are a large public.



...although the WAC commissioner has commented kindly about Montana's. They basically have an open invitation.

The invitation does not include Montana State. Montana likely could not go without them. The WAC is not that far above the Sunbelt, so a WAC invitation is really not too amazing. WAC athletic budgets range from 12M to 26M. The sunbelt's barring new Orleans's 3.4M budget ---ranges from 7.2M to 22M.


DMA size is important, but it's not everything. Va. Tech didn't add any major market to the ACC. I mean, Blacksburg? Roanoke? They did help solidify the east coast, though. Ga. Southern adds Savannah and would garner media attention from Jacksonville, Macon, and Atlanta markets to C-USA or Sun Belt. Montana adds little, at least at first glance, to the WAC. However, they do add another flagship university. They might be needed as a replacement should Boise go to the MWC. Who knows????

DMA is HUGELY important in conference migration. Virginia Tech was the ACCs 4th or 5th choice. They would not have gotten in if Virginia's funding hadn't been threatened. But they were a solid add. Flagships often have statewide pull and Virginia is a very large state population.

I think you are being optimistic with Georgia Southern. I like them as a future FBS school too, but they won't be that relevant in those markets.


TexasTerror isn't giving childish zinger. He's making a solid point that Texas State would have the odds heavily stacked against them. They don't have any history of strong attendance, and their struggles to pull out winning seasons won't help that. Sounds a lot more rational than childish.

Would the Texas State student body have approved bumping up their athletic fee to the state maxium to stay at the FCS level? This really had a lot more to do with getting the student body and the alumni on board with the university than moving up alone. Now... will the alumni respond?


I hope that the folks at Texas State are doing some sound economic analysis that disputes my observations because it seems like moving to FBS could dry up their athletic budget. Texans already have lots of teams that capture their hearts and their dollars: Cowboys, Texans, UT, A&M, TCU, Tech, and, to a lesser extent, Rice, Houston, UTEP, and SMU. FCS programs (plus North Texas) are left to find their niche among alumni and the immediate community, and that's okay because FCS programs cost a whole lot less while still putting out quality products (at least in some cases). Grasping the loyalties and attention from the remainder of the state would be an extremely hard uphill battle.

All they have to be is a strong #2 in the Austin market.

TexasTerror
August 9th, 2008, 07:06 PM
There is some basic math that underlies moves like the Texas State upgrade. In 2006, The average FCS school generated 2.345M in revenue and had 9.485M in expenses for a median deficit of 7.121M.

In the SLC, only TXST has over $9M in total athletic expenditures, if I am not mistaken. The league as a whole does not stack up well to that average. SFA may be close to that amount with SHSU third amongst SLC athletics. Nicholls has a budget of just over $4M which is very low...



Would the Texas State student body have approved bumping up their athletic fee to the state maxium to stay at the FCS level? This really had a lot more to do with getting the student body and the alumni on board with the university than moving up alone. Now... will the alumni respond?

The student body at TXST continues to push the envelope. Name change and fees. They continue to push the issues and ignore the desires of the administration. They force their hands time and time again.

We'll see what the alums do, you bring up a good point. They have not been responsive -- again, the 1,500 in season ticket sales. The Fields were smart in donating 1000 season tickets to get the young alums going, because the school needs to develop that being a part of the athletic program now.


All they have to be is a strong #2 in the Austin market.

A strong #2 in Austin? They going to be a strong #3 in San Antonio behind Texas and UTSA, if the Roadrunners get football? Not sure how easily it will be to be "strong" in either of those markets.

FiniteMan
August 9th, 2008, 07:11 PM
Uh... that might work to well. Granted, the business model for a conference like that might be different from a BCS conference, but a one-state conference sure didn't work well for the old Southwest Conference.

I think conferences have to find that happy medium between being far too spread out, like the WAC or C-USA, and being too geographically limited, as the old SWC was. It keeps people in multiple states interested without opponents seeming too far off and obscure.

I have heard the "SWC failed because after Arkansas left they were all texas Schools", but I think that is bad conventional wisdom.

The SWC didn't fail. UT & A&M pulled the plug on it. The privates were very small schools who weren't pulling fans to their games. It was driving UT and A&M nuts to leave money on the table playing to empty houses in conference. There were 5 publics and 4 privates. It was hard as Houston often sided with the privates but UT had a chance to enforce their will on the conference. When Arkansas left, the privates talked about replacing them with Tulane or BYU --- privates. UT would have been stuck, so they pushed the arguement you are using and tried to sneak away with CU into the PAC 10 as Houston and A&M snuck away into the SEC. It is possible there was some validity to it at that point, but IMO the arguement was always greatly overblown. Think about it. Subtract Arkansas and sudden the confernce is worthless? hm.

Baylor and Tech alumni were in powerful positions in the state government and killed both moves forcing UT and A&M to drag their universities into UT's fallback plan --- the Big 8.

TV doesn't care about state lines now and honestly I doubt it ever did THAT much.

What the southland 4 might realistically be able to build would be pretty punchy TV wise. Texas State, UTSA, Sam Houston, Lamar, UTA, UCA, UNT, UTPA, NMSU, LA Tech, Arky State, and maybe even UTEP for a while...

Houston, DFW, Austin, San Antonio, possibly El Paso (I think the other CUSA West schools and Memphis will probably break away.), South texas, New Mexico, Little Rock. With the Alumni bases of those schools, the TV numbers could be suprisingly good.

slycat
August 9th, 2008, 07:19 PM
You guys always throw the Univ of Houston on any and all of those lists. They would balk at such a conference unless they had a gun to their head. For Dave Maggard and the Cougars, they feel the Big 12 or SEC is their ultimate destination -- which is what they are building towards. If you've read CoogFans, you'd see as much.

They will never get in the Big 12 or SEC. SEC would never take them and there are other schools that would get the Big 12 first if Iowa St or Colorado left. I'm thinking TCU has got to be in front of them.

TexasTerror
August 9th, 2008, 07:30 PM
What the southland 4 might realistically be able to build would be pretty punchy TV wise. Texas State, UTSA, Sam Houston, Lamar, UTA, UCA, UNT, UTPA, NMSU, LA Tech, Arky State, and maybe even UTEP for a while...

So a group of schools (Sun Belt) that kicked UTPA out of their conference and another group of schools that refuses to let UTPA in (Southland) would want to be with the Broncos? Ha! xlolx

UCAMonkey
August 9th, 2008, 07:31 PM
They will never get in the Big 12 or SEC. SEC would never take them and there are other schools that would get the Big 12 first if Iowa St or Colorado left. I'm thinking TCU has got to be in front of them.

Colorado St.

FiniteMan
August 9th, 2008, 08:34 PM
So a group of schools (Sun Belt) that kicked UTPA out of their conference and another group of schools that refuses to let UTPA in (Southland) would want to be with the Broncos? Ha! xlolx

The trend over the last few years is to favor football schools over non-football schools. That is a big part of why UTPA doesn't interest most existing conferneces. They also are a small athletic budget. In the case of the list of schools I listed, it is all about what UTPA would offer --- one of the two big schools in south Texas.

For the the Sunbelt they are a huge way to travel for a small market that doesn't give football.

