La Tech Continues Facility Upgrades

[UNTLifer]

We NEED a new track surface/facility. Having kids run at Fouts is a joke. We NEED baseball and we need to renos to the Athletic Facility. 

[GMG24]

41 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

We NEED a new track surface/facility. Having kids run at Fouts is a joke. We NEED baseball and we need to renos to the Athletic Facility. 

Yes to first part hell nah to second.  Let's win and make money in first 3 big sports first, before adding a money drain and having to bring on another female sport to stay in Title IX compliance. 

[Ben Gooding]

57 minutes ago, GMG24 said:

Yes to first part hell nah to second.  Let's win and make money in first 3 big sports first, before adding a money drain and having to bring on another female sport to stay in Title IX compliance. 

And track is all of a sudden not a money drain? I mean it's the least relevant sport we have. It's a textbook money drain, and no conference cares if we have it if/when they ever come knocking. 

[UNTLifer]

Baseball will be less and less of a money drain as the years pass.  It is becoming more and more popular and I would expect the revenue to increase over time.  Someone mentioned it is a 2 million dollar drain.  Any stats to back that up?

[BTG_Fan1]

14 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

And track is all of a sudden not a money drain? I mean it's the least relevant sport we have. It's a textbook money drain, and no conference cares if we have it if/when they ever come knocking. 

Track is a program that is currently  being played and used to stay title 9  compliant.. so you wanna build/fund/ maintain a baseball program (which is at its most profitable level now, than once it plays its first game)  then add in additional sports to comply with Title 9 and pass over the track team again which is without a home LOL..

oh and by the way they have already spent money in developing a new track stadium as well.. 

6 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Baseball will be less and less of a money drain as the years pass.  It is becoming more and more popular and I would expect the revenue to increase over time.  Someone mentioned it is a 2 million dollar drain.  Any stats to back that up?

We can't even fill Apogee, why would anyone come up to Denton for a College Baseball game????

http://diycollegerankings.com/how-much-do-d1-colleges-spend-on-baseball-programs/2505/ 

This website talks about the costs in the SEC in 2009-2013 avg. over 3m, and around 2M for other power conferences, then with small conferences around 1M... At the bottom of the page you can type in schools names and see how much they were spending in 2013, Rice spent over 2M on average per season.. So I would guess that the 2M is on the very conservative side of the expenses.... We can say that its not right to compare UNT to rice because it is a private school vs a publis school but you can look at the conference avg and see that its nearly 1.2M and again we can figure that is to have increased since 2009-2013....

That does not factor in the costs of starting up the program as well.... 

[BTG_Fan1]

--------------------------------

This discussion of baseball is pointless, it is not happening any time soon and will happen AFTER the Soccer/Track is built, and the IPF is completed... Then it will be time to determine if the Superpit can be remodel/updated or they will moved or if it is time for baseball... We can say oh a P5 will not take on a  school that doesn't have baseball... But I'm sure that a P5 will not consider a program that is even deeper in debt, hell look at UH they have baseball and they get overlooked... UNT can be sold to larger conferences because of the size of the school, alumni base, the market size, academic success., and hopefully success in the 3 major sports with a vision towards baseball.. Baseball is something that can be started up/planned as well (once those other projects are completed), and I wouldn't be surprised that in a few years if UNT was having success and was trying to get considered that they would have a plan for baseball. Again us saying that we need a baseball team to go P5 doesn't make sense, because we have multiple p5 teams in this nation without a hockey team.... 

Again sinking millions into baseball will eventually be done, the argument is right now that the budget that is being used is being maxed out in ways to catch UNT up into this decade in facilities, WB talked about it in the article with Vito. WB says outside of Apogee all of the other sports were average at best, and this is something that has to be fixed. We can say that facilities are something that will only decline in value but having cracked/faded tennis courts, a basketball stadium with water stained tiles/ no ticket office and not having a track stadium is PATHETIC, not to mention the lack of an IPF and weight-room... The logic of adding on baseball, isn't just baseball... it is adding on multiple other female sports to comply with TITLE 9.... So you are having to add in the loses of baseball on top of multiple other sports... Do that once basketball is having success and the football team as well...

[Mean Green 93-98]

8 hours ago, GMG24 said:

Let's win and make money in first 3 big sports first, before adding a money drain and having to bring on another female sport to stay in Title IX compliance. 

