Go_UTA

Well, it was quite a bit more involved than that. Here is the scoop on the UT Arlington name. From about 1917 to 1965, Arlington State College (ASC) was related to the Mechanical and Agricultural College of Texas (now Texas A&M University). However, in the early 1960s, the ASC campus and community became very dissastified with the support that was coming from the A&M System. At that time, A&M was all-male and struggling for enrollment, if you can believe that. (ASC was actually larger than A&M.) Earl Rudder, war hero from D-day and chancellor at A&M, wouldn't put money into ASC. This was short-sited, but, he was focused on problems on the A&M campus of the day. Anyway, ASC and community leaders petitioned Governor John Connelly to allow ASC to depart the A&M System for the UT System, which welcomed ASC. Once the governor talked to Rudder and realized his position, he agreed and a bill was passed by the legislature. Looking back, this was a historical blunder on A&M's part which their presidents and some regents have readily and repeatedly acknowledged over the years. ASC entered the UT System in 1965, and, going to parallel naming within the System, the name was changed to The University of Texas at Arlington in 1967. It was not until much later that UT Arlington came to share in the Permanent University Fund endowment. It took an amendment to the Texas Consitution that was passed in the 1980s. Separately, a new logo, brand, and advertising campaign (the latter to begin in March) are being launched this Wednesday at noon in the University Center. If any of you guys are in the neighborhood and just want to take a peek, you will be welcome. It should be a lot of fun. See the website for more details.

Pardon me for interjecting here, but that was a hell of an effective and classy post by Glad. You guys are lucky to have this guy running your athletic show. Running a very high profile and complex organization is not an easy task. I don't think any of us can appreciate what it is like unless we have happened to have been in those shoes. Obviously, your man knows what he is doing. Glad, I'd sure like to see us playing each other in every sport possible, and particularly would like to see a resumption of the men's basketball series. I remember those games from several years ago, and they were always very exciting and drew extra fan and DFW media attention. Furthermore, the travel costs are next to nothing. I'm cutting you guys some slack now, but I hope we get this thing going again when we are in our new arena.