Same for the most of the Southland.

The mix of schools that I mentioned above make sense in terms of footprint and delivering some TV relevance in most of Texas.

IndianaAppMan
August 9th, 2008, 08:34 PM
I have heard the "SWC failed because after Arkansas left they were all texas Schools", but I think that is bad conventional wisdom.... TV doesn't care about state lines now and honestly I doubt it ever did THAT much.

Houston, DFW, Austin, San Antonio, possibly El Paso (I think the other CUSA West schools and Memphis will probably break away.), South texas, New Mexico, Little Rock. With the Alumni bases of those schools, the TV numbers could be suprisingly good.

I don't think a new All-Texas conference (or 8 Texas plus Tulsa, Tulane, & New Mex St) would automatically fail. I definitely don't think that the SWC failed b/c it lost Arkansas. However, when Arkansas left, it just showed some of the problem of the SWC, one of which was limited TV appeal. It also helped make the SEC a superpower conference of 12 teams (with championship game to boot) and the SWC weaker.You did a nice job of explaining the other weaknesses/troubles.

TV DOES care about state lines. Why else do I get stuck watching Ohio State-Indiana instead of Texas-Texas Tech on ABC? A new SWC with the previously listed schools would likely not get an ABC-type contract. Instead, it would probably get a Tuesday Night Game of the Week on ESPN (national, but drawing few viewers outside Texas), and otherwise be on FSN or Comcast Sprotsnet regional networks (thus limited only to Texas).

Granted, if you're only going to reach one state, Texas is maybe the second one you'd choose, behind Cally & ahead of Florida.

Oh well. It's not up to any of us. As I said before, I think that dramatic conference shiftings are unlikely until we see what the Big East might do after its TV contract expires.

FiniteMan
August 9th, 2008, 08:44 PM
Colorado St.

Dead on. If CU gets pulled away by the PAC 10 for example, CSU would likely be the school that would be pushed as their replacement by the northern voting block. UT would likely grudgingly agree as it keep the Denver DMA in the confernec and CSU is a very good academic school....unless UT decided to lead a MWC-style breakaway. Now if the Pac 10 takes CU and CSU...TCU could get in, but I still think the confence would prefer a new market over one they already own...maybe UNM?

I really cannot see a scenario where Iowa State gets an offer from the Big 10. They seem to have their eyes firmly on ND, regardless of whether ND ever joins.

IndianaAppMan
August 9th, 2008, 08:47 PM
My observations: Unless your school is in one of the BCS conferences, or your school is Ivy or a school with ZERO interest in EVER going FBS, your school would jump at the chance to move to a "better" conference if they thought they were ready.

SoCon members that want to go FBS would want to be in the Sun Belt or C-USA.
Sun Belt members want to be in C-USA.
C-USA members want to be in Big East/ACC/SEC.

Southland members that want to go FBS would want to be in the Sun Belt, WAC or CUSA.
WAC members want to be in CUSA (see La. Tech) or in the MWC.
MWC members want to be in Big 12 or Pac 10.

BCS conferences are thought of as the pinaccle. Minnesota, for example, usually isn't much better than a MAC team, but as a Big Ten member they can pocket all that cash and eventually save for a top-notch coach who could make 9-3 and in the Capital One Bowl in a short time.

There's certainly a ladder everyone wants to climb, isn't there?

IMO, you've got to be solid where you are before you can expect acceptance in the next "rung," so to speak. Solid in terms of winning, donations, attendance, and, yes, TV markets. Not many FCS teams are quite there, and some of them don't want to go FBS anyway. IMO, the ones that could possibly do it (major empahsis on possibly) are App, Ga. Southern, JMU, Montana, maybe Jax State, maybe Liberty.

It seems that all Tx State has in its favor is TV market, just like FIU did.

IndianaAppMan
August 9th, 2008, 08:54 PM
I really cannot see a scenario where Iowa State gets an offer from the Big 10. They seem to have their eyes firmly on ND, regardless of whether ND ever joins.

ND will NEVER EVER join the Big Ten. ND just signed a huge contract with NBC after one of their worst seasons ever, and they get to keep that money all for themselves. They also get a vote at the BCS that's equal to Big Ten. Why would they join the Big Ten, where they'd have to share all that money? ND likes being able to play whoever they want to play wherever they want whenever they want. I hate 'em, by the way! Props to Rutgers for not bowing to their snotty-nosed demands that they play in the new Jets/Giants stadium.

If the Big Ten ever expanded, I'd bet they'd go after Missouri. Opens up STL & KC markets. Good football. Member of the American Assoc. of Universities, a stipulation for B10 membership. Mizzou can still have annual rivarly game with Kansas and perhaps Nebraska and have two other games to use as they please. (FSU did the same thing for a decade, with 8 ACC games and 2 vs. Fla. & Miami.)

FiniteMan
August 9th, 2008, 09:03 PM
I don't think a new All-Texas conference (or 8 Texas plus Tulsa, Tulane, & New Mex St) would automatically fail...

I am anticipating a Houston, SMU, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis breakaway from CUSA over travel costs in 2012 or so. The 5 like being in the same conference and have profited from having nearby conference members. The 4 privates are high caliber academic instituions with similar goals and pain thresholds. UH is currently the leading candidate to become Texas's third flagship university. The academic reputations of those schools will be quite attractive. Memphis is close by which helps in the age of high travel costs and Tulsa is a BB power better than anything the CUSA east could offer. That would have both CUSA segments in a position to force the NCAA to spit out an automatic bid based on the 6/5 rule or risk being sued. I think TCU will want to return by then as the mountain network is killing their recruiting in Texas, and it should be pretty obvious in the next 2 seasons. Plus the travel isn't worth it and they get no visiting fans, which has hurt their legitmacy (home attendance). I could see St. Louis as a non sports #9. Maybe LA Tech as football #8 or possibly UTEP as a football only #8 for 5 years.


A new SWC with the previously listed schools would likely not get an ABC-type contract. Instead, it would probably get a Tuesday Night Game of the Week on ESPN (national, but drawing few viewers outside Texas), and otherwise be on FSN or Comcast Sprotsnet regional networks (thus limited only to Texas).

Granted, if you're only going to reach one state, Texas is maybe the second one you'd choose, behind Cally & ahead of Florida.

I think you are pretty much dead on. I think that would be better than what the sun belt has and you would see a lot of travelling fans bumping up home attendance at each school ala CUSA West.

FiniteMan
August 9th, 2008, 09:14 PM
There's certainly a ladder everyone wants to climb, isn't there?

IMO, you've got to be solid where you are before you can expect acceptance in the next "rung," so to speak. Solid in terms of winning, donations, attendance, and, yes, TV markets. Not many FCS teams are quite there, and some of them don't want to go FBS anyway. IMO, the ones that could possibly do it (major empahsis on possibly) are App, Ga. Southern, JMU, Montana, maybe Jax State, maybe Liberty.

It seems that all Tx State has in its favor is TV market, just like FIU did.