I could be mistaken, but I don't think we'll need to add a women's sport.  We've been overly Title IX compliant, and baseball only allows 11.7 scholarships.

[UNT 90 Grad]

5 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I could be mistaken, but I don't think we'll need to add a women's sport.  We've been overly Title IX compliant, and baseball only allows 11.7 scholarships.

If you add something for men, you have to add something for women, and vice versa.    The athletic opportunities have to stay equal.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

[Mean Green 93-98]

20 minutes ago, UNT 90 Grad said:

If you add something for men, you have to add something for women, and vice versa.    The athletic opportunities have to stay equal.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

That is incorrect.  It's not about number of sports, it's about athletic scholarship dollars.  UNT has more women's sports than men's sports, but football uses far more scholarships than any other sport.  And there is a certain amount of leeway granted, and I was thinking that we were presently scholarship-heavy on the female side.

[UNT Mean Green]

15 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Name one school that has been left out of a conference realignment because of lack of baseball.  It is a nice to have in your arsenal, but far from essential.  

I fail to see your logic in preference of weight room expansion and locker room renovation over an IPF.  All three are non-essential but parts of the athletic arms race.   At least NT has functional locker rooms and a weight room.   

Your wants and needs are merely your preferences not based on any logical analysis of the situation.    Baseball is a major cost and I hope its added at some point, but the drivers are football and men's basketball.  Everything else are distant seconds in importance.  I don't think NT can have a track program without a facility. Unless you know of  plans to add 6 sports to stay eligible for the fb division without track than facilities are necessary.  The soccer facilities are an obvious and relatively cheap addition to the track fields.    Soccer maybe a secondary sport but it is also NT's best and most would like to fuel their success to the next level.   

In your parlance, only the track facility is a need.   They are not going to leave half of Fouts open forever and not utilize that premium space.   The others are wants, or improvement not vital to the continuation of the programs.   

7 universities and 144 high schools in Texas have IPF's. The IPF is an essential and must be done now.

UNT's all-sports weight room is ridiculously undersized at 6,180 sq. Ft., and in comparison to our peers, is smaller than most dedicated Olympic Sports weight rooms. Football only weight rooms are often 2x this size.

UNT's football locker room is small, at 5,200 sq. Ft. with low drop-tile ceilings (poorly ventilated) and no area large enough for the team to gather. Additionally, wet areas are cramped and have low fixture counts (not enough toilets, sinks, and showers).  The average FBS football locker room is 7,100 sq. Ft.

We are absolutely kidding ourselves if anyone thinks what we currently have is ideal. UNT needs major improvements in an IPF, as well as expansion and renovation of the Athletics Center building. 

[UNT 90 Grad]

1 hour ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

That is incorrect.  It's not about number of sports, it's about athletic scholarship dollars.  UNT has more women's sports than men's sports, but football uses far more scholarships than any other sport.  And there is a certain amount of leeway granted, and I was thinking that we were presently scholarship-heavy on the female side.

I didn't say "number of sports".  I have not read anything about leeway.  Any inproportunate athletic opportunities between the genders have to be justified.

[GrandGreen]

5 minutes ago, UNT Mean Green said:

7 universities and 144 high schools in Texas have IPF's. The IPF is an essential and must be done now.

UNT's all-sports weight room is ridiculously undersized at 6,180 sq. Ft., and in comparison to our peers, is smaller than most dedicated Olympic Sports weight rooms. Football only weight rooms are often 2x this size.

UNT's football locker room is small, at 5,200 sq. Ft. with low drop-tile ceilings (poorly ventilated) and no area large enough for the team to gather. Additionally, wet areas are cramped and have low fixture counts (not enough toilets, sinks, and showers).  The average FBS football locker room is 7,100 sq. Ft.

We are absolutely kidding ourselves if anyone thinks what we currently have is ideal. UNT needs major improvements in an IPF, as well as expansion and renovation of the Athletics Center building. 

Where did anyone said anything was idea?  Saying something is functional is not even close to stated that it is ideal.  It is easy to state something must be done now, are you going to provide the funding or do you think the students should be paying for something else?  