Here is a beautiful column by George Will from a few days ago about the current college mascot controvery. (BTW, if you want to study a master of the English language, read George Will.) Chief Among the Silliness By George F. Will Thursday, January 5, 2006 The University of Illinois must soon decide whether, and if so how, to fight an exceedingly silly edict from the NCAA. That organization's primary function is to require college athletics to be no more crassly exploitative and commercial than is absolutely necessary. But now the NCAA is going to police cultural sensitivity, as it understands that. Hence the decision to declare Chief Illiniwek "hostile and abusive" to Native Americans. Censorship -- e.g., campus speech codes -- often is academic liberalism's preferred instrument of social improvement, and now the NCAA's censors say: The Chief must go, as must the university's logo of a Native American in feathered headdress. Otherwise the NCAA will not allow the university to host any postseason tournaments or events. Chief Illiniwek, a symbol of University of Illinois teams since 1926, would be outlawed as "hostile and abusive" to Native Americans by an NCAA edict. This story of progress, as progressives understand that, began during halftime of a football game in 1926, when an undergraduate studying Indian culture performed a dance dressed as a chief. Since then, a student has always served as Chief Illiniwek, who has become the symbol of the university that serves a state named after the Illini confederation of about a half-dozen tribes that were virtually annihilated in the 1760s by rival tribes. In 1930 the student then portraying Chief Illiniwek traveled to South Dakota to receive authentic raiment from the Oglala Sioux. In 1967 and 1982, representatives of the Sioux, who had not yet discovered that they were supposed to feel abused, came to the Urbana-Champaign campus to augment the outfits Chief Illiniwek wears at football and basketball games. But grievance groups have multiplied, seeking reparations for historical wrongs and regulations to assuage current injuries inflicted by "insensitivity." One of America's booming businesses is the indignation industry, which manufactures the synthetic outrage needed to fuel identity politics. The NCAA is allowing Florida State University and the University of Utah to continue calling their teams Seminoles and Utes, respectively, because those two tribes approve of the tradition. The Saginaw Chippewa tribe starchily denounces any "outside entity" -- that would be you, NCAA -- that would disrupt the tribe's "rich relationship" with Central Michigan University and its teams, the Chippewas. The University of North Carolina at Pembroke can continue calling its teams the Braves. Bravery is a virtue, so perhaps the 21 percent of the school's students who are Native Americans consider the name a compliment. The University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux may have to find another nickname because the various Sioux tribes cannot agree about whether they are insulted. But the only remnant of the Illini confederation, the Peoria tribe, is now in Oklahoma. Under its chief, John Froman, the tribe is too busy running a casino and golf course to care about Chief Illiniwek. The NCAA ethicists probably reason that the Chief must go because no portion of the Illini confederation remains to defend him. Or to be offended by him, but never mind that, or this: In 1995 the Office of Civil Rights in President Bill Clinton's Education Department, a nest of sensitivity-mongers, rejected the claim that the Chief and the name Fighting Illini created for anyone a "hostile environment" on campus. In 2002 Sports Illustrated published a poll of 351 Native Americans, 217 living on reservations, 134 living off. Eighty-one percent said high school and college teams should not stop using Indian nicknames. But in any case, why should anyone's disapproval of a nickname doom it? When, in the multiplication of entitlements, did we produce an entitlement for everyone to go through life without being annoyed by anything, even a team's nickname? If some Irish or Scots were to take offense at Notre Dame's Fighting Irish or the Fighting Scots of Monmouth College, what rule of morality would require the rest of us to care? Civilization depends on, and civility often requires, the willingness to say, "What you are doing is none of my business" and "What I am doing is none of your business." But this is an age when being an offended busybody is considered evidence of advanced thinking and an exquisite sensibility. So, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has demanded that the University of South Carolina's teams not be called Gamecocks because cockfighting is cruel. It also is illegal in South Carolina. In 1972 the University of Massachusetts at Amherst replaced the nickname Redmen with Minutemen. White men carrying guns? If some advanced thinkers are made miserable by this, will the NCAA's censors offer relief? Scottsdale Community College in Arizona was wise to adopt the nickname "Fighting Artichokes." There is no grievance group representing the lacerated feelings of artichokes. Yet.

Read a pretty reliable account of a recent meeting in the Texas State provost's office. A few things. Every university and college, of course, has visions of greatness. However, they are facing reality that they will never be a top notch research institution. It's just too hard to do, and they are starting from too far behind. Sounds to me like some realism is setting in. They discussed their place in the classification system devised by the Higher Education Coordinating Board. (Which is in a "middle" ranking below "emerging research institution" that UNT occupies.) For their region, since UT Austin and A&M are capping enrollment, TS is looked-upon by the Coordinating Board to take more students. (UT "rejects" as the poster rather negatively characterized the situation.) They said the San Marcos campus will probably cap-out at around 30,000, but they hope to add more at their Round Rock campus. They also mentioned possibly opening a new campus in San Antonio. They want to grow their graduate enrollment, but this is looked-upon as a percentage of overall enrollment. So, getting that percentage up while being asked to take more undergraduates (due to the capping situation) is a particular challenge. Perhaps pleasing to you guys, the provost apparently (remember, I am getting this second hand), said that they would like to model themselves on Texas Tech and North Texas. In other words, they would like to be more like you. I'd take this as a big compliment! FWIW, I don't think there is any question that they are down the educational pecking from UNT. (But, I'm not saying that makes Texas State a bad place.) Thought you guys might be interested in this. As I say, I am getting this second hand, but I don't have reason to doubt the source. Also, everything rings completely true.