I am certainly not disagreeing with your ladder theory which most agree is how things have worked for the last 10 years at least, but I think it will prove to be somewhat outdated in the are of $3 to $6 per gallon gas. Read some of the articles on travel costs that are out there. They are really eyeopening. I think you will see the conferences with enormous footprints start to chip away, starting with CUSA. ECU and Marshall were bitching about multiple trips to Texas when gas cost $2. I doubt the West schools like it either.

We had a thread on possible FCS upgrades over at the grid of college football realignment forum, but I can't hit it from work, so no link. I think you'd like that.

IndianaAppMan
August 9th, 2008, 09:26 PM
I am certainly not disagreeing with your ladder theory which most agree is how things have worked for the last 10 years at least, but I think it will prove to be somewhat outdated in the are of $3 to $6 per gallon gas. Read some of the articles on travel costs that are out there. They are really eyeopening. I think you will see the conferences with enormous footprints start to chip away, starting with CUSA. ECU and Marshall were bitching about multiple trips to Texas when gas cost $2. I doubt the West schools like it either.

We had a thread on possible FCS upgrades over at the grid of college football realignment forum, but I can't hit it from work, so no link. I think you'd like that.

Yup. ECU, Marshall, Central Florida, & Memphis foam at the mouth over the chance to be in the Big East. In Memphis's case, the financial windfall of being in a BCS conference would outweigh potential travel increases, which would probably be similar to C-USA anyway.




Here's something to chew on: Before ASU started winning nat'l titles, people around Boone were pushing hard for FBS membership. Once they started winning, most of that talk has quieted. FCS membership will never be as lucrative as a good FBS team, nor will it bring as much prestige, but App certainly has enjoyed a tremendous spike in donations, applications, etc. since 2005 (the Michigan game only accelerated that momentum). The increase in applications has helped ASU become more selective. The increased donations have helped with the school's construction boom. (The upgrades you see on KBS are but a small part of the story in App's massive facility upgrades all over campus over the past few years.) If Texas State were to succeed in FCS, they might realize the same kind of positive impact on the university.

DFW HOYA
August 9th, 2008, 09:35 PM
SLC teams can argue all they want about moving up, but there has to be room within a conference to take them in, and the Sun Belt is just about full.

And because the WAC or C-USA or MWC isn't looking to add SWT..er, TS-SM or SHSU or a fledging Lamar program, the only realistic choice (and even this is a stretch) is for the SLC as a league to move to I-A, with the udnerstanding that a chunk of SLC schools won't make the upgrade and will find new homes in I-AA, and a Sun Belt school or two might decide to make the SLC their home again.

Could a SLC work with the western half of the Belt plus 2-3 current SLC schools? Until that happens, expecting the Bobcats or Bearkats in I-A is as likely as seeing New Hampshire or Towson make the jump.

TexasTerror
August 9th, 2008, 09:38 PM
The trend over the last few years is to favor football schools over non-football schools. That is a big part of why UTPA doesn't interest most existing conferneces. They also are a small athletic budget. In the case of the list of schools I listed, it is all about what UTPA would offer --- one of the two big schools in south Texas.

Traveling to UT-Pan Am is not cost-effective. It's a schlep because there's no direct flight into that neck of the woods unless you are in Texas. Throw in the fact, it's one of the worst towns to go to, a low budget program and a small market that delivers nothing. No chance for it to be included in any version of the SWC, SLC or SBC.

IndianaAppMan
August 9th, 2008, 09:45 PM
Traveling to UT-Pan Am is not cost-effective. It's a schlep because there's no direct flight into that neck of the woods unless you are in Texas.

Not to make this all about App, but IMO, that's the biggest hurdle ASU would have to make in going FBS. Closest flight = 2 hours away.

Anyway, I agree that lack of easy transportation access is a HUGE hurdle for any potential FBS school. Heck, any FCS school!

FiniteMan
August 9th, 2008, 10:11 PM
ND will NEVER EVER join the Big Ten. ND just signed a huge contract with NBC after one of their worst seasons ever, and they get to keep that money all for themselves. They also get a vote at the BCS that's equal to Big Ten. Why would they join the Big Ten, where they'd have to share all that money? ND likes being able to play whoever they want to play wherever they want whenever they want. I hate 'em, by the way! Props to Rutgers for not bowing to their snotty-nosed demands that they play in the new Jets/Giants stadium.

If the Big Ten ever expanded, I'd bet they'd go after Missouri. Opens up STL & KC markets. Good football. Member of the American Assoc. of Universities, a stipulation for B10 membership. Mizzou can still have annual rivarly game with Kansas and perhaps Nebraska and have two other games to use as they please. (FSU did the same thing for a decade, with 8 ACC games and 2 vs. Fla. & Miami.)

I thnk it isn't in either ND or the Big 10's interest to have ND play football in the conference, but it would, IMO make a ton of sense for the B10 to offer ND non-football membership. ND is quite popular in all the major cities stretching into NY. If their FB never improves, they can just join for all sports later. If the Big 10 doesn't want anyone else, why wait?

I think that a smart play if ND ever gets crossed off their list (I don't see it) would be Rutgers. Getting into the NYC market would be huge TV money. With Illinois, they are already in the St. Louis Market, which means adding Missouri is only half as tempting as your arguement suggests, IMO.

FiniteMan
August 9th, 2008, 10:29 PM
Traveling to UT-Pan Am is not cost-effective. It's a schlep because there's no direct flight into that neck of the woods unless you are in Texas. Throw in the fact, it's one of the worst towns to go to, a low budget program and a small market that delivers nothing. No chance for it to be included in any version of the SWC, SLC or SBC.

Most of the schools mentioned are in Texas. South of the San Antonio DMA there are 4 DMA, Victoria, Corpus, Laredo, and Harlingen with a total of 631K TV households --- about what you have in the Austin DMA. There are two schools with the enrollments to potentially play FBS football within the next 10 years in those markets--- UTB/TSC and UTPA. UTB/TSC is in NAIA I think. UTPA is the choice if you want to sell your conference to the networks as the only Div 1 conference with true relevance in South Texas.

Additionally, it isn't that bad of a trip and would frankly be a fun road trip for college students, especially Texans --- watch the game, go shopping in Mexico.

I have already covered the fact that it holds little appeal to the SBC or SLC and I would think it goes without saying that the privates trying to get into the BCS are not interested in adding an undistinguished, small athletic budget program pretty far away from their members. It still works in the mix of schools I mentioned.

centexguy
August 10th, 2008, 01:01 AM
The Austin metro area is probably large enough to support two FBS football schools, but the problem is that UT just dominates the area. For Texas State to have any chance of being relevant in that market they must go FBS, and even then they'll always be second fiddle to UT. Another problem for them is that there's so much to do here, and with Texas State on the edge of the metro area, they will probably always struggle to get paying fans in the seats.

TexasTerror
August 10th, 2008, 07:57 AM
Most of the schools mentioned are in Texas. South of the San Antonio DMA there are 4 DMA, Victoria, Corpus, Laredo, and Harlingen with a total of 631K TV households --- about what you have in the Austin DMA. There are two schools with the enrollments to potentially play FBS football within the next 10 years in those markets--- UTB/TSC and UTPA. UTB/TSC is in NAIA I think. UTPA is the choice if you want to sell your conference to the networks as the only Div 1 conference with true relevance in South Texas.