No, nothing you mentioned is essential; are they would already be done.   The problem with a smaller weight room is that access is limited and must be more closely scheduled.  There is a lot more to it than square footage.  UT's weight room which is currently 20,000 square feet, but I believe they are redoing it because I assume Alabama or someone has a better one.   However over half that space is for an indoor track and open spaces to workout without weights or machines.  An expanded weight room may be part of the NT IPF project.  

As for locker rooms, I am not sure the ceiling height is going to give you any bang for the buck.   It is no difference than a home, it looks good but it doesn't add much other than higher utility bills.    Locker rooms are primarily for changing in and out of an uniform not formal meeting or recreational areas.  UT once again is building a new one for football with a projected cost of about $9,000 a locker.  

NT is currently in a position were basically they are only getting recruits with few options.  Maybe a few more bell and whistles will improve that.   However, there is no guarantee;  NT is not losing head to head recruiting battles because La Tech, UTSA, etc. have better facilities because they don't.   

[BTG_Fan1]

27 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Where did anyone said anything was idea?  Saying something is functional is not even close to stated that it is ideal.  It is easy to state something must be done now, are you going to provide the funding or do you think the students should be paying for something else?  

No, nothing you mentioned is essential; are they would already be done.   The problem with a smaller weight room is that access is limited and must be more closely scheduled.  There is a lot more to it than square footage.  UT's weight room which is currently 20,000 square feet, but I believe they are redoing it because I assume Alabama or someone has a better one.   However over half that space is for an indoor track and open spaces to workout without weights or machines.  An expanded weight room may be part of the NT IPF project.  

As for locker rooms, I am not sure the ceiling height is going to give you any bang for the buck.   It is no difference than a home, it looks good but it doesn't add much other than higher utility bills.    Locker rooms are primarily for changing in and out of an uniform not formal meeting or recreational areas.  UT once again is building a new one for football with a projected cost of about $9,000 a locker.  

NT is currently in a position were basically they are only getting recruits with few options.  Maybe a few more bell and whistles will improve that.   However, there is no guarantee;  NT is not losing head to head recruiting battles because La Tech, UTSA, etc. have better facilities because they don't.   

The locker room has only had minor upgrades and it was never in the plan from what we can tell for it to under go a face lift. 

I don't think anyone would say that the locker room is the main reason a kid commits, but it is just another solidly placed factor to attract kids. 

Do the IPF/ weight room/ AD center expansion then after that we can talk about the locker-room.

We can say we don't know if it will be a selling point or if it will improve recruiting, the only thing that will improve recruiting is winning.. Winning is done by coaching, look SL took basically the same squad from the year before to a bowl game (he appears able to coach). Giving SL and his staff more tools to use and to bring the UNT Athletic Department into this decade/and hopefully beyond  in terms of facilities is critical. Some kids view it as a downgrade going from HS to UNT..,

[GrandGreen]

2 hours ago, UNT 90 Grad said:

If you add something for men, you have to add something for women, and vice versa.    The athletic opportunities have to stay equal.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

 

2 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I could be mistaken, but I don't think we'll need to add a women's sport.  We've been overly Title IX compliant, and baseball only allows 11.7 scholarships.

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The compliance test is generally:

1. Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
2. Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
3. Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports

Obviously, this can be interpreted a lot of different ways and few universities are compliance with number 1 of the test.  The NCAA has never sanctioned any university for non-compliance to my knowledge.  There is also a lot of ways some schools are gaming the system.  For example, I recently read an article about the huge number of females being listed on track squads for purposes of meeting the mandate that never really participate in any meets.

The fear of universities is not the NCAA but individuals or groups of individuals filing lawsuits based on title 9 statues.   For example, a women's swimming team suing because they don't have the academic support, locker room facilities or overall financial investment as the football team.  

NT is probably at the top of the list in compliance and I doubt ether adding or non-adding another women's sport will have much effect.  I would think it is important to assure that the female sports that NT has are well accommodated.    

[GMG24]

14 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

And track is all of a sudden not a money drain? I mean it's the least relevant sport we have. It's a textbook money drain, and no conference cares if we have it if/when they ever come knocking. 

Guess what happens when you fix the track/soccer complex? To make sure your FACILITIES are desirable and marketable to other conferences.  THEN, you can add baseball which means you'll have to add another female sport to be in Title IX compliance.  

7 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I could be mistaken, but I don't think we'll need to add a women's sport.  We've been overly Title IX compliant, and baseball only allows 11.7 scholarships.

