DRC: UNT delays construction of new track/soccer venue

[Brett Vito]

DRC: Fouts Field will be in place a little longer after UNT pushes back plans for new venue six months

http://beta.dentonrc.com/sports/mean-green/2017/05/26/unts-plans-new-track-fouts-demolition-parking-constructiondelayed

[Ben Gooding]

Not sure what the reason of the delay is, but I hate how things like this are pushed to the right because it delays the hopeful day of having baseball...We need baseball. Not this. Baseball. No one (most) cares about track, soccer, softball, volleyball, tennis, etc. Give us baseball. 

 

 

[UNTexas]

1 hour ago, Ben Gooding said:

Not sure what the reason of the delay is, but I hate how things like this are pushed to the right because it delays the hopeful day of having baseball...We need baseball. Not this. Baseball. No one (most) cares about track, soccer, softball, volleyball, tennis, etc. Give us baseball. 

 

 

Soccer is the only consistantly successful sports team we've had in the last 3 decades. They deserve a new field because the athletic department is getting a face lift. Fouts is coming down too so track deserves a place to play. Not to mention, they both exist at UNT. Baseball doesn't. 

[Ben Gooding]

15 minutes ago, UNTexas said:

Soccer is the only consistantly successful sports team we've had in the last 3 decades. They deserve a new field because the athletic department is getting a face lift. Fouts is coming down too so track deserves a place to play. Not to mention, they both exist at UNT. Baseball doesn't. 

Very true, but the soccer coach seemed more than happy with his current setup in the article. 

As for track, that 'sport' doesn't deserve anything. 

We will never be considered even a G5 heavyweight until the athletic department has a baseball program. I don't say this because I want it (though I do), but we need it. Baseball is a major sport and it is quickly growing at the collegiate level in popularity. It's easier to be good in baseball than any other sport, especially in this area. There is far, far more than enough talented ball players to go around. It's a legitimate niche to make in the college sport landscape. Cal State, Coastal, CoC, Rice, Kent St, etc have made names for themselves in collegiate sports because of baseball. Also, La Tech and SoMiss are both projected to make a regional this year with SoMiss even projected as a host. That may change since UTSA beat SoMiss in CUSA tourney. But it doesn't hurt that our strongest sport as a conference on a national level is also baseball. We need it. Too much pandering about it for too long, it needs to happen *reaches for the checkbook*.

[UNTexas]

40 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Very true, but the soccer coach seemed more than happy with his current setup in the article. 

As for track, that 'sport' doesn't deserve anything. 

We will never be considered even a G5 heavyweight until the athletic department has a baseball program. I don't say this because I want it (though I do), but we need it. Baseball is a major sport and it is quickly growing at the collegiate level in popularity. It's easier to be good in baseball than any other sport, especially in this area. There is far, far more than enough talented ball players to go around. It's a legitimate niche to make in the college sport landscape. Cal State, Coastal, CoC, Rice, Kent St, etc have made names for themselves in collegiate sports because of baseball. Also, La Tech and SoMiss are both projected to make a regional this year with SoMiss even projected as a host. That may change since UTSA beat SoMiss in CUSA tourney. But it doesn't hurt that our strongest sport as a conference on a national level is also baseball. We need it. Too much pandering about it for too long, it needs to happen *reaches for the checkbook*.

Baseball would be fun to watch. Plus, I'd want the cap.

Wasn't there money donated and dedicated (like 5 million if I remember correctly) for baseball facilities?

Also, with baseball added how would we be in the title 9 department? 

[GrandGreen]

1 hour ago, Ben Gooding said:

Very true, but the soccer coach seemed more than happy with his current setup in the article. 

As for track, that 'sport' doesn't deserve anything. 

We will never be considered even a G5 heavyweight until the athletic department has a baseball program. I don't say this because I want it (though I do), but we need it. Baseball is a major sport and it is quickly growing at the collegiate level in popularity. It's easier to be good in baseball than any other sport, especially in this area. There is far, far more than enough talented ball players to go around. It's a legitimate niche to make in the college sport landscape. Cal State, Coastal, CoC, Rice, Kent St, etc have made names for themselves in collegiate sports because of baseball. Also, La Tech and SoMiss are both projected to make a regional this year with SoMiss even projected as a host. That may change since UTSA beat SoMiss in CUSA tourney. But it doesn't hurt that our strongest sport as a conference on a national level is also baseball. We need it. Too much pandering about it for too long, it needs to happen *reaches for the checkbook*.

Yes, NT should drop track which ultimately counts as 6 teams than add baseball and 5 more teams.   I wish NT had baseball too, but adding to the NT underfunded sports now would not be in the best interest of the overall athletic program.   

Edited May 27, 2017 by GrandGreen

[Ben Gooding]

3 hours ago, UNTexas said:

Baseball would be fun to watch. Plus, I'd want the cap.