Additionally, it isn't that bad of a trip and would frankly be a fun road trip for college students, especially Texans --- watch the game, go shopping in Mexico.

FiniteMan, travel costs or anything else in your argument -- no one wants UTPA. They do not even have a fan base to justify chasing after that South Texas market, because even if they are in your conference, they won't bolster your reach.

A fun road trip? Are you kidding me? I've talked to student-athletes who have made that trip as well as individuals in athletic administration. They never want to make that trip again!

And the joke with UTPA is that even the Mexicans who illegally cross the border, run back after seeing Edinburg!

txstatebobcat
August 10th, 2008, 12:30 PM
Is that 2,500 MORE season tickets or 2,500 TOTAL season tickets, because that doesn't seem like a lot. Doesn't McNeese have over 5,000 season tickets holders? Even back in '89 when the Lamar Board of Regents killed the football program they had sold over 4,000 season tickets for the next season. Since Texas State averages about 13K a year does that mean only a few thousand are actual paying customers?

How does Texas State plan to fund the stadium upgrades. Will they do what Lamar's doing and issue bonds to help pay for stadium upgrades and use some of the new student fees to help pay them off? For such a large school they seem to have trouble getting big donors to help pay for athletic facility upgrades. I'm not trying to put Texas State down, just curious if they already have some big donors lined up behind the scenes to help make this happen.

I would say that around 2001-2 there was a very succesful campaign to get the students to attend the games. Its gotten better every year and now I would say that students comprise well over half the total attendance at most home games. Seriously, if we average 12,000 then 6,000 or more are students. The other 6,000 were season ticket holders (1-2,000 this is my guess since this has always been a closely guarded secret), people like me who attend every home game but never got around to buying season tickets (2-3,000) the rest were players, band and strutter families most of whom would leave after half time. Add losing, weather and the crowds go from 13-14,000 the first two games to maybe 7-9,000 the final two games.

I've been a bobcat fan since 1992 and this is the first time where the school has actually tried to seriously promote non-student attendance whether they be alumni, locals or just plain fans. So from my point of view 2,500 is a good goal to have for this first year. Next year move it up to 3,500 and move it up.

TxSt proved during the playoffs that winning can put butts in the seats. The games against Cal Poly and Northern Iowa could have easily sold out a 25-30,000 seat stadium. Two back to back 8+ win seasons, coupled with solid ticket drives such as the current one are all the bobcats would need to consistently sell out the stadium.

McNeese75
August 10th, 2008, 12:32 PM
FiniteMan, travel costs or anything else in your argument -- no one wants UTPA. They do not even have a fan base to justify chasing after that South Texas market, because even if they are in your conference, they won't bolster your reach.

A fun road trip? Are you kidding me? I've talked to student-athletes who have made that trip as well as individuals in athletic administration. They never want to make that trip again!

And the joke with UTPA is that even the Mexicans who illegally cross the border, run back after seeing Edinburg!

xlolx I grew up in the Valley and I have to say, it probably has as much or more appeal than Huntsville does. xnodx

txstatebobcat
August 10th, 2008, 12:35 PM
Yup. ECU, Marshall, Central Florida, & Memphis foam at the mouth over the chance to be in the Big East. In Memphis's case, the financial windfall of being in a BCS conference would outweigh potential travel increases, which would probably be similar to C-USA anyway.




Here's something to chew on: Before ASU started winning nat'l titles, people around Boone were pushing hard for FBS membership. Once they started winning, most of that talk has quieted. FCS membership will never be as lucrative as a good FBS team, nor will it bring as much prestige, but App certainly has enjoyed a tremendous spike in donations, applications, etc. since 2005 (the Michigan game only accelerated that momentum). The increase in applications has helped ASU become more selective. The increased donations have helped with the school's construction boom. (The upgrades you see on KBS are but a small part of the story in App's massive facility upgrades all over campus over the past few years.) If Texas State were to succeed in FCS, they might realize the same kind of positive impact on the university.

Personally I'm not a fan of TxSt moving to FBS, and I agree wholeheartedly with you that we (bobcats) can do better by becoming more competitive withing FCS and improving our overall sports. I'm in the minority with that though.

TexasTerror
August 10th, 2008, 12:42 PM
xlolx I grew up in the Valley and I have to say, it probably has as much or more appeal than Huntsville does. xnodx

Huntsville is easier to get to (thanks to Houston and I-45) and there's actually some semblance of life not too far away from the city compared to Edinburg.


TxSt proved during the playoffs that winning can put butts in the seats. The games against Cal Poly and Northern Iowa could have easily sold out a 25-30,000 seat stadium. Two back to back 8+ win seasons, coupled with solid ticket drives such as the current one are all the bobcats would need to consistently sell out the stadium.

That's a problem -- your program has not experienced winning at the Division I level outside of the playoff run -- EVER. I'm just not sure your program can sustain a winning record in the SLC, despite having so much more cash than everyone else -- and more than twice the amount of a Nicholls State program that has your number in football.

McNeese75
August 10th, 2008, 01:05 PM
Huntsville is easier to get to (thanks to Houston and I-45) and there's actually some semblance of life not too far away from the city compared to Edinburg.
.

I will give you the easier to get to but you act like Edinburg sits out by itself. McAllen is less than 10 miles, Brownsville, South Padre Island, etc is 50-70 miles away so Edinburg is not an island.





McAllen is a city in Hidalgo County, Texas. It is located at the very southern tip of Texas in an area known as the Rio Grande Valley. As of 2005, the city had a population of 126,411. In 2005, the McAllen–Edinburg–Mission Metropolitan Statistical Area had a population of 700,634. It is the 187th largest city in the U.S. and the 71st largest metropolitan area. Its southern boundary is located about five miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, the Rio Grande River and about 70 miles west of South Padre Island and the Gulf of Mexico. McAllen is one of the fastest growing cities in the country. It is also the largest city in Hidalgo County.

IndianaAppMan
August 10th, 2008, 02:36 PM
That's a problem -- your program has not experienced winning at the Division I level outside of the playoff run -- EVER. I'm just not sure your program can sustain a winning record in the SLC, despite having so much more cash than everyone else -- and more than twice the amount of a Nicholls State program that has your number in football.

As Jim Grobe has proven with Wake Forest, or Lou Holtz did with South Carolina, any program can become a winner. But until they start winning, it'll be extremely hard to get butts in the seats.

Isn't it ironic that the students voted for maximum athletic fees, but their support at the actual games is lukewarm at best?

centexguy
August 10th, 2008, 02:49 PM
As Jim Grobe has proven with Wake Forest, or Lou Holtz did with South Carolina, any program can become a winner. But until they start winning, it'll be extremely hard to get butts in the seats.

Isn't it ironic that the students voted for maximum athletic fees, but their support at the actual games is lukewarm at best?

Being in the shadow of one of the largest universities in the country with a very successful and profitable athletic department makes it more difficult to get fans in the seats. UTSA is about to start a football program and they will go FBS pretty quickly because they'll have the support of the local government to help with facilities. Texas State cannot wait until they consistently win in the SLC and build up a fan base or they will forever be an afterthought in central Texas as far as football is concerned.