Thanks for asking Eagle-96. Like your friend, I am really ready to get out of Texas Hall for sports. To get to your question, I don't think anyone outside of the administration knows what the time-frame is. Like your stadium, the state isn't going to build it, and it is an approx. $38 million challenge! All I know is that it's a priority, and our president is very, very excited about it. He is working on it behind the scenes. (Pres. Spaniolo, BTW, came to us from Michigan State and has a love of basketball.) You can go to this link to find-out more about it (and a few other campus initiatives that the university is targeting to the outside for support). http://www.uta.edu/giving/sub/currentinitiatives.php What has been accomplished, however, is that the Student Congress and Student Body have voted to accept a fee for the support of the facility (operations, which are significant) once it is built. That is a big thing. Also, concept drawings have been completed, and the location has been decided. Actually, I lot of us actually like Texas Hall in a quirky way, but I can't wait to get out of it. Recruits and OOC opponents don't like it. It will be a New Day for our b-ball programs and entire intercollegiate athletics once the doors open on the arena. I'm sure you understand that. Some of us at utamavericks.com are expecting some type of preliminary, status-report kind of announcement pretty soon.

UTA is releasing its new logo and branding initiative in some big bally-hoo in the Bluebonnet Ballroom of the University Center in March. In fact, students were being asked this week to be extras this weekend in some short film that a Dallas ad agency is creating. I'm real curious as to how it turns out. From what I gather, there may be a de-emphases on "UTA" and a greater emphases on "UT Arlington." We shall see. We, of course, have a logo, but there has never been a coordinated or thought-through attempt to convey a "brand" or message. UTA has never tried to define or shape it's image to the marketplace in this way. It's about freakin' time. Frankly, I think the new UNT logos are pretty effective. They look good to my eye. I also like that screaming eagle come down for the attack. It's uncomplicated and memorable, I think. Also, the little slogan of "discovery the power of ideas" conveys a strong commitment to teaching students as well as creating new ideas (research).

I agree. Rice doesn't need football, at least not at Div I-A. They probably wish that they were surrounded by a lot of similar Ivy-type schools to play with...such as what Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Brown, etc. have with each other. FWIW, UTA experienced an increase in enrollment after dropping football. I don't think football had very much influence on enrollment either way. Students were not going to the games.

It is my understanding that the UT System had no interest in the south Dallas campus. I think it is pretty easy to understand why. 1) The System already has 2 components in north Texas (educating about 40,000 students currently). 2) There isn't a lot of extra political influence to be gained by adding a 3rd. 3) Of course, there are the dilution effects of money and attention. Of course, the creation of the south Dallas campus was about politics. I think race was a decisive factor in the politics. Clearly, there was no pressing need. Certainly, Texas has a lot universities, and the budget allocated to state universities is getting thinner and thinner for everybody. (Which makes it not a great environment for a start-up.) Whether or not there is a state-supported institution actually inside the Dallas city limits isn't really very important, although that statement has naturally been made by Dallas officials. The region is already served by several fine public and private universities (including UNT). I know UTA wasn't interested in the project. However, they didn't oppose it in any way, either. The provost at UTA was quoted the other day as saying it wasn't a competitive sitution and wished them well. Frankly, I don't think the place is going to take-off as is hoped. We are already seeing that, and the state doesn't have a lot of extra resources to invest. I think UNT just wants to have system, and this was the opportunity that presented itself. This will be a third piece (along with the osteopathic medicine unit in Fort worth), which I would say is a minimum to be considered a credible system. I don't really think the Dallas campus would necessarily inhibit a stadium project in Denton, but, of course, Plumm is right that there are resources being spent down there presently that could go to Denton. This may become less so once they become a university in their own right. There are start-up costs right now that have to be borne by UNT. Personally, I think the state needs to concentrate on building up UNT, UTA, and UTD. All three of these can be truly great. We don't yet have a "great" university in the region, and we need 2 or 3. The stadium funding may have to eventually come from some type of student fee alongside some hopefully supplemental gifts. This sounds like a tought thing to do exclusively from gifts. Anyway, this is just speculation on my part. You guys know more about this than I do. Good luck with it.