Wasn't there money donated and dedicated (like 5 million if I remember correctly) for baseball facilities?

Also, with baseball added how would we be in the title 9 department? 

There were rumblingd of this, but I'm not sure of the details. 

 

3 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Yes, NT should drop track which ultimately counts as 6 teams than add baseball and 5 more teams.   I wish NT had baseball too, but adding to the NT underfunded sports now would not be in the best interest of the overall athletic program.   

Maybe so, but spending money on track/soccer and a new IPF could be dumped into baseball. And I believe there is some kind of 'slush' fund for baseball that was donated into heavily few years back. I personally am not a fan of Olympic sports and I have never attended a softball game. There needs to be an expedited plan in place to get baseball on board, and not just talks of one. 

[TheTastyGreek]

5 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

Not sure what the reason of the delay is, but I hate how things like this are pushed to the right because it delays the hopeful day of having baseball...We need baseball. Not this. Baseball. No one (most) cares about track, soccer, softball, volleyball, tennis, etc. Give us baseball. 

 

 

Baseball is definitely, definitely coming. Sooner than 2016. 

Remember that whenever grand plans and secret info from caravans or wherever else gets brought up to shame anyone out of reasonable skepticism or complaints about anything else we have going on. 

Anyway... Baseball. Pre-2016. That's the inside scoop, straight from a lot of mouths right inside the horse stables. Take it to the bank. And if you don't believe it, maybe you ought to travel back in time and ask for yourself.  

#GiveMeLibertyOrGiveMeBaseballBefore2016!

[Ben Gooding]

44 minutes ago, TheTastyGreek said:

Baseball is definitely, definitely coming. Sooner than 2016. 

Remember that whenever grand plans and secret info from caravans or wherever else gets brought up to shame anyone out of reasonable skepticism or complaints about anything else we have going on. 

Anyway... Baseball. Pre-2016. That's the inside scoop, straight from a lot of mouths right inside the horse stables. Take it to the bank. And if you don't believe it, maybe you ought to travel back in time and ask for yourself.  

#GiveMeLibertyOrGiveMeBaseballBefore2016!

That was in fact said. Back in maybe 2013. But here we are, 2017, and more of the same. 

[Cr1028]

Baseball is nice to have but I still don't get why we NEED baseball. Tulsa is doing fine without it. Boise did fine without it for many years. It is more important to make our existing programs successful before adding another sport to be mediocre in.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Cr1028

[Side Show Joe]

When will we get some good news?????

[Harry]

"UNT's coaches told track and soccer recruits the venue would be ready in time for their first season competing for the Mean Green."

 

This is disappointing.  

[Travis]

Well, I would rather it be done right than be done fast. 

[DeepGreen]

Another UNT "black eye" for UNT.  Other universities seem to get the job done, yet we can't.  Very, very disappointing.

Wonder if the IPF will be delayed for 2-3 more years.

[UNTLifer]

Good and bad news.

Good:  Let's do it right the first time and not have to go back and correct or add things that we overlooked.

Bad: Promising recruits it would be ready.  Nothing, nothing in construction ever goes as planned.

[VideoEagle]

14 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Yes, NT should drop track which ultimately counts as 6 teams than add baseball and 5 more teams.   I wish NT had baseball too, but adding to the NT underfunded sports now would not be in the best interest of the overall athletic program.   

Thank you! Very true! And track goes a LONG way to helping the Title IX requirements for baseball. Dropping track makes it HARDER to add baseball! 

[UNTLifer]

Question: Since the site has been determined, why is it not possible to go ahead with the construction of the track so those athletes have a quality surface conduct training, and finish the buildout around the track?

[GMG24]

15 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Good and bad news.

Good:  Let's do it right the first time and not have to go back and correct or add things that we overlooked.

Bad: Promising recruits it would be ready.  Nothing, nothing in construction ever goes as planned.

That's on coaches for promising something, even if they were told it would be done.  

[UNTLifer]

Normally I would agree, but when you have crappy, worn out facilities to show recruits and have for years, I can understand them wanting to share the news.

[wardly]

If SMU can't afford baseball, what makes us think UNT can? We would need to raise at least $7,000,000 for venue, plus scholarships,travel expenses,staff, etc. for a sport that would average maybe a few hundred fans. In addition we would have to add a women's program which should be factored into the cost of baseball. I don't understand adding another underfunded program that requires such an expensive start up cost.Please don't tell me that with all the local high school baseball programs we should be successful in a short period of time. How has that thought process worked out in football, men and women's basketball, women's softball, etc.?

[El Paso Eagle]

 I would like to take this opportunity to bring up the subject of no one ever wants to talk about, or at least publicly disagree with -  Title 9.   While I have no problem with offering opportunities I do not believe that football should count as a one to one when trying to balance out scholarships. For most schools football is the revenue sport that allows many  activities  to happen. I would like to see some type of ratio, like 50% of football count but not all of it. 