McNeese75
August 10th, 2008, 03:09 PM
Being in the shadow of one of the largest universities in the country with a very successful and profitable athletic department makes it more difficult to get fans in the seats. UTSA is about to start a football program and they will go FBS pretty quickly because they'll have the support of the local government to help with facilities. Texas State cannot wait until they consistently win in the SLC and build up a fan base or they will forever be an afterthought in central Texas as far as football is concerned.

Do you really think UTSA woud become something more than a Sunbelt type qualtiy team in the FBS? I just don't see it. Sounds to me like an excuse for Tx State to go FBS without proving itself first in the FCS.

MaximumBobcat
August 10th, 2008, 06:41 PM
Do you really think UTSA woud become something more than a Sunbelt type qualtiy team in the FBS? I just don't see it. Sounds to me like an excuse for Tx State to go FBS without proving itself first in the FCS.


Maybe it is. Don't take this the wrong way, but if I may ask, what's it to you? xconfusedx

TexasTerror
August 10th, 2008, 06:42 PM
UTSA will be attractive for the C-USA, who wants an 'in' in any bowl city they can get -- which is why they may bring South Alabama into the fold as well. It's a nice-sized city without an FBS team.

FiniteMan
August 10th, 2008, 09:58 PM
UTSA actually compares well to South Alabama --- both are non football schools in larger cities with no pro or college competition attempting to play football in off campus larger stadiums. Will the city adopt the teams in lieu of nothing else out there? Are these two Syracuses?

People on this board give Texas State way too much crap. If they had let UTSA upgrade on their own, it would have given UTSA an added bump at the expense of the occasional southern Texas State attendee. UTSA is starting from scratch. They will probably struggle at the start like FIU, but they COULD also could hit it big quickly. If they did, UTSA and Texas State could have a similar adversarial relationship to that of NMST/UTEP. UTSA might very well have blocked any conference Texas State tried to get into. The Texas State student body did the right thing, IMO, in pushing the upgrade.

Now a conference could potentially look at Texas State/ UTSA as a package giving the SA and Austin DMAs, or the Southland 4 can hang together and assemble their own conference. Plus they can probably both sell out their games vs. each other as the travel for their fans is minor. That alone makes it a ton easier for both schools to make the jump. It just makes a lot of sense.

McTailGator
August 10th, 2008, 11:07 PM
UTSA actually compares well to South Alabama --- both are non football schools in larger cities with no pro or college competition attempting to play football in off campus larger stadiums. Will the city adopt the teams in lieu of nothing else out there? Are these two Syracuses?

People on this board give Texas State way too much crap. If they had let UTSA upgrade on their own, it would have given UTSA an added bump at the expense of the occasional southern Texas State attendee. UTSA is starting from scratch. They will probably struggle at the start like FIU, but they COULD also could hit it big quickly. If they did, UTSA and Texas State could have a similar adversarial relationship to that of NMST/UTEP. UTSA might very well have blocked any conference Texas State tried to get into. The Texas State student body did the right thing, IMO, in pushing the upgrade.

Now a conference could potentially look at Texas State/ UTSA as a package giving the SA and Austin DMAs, or the Southland 4 can hang together and assemble their own conference. Plus they can probably both sell out their games vs. each other as the travel for their fans is minor. That alone makes it a ton easier for both schools to make the jump. It just makes a lot of sense.



If Texas State can't sell more than 2000 season tickets (or really closer to 10000) they will NOT get into anything but the belch.

And only 2K might even prevent that.

FiniteMan
August 10th, 2008, 11:33 PM
FiniteMan, travel costs or anything else in your argument -- no one wants UTPA. They do not even have a fan base to justify chasing after that South Texas market, because even if they are in your conference, they won't bolster your reach.

A fun road trip? Are you kidding me? I've talked to student-athletes who have made that trip as well as individuals in athletic administration. They never want to make that trip again!

And the joke with UTPA is that even the Mexicans who illegally cross the border, run back after seeing Edinburg!

Owning the South Texas Markets (and having sway in southern New Mexico) could be a real positive for a conference like that. The only school that seems likely to develop a following in that South Texas region is UTPA. They don't play football, so the travel costs of including them in 2012 or so is not that pronounced. You aren't dragging 150 football players and coaches down there for probably 10 + years at best---that said, when that does occur, it would be financially worth it because of what the South Texas markets will look like.

I can appreciate that long drives aren't much fun and that one in particular has it's challenges, but if you are going there for the game and South Padre is 1 hour away, shopping in Mexico is 10 minutes away... it has more bonuses for an 18-30 year old than a trip to say Little Rock --- no offense meant to Arkansas residents.

Consider the old SWC's --- one of the best road trip conferences of all time --- distances to it's outlier: Texas Tech. (I took numerous road trips from UT to Tech to during my days in college.)

OLD SWC
315 mi Forth Worth to Lubbock
347 mi Dallas to Lubbock
349 mi Waco to Lubbock
382 mi Austin to Lubbock
435 mi College Station to Lubbock
574 mi Houston to Lubbock
595 mi Fayetteville to Lubbock

vs. maybe conference members to Edinburg

228 mi San Antonio
273 mi San Marcos
407 mi Huntsville
424 mi Beaumont
500 mi Arlington
527 mi Denton
643 mi Ruston
781 mi El Paso
825 mi Las Cruces
837 mi Conway

Will anyone drive from out of state to Edinburg? Well keeping in mind that we are talking about a non-football school at this point --- how much travelling are we really likely to see for basketball to any of the schools?

Maybe soccer, baseball, or basketball could build up conference-wide into money generating sports that travel well or maybe football will come to UTPA... if that point should arrive, they probably will not see travel from Arkansas or Louisiana, but South Texas and New Mexico have a very high concentration of Mexicans, and from what I have experienced, they are culturally more willing to take a long drive. I could not only see travel from as far as Denton, I could see travelling fans from El Paso and New Mexico State.

Really the fact UTPA is doing what is neccessary to try to carve out ownership of South Texas TV's, it would be a great additon to being relevant in all the big markets in Texas --- IMO, worth doing...if they decided to build a conference.

FiniteMan
August 10th, 2008, 11:52 PM
UTSA will be attractive for the C-USA, who wants an 'in' in any bowl city they can get -- which is why they may bring South Alabama into the fold as well. It's a nice-sized city without an FBS team.

I don't this will prove true. Recall every team in CUSA is pushing for BCS status. Adding a school that is classified as "less selective" in student admissions and is starting a program from scratch is not going to cut it.

Look at UCF. They are a much better prospect, but it took YEARS in FBS to get into CUSA. UTSA is probably going to fall somewhere between UCF and FIU. I am totally confident they are making the right move to go to FBS, but if CUSA splits west and east, UTSA won't be good enough academically to get into the West and are too far from ECU and Marshall to be granted admission in the East or established enough to get into either side.

UTSA will have 4 options
1) WAC (if the established 4: Hawaii, Nevada, Boise, and Fresno want to increase their travel costs)
2) Sunbelt (if slots are available)
3) Football Independent (for a few years)
4) Take 2 Southland schools with them as non-football Members and use the 6/5 rule as the basis to sue the NCAA to get an immediate NCAA Tourney bid, validating their conference.