I would make the president of UNT and chancellorship of the System all vested in one person. 1) The System isn't so big that one person couldn't do both jobs. 2) UNT is obviously the largest and most important of the 3 components. 3) Most importantly, this would eliminate power struggles and confusion in lines of authority. 4) With a very large compensation package - made possible by the combining of the jobs - and the allure of the more powerful position, you could attract and hire one amazing person. 5) Lastly, if you are UNT (Denton)-centric, you could rest easier that it would be more likely the system would grow without dilution of resources at the Denton campus (although the other 3 components might not like this arrangement as much). The UH president and UH System chancellor is one person.

It is a positive sign that the chancellor is talking about involving faculty in the selection process. That doesn't mean they are going to pick him, but that helps get the prospects talking and to understand the concerns and issues of the campus. And, importantly, it helps get buy-in from the faculty no matter who is selected. I still say a downside is the mere presence of a chancellor, on campus, of a very small system, breathing down a president's neck. It is a system set-up for friction no matter who the personalities are. The chancellor has nothing better to do than interfere with the president. I think most on this board will agree that this has been visible, even from the outside. I guarantee, the UNT president has much less authority and power on his campus than the president at UTA. To some degree, this situation may tend to make the president post less attractive to highly qualified candidates (don't get me wrong, I'm sure you will get a real good person). A smart finalist will do some sniffing around to get the lay of the political landscape. Still, the possibility of being president of a major institution is attractive.

When I read this, I got the feeling that Dr. Pohl has been encouraged to step-down...and/or there is tension between him somebody above him that makes the work situation not very good...perhaps he doesn't have some authority that he thinks he should have...all speculation, but I bet there is some truth in here somewhere. Structurally, being president of UNT is a tough situation. The president is the president, but there is a chancellor over a very small system right there on campus. (If I were president, I would prefer that the chancellor have an office in Fort Worth or Dallas!)There are not many other institutions for the chancellor to focus on. The president of UNT probably can't sneeze without the chancellor knowing about it. The chancellor is naturally going to weigh-in on a lot of decisions that would be the complete jurisdiction of a president on many other campuses, e.g., UT System presidents. Interestingly, the UH also has a smallish system, but they solve this structural conflict by making the president of the main UH campus also the chancellor over the system. Everybody wears 2 hats; there isn't a separate chancellorship. Obviously, a lot of good has come during Dr. Pohl's tenure. Certainly, 7 years is a respectable amount of time, but it is a little early if the situation is good...especially in light of the fact that he isn't currently being hired away. Being a university president is a very, very demanding job. I wish Dr. Pohl well as he wraps-up his tenure at UNT and moves-on.

NM Green, John Denver, Stebo, and Green 92. Enough said.

By the way, I never, ever remembered our pep band being behind anyone's bench, much less yours. The band is always off to one-side and never in the bleachers, as would be required to be behind the visiting team's bench. Even from simply a practical point of view, the bleachers on the west side are too important for fan seating to put band members there. Like I said, if you are too fine for the Hall, let's play in Denton until we get our arena. I'm okay with that.

I'm definitely with Rick, Buford, and the UTA posters. I would love to see the UTA-NT rivalry renewed in men's basketball. I hardly ever missed a game in the past, and they were great fun. You guys were really good in the Blakley era, and we were always excited when you came to town. Some of the most intense and entertaining games at Texas Hall - and probably the Pit - were when you came to town. It was a fabulous atmosphere, and we loved to hate you. It was a great rivalry, and the crowds were always pretty darn good. The local media coverage also picked-up for both teams. Papers gave it some prominance and local TV stations were routinely present for clips on the 10 p.m. news. I think you are going to see UTA make an great effort to get an arena in the next few years. It seems to be a top brick & morter priority of our new administration; and it's justified way beyond simply sports. In the meantime, if Texas Hall is too dangerous for your particular team or you have grown too fine for it, I also wouldn't mind heading up to Denton.