[TheTastyGreek]

35 minutes ago, wardly said:

If SMU can't afford baseball, what makes us think UNT can? We would need to raise at least $7,000,000 for venue, plus scholarships,travel expenses,staff, etc. for a sport that would average maybe a few hundred fans. In addition we would have to add a women's program which should be factored into the cost of baseball. I don't understand adding another underfunded program that requires such an expensive start up cost.Please don't tell me that with all the local high school baseball programs we should be successful in a short period of time. How has that thought process worked out in football, men and women's basketball, women's softball, etc.?

I don't actually think a baseball team is a good idea. I was pretty against it for years, briefly excited about it when we were good at basketball and seemed to be improving in football, and have since gone back to thinking it's a bad idea here. For all the reasons you mentioned.

[GrandGreen]

27 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

 I would like to take this opportunity to bring up the subject of no one ever wants to talk about, or at least publicly disagree with -  Title 9.   While I have no problem with offering opportunities I do not believe that football should count as a one to one when trying to balance out scholarships. For most schools football is the revenue sport that allows many  activities  to happen. I would like to see some type of ratio, like 50% of football count but not all of it. 

You are absolutely right.  I am all for equal rights and even believe it was appropriate to give women athletes an advantage over men to get women sports a boost.  However, what has happened is that women's fringe sports have prospered while men's basic sports have been decimated to offset the scholarship numbers necessary for football.  Beach volleyball, equestrian, rowing, gymnastics are examples of sports with little fan appeal that have been initiated to elevate women scholarship numbers.  

The current requirement ignores two very important factors.   One, the financial and interest generated of  fielding some sports over others.   Two, women in general are just not as into athletics as men.  This is true both as participants and fans.   Yes, there are a huge number of exceptions; and this for sure is not political correct to state; but it also cannot be statistically denied.  

I am somewhat amazed that no men have successful sued because of the imbalance in non-football scholarship numbers.  What should be done is that football would be given a special classification that should be exempt from the straight one for one formula now trying to be achieved.   There is no female equivalent to football and no sport equivalent to the importance of football to schools that participate in the sport. 

To be perfectly fair, every sports other than football should be available to both sexes.  A school has baseball, they have to have women's softball.   Have swimming, track, basketball, volleyball, soccer, tennis, etc; a school must have teams for both sexes.  

A compromise solution to reduce the impact of football on scholarship numbers, as you suggested would be very appropriate.   For example a couple of sports  could be designated as women's sports to offset football without men's team.  Volleyball for example is much more a women's sport than men's.   So say a school could have a women's volleyball team and swimming without men's teams.   

 

[GrayEagle]

If you drop track, and take away the six sports that it sponsors, we would no longer qualify as a Division 1A (FBS) university.  

It's unfortunate that the money was there but the planning was rushed and not thought through.  I suppose that they'll continue with what they did this year as far as practice but we saw the results with a ninth place finish by both teams in the CUSA championships.  I hope that the new signees will understand and stick with the program.  At least the Athletics Department recruited in good faith so we can't fault them.  

One of my favorite sayings is "the course of true love never did run smooth" and that has surely fit North Texas athletics for a long time.

[NorthTexan95]

3 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

You are absolutely right.  I am all for equal rights and even believe it was appropriate to give women athletes an advantage over men to get women sports a boost.  However, what has happened is that women's fringe sports have prospered while men's basic sports have been decimated to offset the scholarship numbers necessary for football.  Beach volleyball, equestrian, rowing, gymnastics are examples of sports with little fan appeal that have been initiated to elevate women scholarship numbers.  

The current requirement ignores two very important factors.   One, the financial and interest generated of  fielding some sports over others.   Two, women in general are just not as into athletics as men.  This is true both as participants and fans.   Yes, there are a huge number of exceptions; and this for sure is not political correct to state; but it also cannot be statistically denied.  

I am somewhat amazed that no men have successful sued because of the imbalance in non-football scholarship numbers.  What should be done is that football would be given a special classification that should be exempt from the straight one for one formula now trying to be achieved.   There is no female equivalent to football and no sport equivalent to the importance of football to schools that participate in the sport. 

To be perfectly fair, every sports other than football should be available to both sexes.  A school has baseball, they have to have women's softball.   Have swimming, track, basketball, volleyball, soccer, tennis, etc; a school must have teams for both sexes.  

A compromise solution to reduce the impact of football on scholarship numbers, as you suggested would be very appropriate.   For example a couple of sports  could be designated as women's sports to offset football without men's team.  Volleyball for example is much more a women's sport than men's.   So say a school could have a women's volleyball team and swimming without men's teams.   

 

Well said.  We can't expect the NCAA to be smart enough to do this.