I think adding Texas State and UTSA as travel partners and a pair would be interesting to both the Sunbelt and the WAC. Lamar and SHSU might as well.

Personally I like the fourth option the best as it really helps all of the schools involved into a more tenable situation.

FiniteMan
August 11th, 2008, 12:13 AM
Yup. ECU, Marshall, Central Florida, & Memphis foam at the mouth over the chance to be in the Big East. In Memphis's case, the financial windfall of being in a BCS conference would outweigh potential travel increases, which would probably be similar to C-USA anyway.

I don't anticipate any of those schools will get into the BE. Memphis has the best shot, but I think travel will kill their attempt to get in. The BE will expand ONLY as much as they must to retain their BCS bid. And it doesn't seem like that is in jeapordy. Remember they weren't thrilled about having to add Cinnci, USF, and Louisville. Right now, if they broke away from the BB schools, the old guard has a 5 to 3 voting advantage over the newbies. Adding Memphis makes the posibility of losing a vote on the conferenc future possible. There is not currently any reason for them to change. This has been the most profitable year in BE history. It is possible that they might split off from the BB schools, but in that case it is entirely likely that they drag say ND and a few of the big market BB schools with them, or raid a BB power like Dayton rather than add a long, expensive football trip for the old school BE members.



Here's something to chew on: Before ASU started winning nat'l titles, people around Boone were pushing hard for FBS membership. Once they started winning, most of that talk has quieted. FCS membership will never be as lucrative as a good FBS team, nor will it bring as much prestige, but App certainly has enjoyed a tremendous spike in donations, applications, etc. since 2005 (the Michigan game only accelerated that momentum). The increase in applications has helped ASU become more selective. The increased donations have helped with the school's construction boom. (The upgrades you see on KBS are but a small part of the story in App's massive facility upgrades all over campus over the past few years.) If Texas State were to succeed in FCS, they might realize the same kind of positive impact on the university.

It is a common arguement against Texas State moving up: "Why not prove yourself a few more years in FCS and build up your program some more?" Again, the answer is that there are positive opportunites that exist today that would not be there in the future (UTSA as a travel parter and conference mate) and future hurdles that might be created (UTSA blocking their admission into an FBS conference in an effort to keep Texas State at the FBS level ---thereby protecting UTSA's recruiting---one of the biggest keys to success in college football). These reasons make it very clear that this is the right time for Texas State to upgrade. It may be scary, but universities with far less going for them have weathered the jump. Texas State will be OK.

(Just someone renumber their stadium expansion sequence...)

FiniteMan
August 12th, 2008, 06:34 PM
I've gotten way off the Point of the thread --- Texas's state's Stadium. I was somewhat critical of the plans in that I feel it adds a lot of bad seats. I think they had a lot of things to cover in the plans and really my only real gripes are where the seats are added. I think the resulting stadium will have too high of a percentage of bad seats, ala the U of Buffalo and Kent State Stadiums.

This is Texas State today. I will use North, South, East, and West even though the stadium tilts to the west.

http://http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25833-2/txsttoday1.jpg

http://http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25836-2/txsttoday.jpg

UB had a similar 16K FCS stadium that worked quite well at the FCS level. I am not sure if the NCAA required a 30K stadium when Buffalo made the jump --- I know that hurt a ton of FBS schools --- or if Buffalo decided they needed that for conference membership, but 30K was the number Buffalo tried to hit.

They did not move their track or expand their sideline seating, so they added 14K of bad seats. They built what appears to be a 9K south endzone stand and 2 3K north end zone stands. Buffalo did hit 20K average at one point before they moved up, but has been one of the 5 worst attended teams since moving up. It isn't all the MAC and losing.

Here is UB's stadium.

http://http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25823-1/UB1.jpg

That I can figure:

Texas State's Bobcat Stadium today= 15K
Phase 1 = bowl south end zone= 20K
Phase 2 = Add temporary seating in north end zone = 23K
Phase 3 = move temporary seating to south end zone, remove track, and box in north end zone = 28K
Phase 4 = add upper level to north end zone = 34K
Phase 5 = Add additional seating to east upper deck = 40K

Texas State's plan at least dumps the track in Phase 3 when the stadium becomes a bowl ---presumeably sitting about 28K, but that may be 10 years of fund raising down the road. At that point, 13K of the stadium's 28K seats will be bad seats. That scares me for a team moving up.

http://http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25820-1/Texas_state_EXP_5.jpg

I have toyed around today with alternate plans centered around digging down like the University of Idaho. Any stadium expansion will be expensive, but if Idaho can do it with their constant lack of funding, Texas State can with their students pushing it.

http://http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25827-1/tstdigdown.jpg

This is certainly not what most Texas State fans envision as a brand new stadium, but it gives an idea what might be acheivable in short order digging down. If you compare it against the unedited picture you will notice that I propose extending the lower deck to the edge of the bench area to get a more intimate game experience. I also have widened the west and east bleachers. It looks doable and not overly complex (possibly at least the lower deck expansion would be somewhat cheap for a stadium? Don't know.), but I am neither an engineer nor an architect. I am guessing this would add about 6-8K to each sideline, but that is a guess looking at the picture. 4-6K might be more accurate. I would suggest makeing the new lower level seats chair backed. That would be more efficient than removing seats to make them chairbacked and would help spur season ticket sales by making the 1/3 of the seats closest to the action backed.

As Texas State Admins seems to crave end zone seating to complete the stadium, this adds in what I guess would be about 3K into each end zone. That might be a 32K stadium with only 6K bad seats. Not much to look at I'll admit, but you have to landscape anything to make it nice. This was a quickie. It would be comparitively easy to get 20-30K in there pretty regularly.

I drew this up as another alternative stadium idea. This one as a bowl.

http://http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25828-1/Texas_state_alt_bowl.jpg

It is similar to the photoshopped pic (I guess you could call the photo shopped one a prototype of phase 3 of getting this one built), but finished out as a bowl ala the master plan. Like the photoshopped pic, it extends the west and east decks to the edge of the feild. On this I took it a little further. If you are digging down there, you could dig a tunnel under there for stadium access, add in restrooms, ect. The tunnel could be a straight path in. It could be a perk for season ticket holders.

I tried to pull pretty heavily from Texas State's 40K master plan on this one. I did trim the seating on the southern bowl and move them closer to the feild and trimmed the upper half of the seats from the northern bowl and moved them closer to the feild. (The missing seats would likely be picked up in widening and lengthening the existing west and east grandstands.) I put a wide walkway that stretches around the stadium. I think it would make sense to put concession stands outside around the walkway, so someone could watch the game while standing in line for a pretzel --- something that has always bothered me in stadium design.

I went ahead and relocated the new weight room to the north end zone and scooted the feild south since we were doing a dig down anyway. That would reduce the south end zone seats a bit which I think is a good thing. I have left gaps in the south endzone to allow emergency vehicles in if needed --- the walkway goes overhead.

I also made the stadium octaganal. I would think this would improve the seats between the goal line and the back of the end zone. I suspect that would be a big improvement to sight lines. Regardless, I suspect no more than 25% of the total seats are outside of the big east and west grandstands.

I think Texas State should strive to have a 75/25 good to bad seat ratio or better so they don't fall into the same trouble large universities UNT and Buffalo have had in filling the place.

FiniteMan
August 12th, 2008, 06:52 PM
I've gotten way off the Point of the thread --- Texas's state's Stadium. I was somewhat critical of the plans in that I feel it adds a lot of bad seats. I think they had a lot of things to cover in the plans and really my only real gripes are where the seats are added. I think the resulting stadium will have too high of a percentage of bad seats, ala the U of Buffalo and Kent State Stadiums.

This is Texas State today. I will use North, South, East, and West even though the stadium tilts to the west.

http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25833-2/txsttoday1.jpg

http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25836-2/txsttoday.jpg

UB had a similar 16K FCS stadium that worked quite well at the FCS level. I am not sure if the NCAA required a 30K stadium when Buffalo made the jump --- I know that hurt a ton of FBS schools --- or if Buffalo decided they needed that for conference membership, but 30K was the number Buffalo tried to hit.

They did not move their track or expand their sideline seating, so they added 14K of bad seats. They built what appears to be a 9K south endzone stand and 2 3K north end zone stands. Buffalo did hit 20K average at one point before they moved up, but has been one of the 5 worst attended teams since moving up. It isn't all the MAC and losing.

Here is UB's stadium.

http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25823-1/UB1.jpg

That I can figure:

Texas State's Bobcat Stadium today= 15K
Phase 1 = bowl south end zone= 20K
Phase 2 = Add temporary seating in north end zone = 23K
Phase 3 = move temporary seating to south end zone, remove track, and box in north end zone = 28K
Phase 4 = add upper level to north end zone = 34K
Phase 5 = Add additional seating to east upper deck = 40K

Texas State's plan at least dumps the track in Phase 3 when the stadium becomes a bowl ---presumeably sitting about 28K, but that may be 10 years of fund raising down the road. At that point, 13K of the stadium's 28K seats will be bad seats. That scares me for a team moving up.

http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25820-1/Texas_state_EXP_5.jpg

I have toyed around today with alternate plans centered around digging down like the University of Idaho. Any stadium expansion will be expensive, but if Idaho can do it with their constant lack of funding, Texas State can with their students pushing it.

http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25827-1/tstdigdown.jpg

This is certainly not what most Texas State fans envision as a brand new stadium, but it gives an idea what might be acheivable in short order digging down. If you compare it against the unedited picture you will notice that I propose extending the lower deck to the edge of the bench area to get a more intimate game experience. I also have widened the west and east bleachers. It looks doable and not overly complex (possibly at least the lower deck expansion would be somewhat cheap for a stadium? Don't know.), but I am neither an engineer nor an architect. I am guessing this would add about 6-8K to each sideline, but that is a guess looking at the picture. 4-6K might be more accurate. I would suggest makeing the new lower level seats chair backed. That would be more efficient than removing seats to make them chairbacked and would help spur season ticket sales by making the 1/3 of the seats closest to the action backed.

As Texas State Admins seems to crave end zone seating to complete the stadium, this adds in what I guess would be about 3K into each end zone. That might be a 32K stadium with only 6K bad seats. Not much to look at I'll admit, but you have to landscape anything to make it nice. This was a quickie. It would be comparitively easy to get 20-30K in there pretty regularly.

I drew this up as another alternative stadium idea. This one as a bowl.

http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25828-1/Texas_state_alt_bowl.jpg

It is similar to the photoshopped pic (I guess you could call the photo shopped one a prototype of phase 3 of getting this one built), but finished out as a bowl ala the master plan. Like the photoshopped pic, it extends the west and east decks to the edge of the feild. On this I took it a little further. If you are digging down there, you could dig a tunnel under there for stadium access, add in restrooms, ect. The tunnel could be a straight path in. It could be a perk for season ticket holders.

I tried to pull pretty heavily from Texas State's 40K master plan on this one. I did trim the seating on the southern bowl and move them closer to the feild and trimmed the upper half of the seats from the northern bowl and moved them closer to the feild. (The missing seats would likely be picked up in widening and lengthening the existing west and east grandstands.) I put a wide walkway that stretches around the stadium. I think it would make sense to put concession stands outside around the walkway, so someone could watch the game while standing in line for a pretzel --- something that has always bothered me in stadium design.

I went ahead and relocated the new weight room to the north end zone and scooted the feild south since we were doing a dig down anyway. That would reduce the south end zone seats a bit which I think is a good thing. I have left gaps in the south endzone to allow emergency vehicles in if needed --- the walkway goes overhead.

I also made the stadium octaganal. I would think this would improve the seats between the goal line and the back of the end zone. I suspect that would be a big improvement to sight lines. Regardless, I suspect no more than 25% of the total seats are outside of the big east and west grandstands.

I think Texas State should strive to have a 75/25 good to bad seat ratio or better so they don't fall into the same trouble large universities UNT and Buffalo have had in filling the place.

FiniteMan
August 12th, 2008, 06:57 PM
I also drew this up as where restrooms and the like might be situated. I probably went way overboard with the restrooms though, but I wanted to show what digging down could allow.

http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25830-1/Texas_state_alt_bowl_2.jpg

Bobcat94
August 12th, 2008, 08:36 PM
I say they rip it all out put in a Transportation Oriented Development (see railroad tracks) and put a new stadium where the shopping center with Target is now. Target and another big box along with some of the other retailers are moving to a new location south of town. More than enough room to complete both projects and create a new towncenter.:D

slycat
August 12th, 2008, 08:40 PM
I say they rip it all out put in a Transportation Oriented Development (see railroad tracks) and put a new stadium where the shopping center with Target is now. Target and another big box along with some of the other retailers are moving to a new location south of town. More than enough room to complete both projects and create a new towncenter.:D

But not money. Good idea though.

ncbears
August 12th, 2008, 08:46 PM
I don't see any other SLC team keeping up but if you ask TT and SlowPOKE they will try to convince you TXST is on the way down. After hiring a new DC I see TXST making a good run for the Conference Title again. It's a new Era at TXST.

Just to bad we may not get to stick around long enough to see all 40000 (possible) seats filled in another playoff run. xoopsx

I bit off topic, but I tried to register on bobcatfans.com and I was told I would be getting an email from the mods that would enable me to go on the website and post. That was over a month ago probably and I haven't got a response. Can you help?

McNeese75
August 12th, 2008, 09:39 PM
I bit off topic, but I tried to register on bobcatfans.com and I was told I would be getting an email from the mods that would enable me to go on the website and post. That was over a month ago probably and I haven't got a response. Can you help?

What was the score in the Tx State UCA game again last year???

nuff said ;)

(j/k xpeacex )

slycat
August 12th, 2008, 09:41 PM
What was the score in the Tx State UCA game again last year???

nuff said ;)

(j/k xpeacex )

The rematch cannot get here fast enough (or maybe it'll be too soon).

BEAR
August 12th, 2008, 10:07 PM
The rematch cannot get here fast enough (or maybe it'll be too soon).


I've been to the Bears practices....it'll be too soon. xwhistlex

McNeese75
August 12th, 2008, 10:41 PM
The rematch cannot get here fast enough (or maybe it'll be too soon).

BELIEVE me, I know where you are coming from xnodx

ncbears
August 12th, 2008, 11:57 PM
What was the score in the Tx State UCA game again last year???

nuff said ;)

(j/k xpeacex )

What does that have to do with anything I posted? UCA?

MaximumBobcat
August 13th, 2008, 02:10 AM
I've gotten way off the Point of the thread --- Texas's state's Stadium. I was somewhat critical of the plans in that I feel it adds a lot of bad seats. I think they had a lot of things to cover in the plans and really my only real gripes are where the seats are added. I think the resulting stadium will have too high of a percentage of bad seats, ala the U of Buffalo and Kent State Stadiums.

This is Texas State today. I will use North, South, East, and West even though the stadium tilts to the west.

http://www.padwick.net/g2/d/25833-2/txsttoday1.jpg...



great couple of posts, FiniteMan, but you have to remember that it will be very difficult for us to dig down deep, if at all, due to the water table being pretty high in this area. The San Marcos river flows through campus...not too far up the road. i know other schools (including mcneese i think) have dug in swampy areas, but it's something to think about.

McNeese75
August 13th, 2008, 09:28 PM
What does that have to do with anything I posted? UCA?

:p My bad, I saw UCA bears and not NC in your handle. My incorrect point was that they were keeping you from registering because of their ill-fated trip to Conway last year. xbangx

FiniteMan
August 14th, 2008, 09:27 PM
great couple of posts, FiniteMan, but you have to remember that it will be very difficult for us to dig down deep, if at all, due to the water table being pretty high in this area. The San Marcos river flows through campus...not too far up the road. i know other schools (including mcneese i think) have dug in swampy areas, but it's something to think about.

Thanks man, I am glad to know someone read that...It wasn't a wasted day off afterall!

Assuming that a dig down would be too problematic, I think I would push to expand both the sideline bandstands to run from goal line to goal line and add the upper tier seats. I have to think that would get the stadium to 22K, and that is enough for an FBS jump in the short term.

The new weight facility would be goal 2 to allow the team a good chance at having decent recruiting and reasonable success.

Then I would focus more on getting chairbacked seats in there to help season ticket sales.

I think at that point you could move to putting in end zone seating. I would still not recomend more than 3K in each end zone. That would be 6K/28K --- about 21%. I think when they do make it a bowl they should strongly consider making it Octagonal. No one is going to be all that interested in sitting parallel to the goal line. Being at an angle would turn those into pretty reasonable seats, and if the bleachers are going to be backed off on the sidelines as they currently are, you could get a good angle on those, making stadium visibility pretty good from there.

I am totally convinced Texas State is makeing the right decision in moving up. I am just not at all liking what I think their stadium design is going to do to their fundraising momentum. Their stadium will be a little better than UNT's Fouts Feild and UB's stadium, because Texas State is at least dumping the track, but I still think they should rethink the plan a bit more.

Best of luck to you though. A lot of folks in Texas don't like UT and don't identify with the Aggies. Your logo is sharp and if you guys caught a good coach, I could see you guys becoming the FSU of Texas for the next generation.

McNeese75
August 14th, 2008, 10:16 PM
FiniteMan, inquiring minds wanna know. What do you do for a living? :)

BEAR
August 14th, 2008, 11:18 PM
:p My bad, I saw UCA bears and not NC in your handle. xbangx


....you're going to be seeing the Bears in your nightmares this year too! xlolx xlolx xlolx

McNeese75
August 15th, 2008, 12:11 AM
....you're going to be seeing the Bears in your nightmares this year too! xlolx xlolx xlolx

:D Not me, xlolx But I know some folks that have had visions of cowboys tormenting their sleep for 9 months or so now. xnodx

UCAMonkey
August 15th, 2008, 07:27 PM
The rematch cannot get here fast enough (or maybe it'll be too soon).


Do you think we can schedule you guys when you go FBS? We wouldn't mind coming to San Marcos for a nice pay day. xthumbsupx

TexasTerror
August 15th, 2008, 08:58 PM
Do you think we can schedule you guys when you go FBS? We wouldn't mind coming to San Marcos for a nice pay day. xthumbsupx

The Bobcats are used to losing to lower-division foes or at the very least, getting 'spooked' by them...xnodx

I think a few years back in basketball, they may have dropped a regular season game to UT-Permian Basin or St. Edwards! xnonono2x

chrisattsu
August 16th, 2008, 02:15 AM
The Bobcats are used to losing to lower-division foes or at the very least, getting 'spooked' by them...xnodx

I think a few years back in basketball, they may have dropped a regular season game to UT-Permian Basin or St. Edwards! xnonono2x

First and foremost, that was during the Dennis Nutt era. The guy had a 3-and-whatever season. 3 F#@!$ing Wins. Ummm... He was gone the following season. There really is no excuse for losing the UTPB. They suck, Tarleton won't even schedule them. They are like the Panhandle State of D2 basketball. Second, the last time I checked, the Southland seems pretty scared to schedule D2 tourney (Top 32) teams like Tarleton, West Texas A&M, or St. Edwards. So invite one of us down to Huntsville before the Bearkats start talking sh**.

TexasTerror
August 16th, 2008, 08:19 AM
First and foremost, that was during the Dennis Nutt era. The guy had a 3-and-whatever season. 3 F#@!$ing Wins. Ummm... He was gone the following season. There really is no excuse for losing the UTPB. They suck, Tarleton won't even schedule them. They are like the Panhandle State of D2 basketball. Second, the last time I checked, the Southland seems pretty scared to schedule D2 tourney (Top 32) teams like Tarleton, West Texas A&M, or St. Edwards. So invite one of us down to Huntsville before the Bearkats start talking sh**.

SHSU, outside of probably Lamar, has played the toughest teams at their home venue compared to any other team in the SLC -- and has the second longest OOC home win streak in the nation.

We've had some teams like Texas Tech and Fresno State come to town in the past three, four years. Throw in a nice little group of mid-majors in Central Florida, Loyola Marymount, Wisc-Milwaukee and UC-Irvine -- this year, we got North Texas, Texas Southern and one more TBD. Only home OOC loss of the Marlin era is a close loss to A&M in year one.

slycat
August 16th, 2008, 11:08 AM
The Bobcats are used to losing to lower-division foes or at the very least, getting 'spooked' by them...xnodx

I think a few years back in basketball, they may have dropped a regular season game to UT-Permian Basin or St. Edwards! xnonono2x

The Kats got spooked by the lowly Rams last year.

patssle
August 16th, 2008, 11:16 AM
The Kats got spooked by the lowly Rams last year.

But we did win ;)

BEAR
August 16th, 2008, 12:08 PM
Alright Kat and Cat fans...neither of you have beaten a transitional division II team from Conway! xmadx xlolx

But I know it will be sweet revenge for Texas State this year and payback for SHSU also....xlolx

Cat79
August 17th, 2008, 09:14 PM
UCABEAR,

You have to come to our stadium this year. It should be interesting:D