Maybe you are correct, seems I've read or heard that we would need to either add a sport or up our female athlete number if baseball was added.  I'll have to ask the Wren one day when I run into him. 

[oldguystudent]

20 hours ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

Baseball doesn't not get you into relevance.. if that was true you would see baseball power programs doing better than they are.. Rice, Pepperdine are just notable names that have not seen anything.. heck Long Beach state has turned out notable big names and where are they in football? Heck Tulsa doesn't have it but yet people say we should be like Tulsa.

Baseball is a completely different animal out west.  The Big West and WCC both field some really stellar programs.  None of them field football teams.  All of those schools have entirely different priorities, and football isn't nearly the necessity there that it is here.  I knew very little about college football before moving to Texas because I went to a baseball school (which has been seriously neglecting baseball in recent years), and unless you actually attended USC, it just wasn't all that big of a deal unless they were winning national championships, which for extended periods of time, they most certainly were not. I recall that alumni of USC and UCLA would banter each fall during rivalry weekend, but never t-shirt fans.  Only alumni.  

It's not right or wrong, just different. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by oldguystudent

[Ben Gooding]

If the University wanted to make it a priority to actually have the 3 big sports then we'd have them. Details, and compliance can be ironed out while the development takes place. The rest is said is absolute hear say.

[BTG_Fan1]

20 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

If the University wanted to make it a priority to actually have the 3 big sports then we'd have them. Details, and compliance can be ironed out while the development takes place. The rest is said is absolute hear say.

We have 3 major sports now.. Football, and both basketball teams.... Those are the sports that can/should generate or break even in terms of cost of operation... Baseball will not

[Ben Gooding]

51 minutes ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

We have 3 major sports now.. Football, and both basketball teams.... Those are the sports that can/should generate or break even in terms of cost of operation... Baseball will not

Women's basketball is not a major sport. It's a joke to even try to rationalize that. The people swinging from the AD's nutsack hairs will continously support every move or decision by this athletic department, regardless of the good or bad and regardless who is running it. It's why we are what we are. 

[tmjerm]

We need baseball and WB has acknowledged as much.  We need money and we are on the upswing from a pretty doo doo financial situation.  I'm confident we will have baseball relatively soon but there are more pressing needs to be dealt with in the short term.

[BTG_Fan1]

1 hour ago, Ben Gooding said:

Women's basketball is not a major sport. It's a joke to even try to rationalize that. The people swinging from the AD's nutsack hairs will continously support every move or decision by this athletic department, regardless of the good or bad and regardless who is running it. It's why we are what we are. 

Look at the #s.. Football and MBB will out make any baseball team... WBB is the largest womens sport...

Please tell me what sports besides Football and MBB brings in more people than WBB??? Not track because of no stadium.. Not Tennis.. Not Swimming.... Soccer but doubtful... 

[GrandGreen]

21 hours ago, GMG24 said:

Yes to first part hell nah to second.  Let's win and make money in first 3 big sports first, before adding a money drain and having to bring on another female sport to stay in Title IX compliance. 

 

1 hour ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

Look at the #s.. Football and MBB will out make any baseball team... WBB is the largest womens sport...

Please tell me what sports besides Football and MBB brings in more people than WBB??? Not track because of no stadium.. Not Tennis.. Not Swimming.... Soccer but doubtful... 

 I wonder about those that think that football makes money.  If it was based on financial impact, football would be first thing to go.  Heavily subsidized by student fees, football still loses millions of dollars.   So baseball and every other sport lose a lot less money, therefore on a purely financial basis would be preferable to football.   This is true for NT and the majority of other fb division schools. 

Football and basketball however do provide by far the most exposure for schools. Those are basically the sports that most follow and they provide a link at least to a segment of the alumni population and do spread the brand of the school.   

As far as interest, football and men's basketball are for out in front for universities that field those teams.  Baseball and Women's basketball are the next tier, but WBB is the premier women's sport at most schools, so it usually is going to be favored.    

 

[Mean Green 93-98]

4 hours ago, BTG_Fan1 said:

We have 3 major sports now.. Football, and both basketball teams.... Those are the sports that can/should generate or break even in terms of cost of operation... Baseball will not

Other than maybe Tennessee, the big colleges all consider the Big 3 sports to be football, men's basketball, and baseball: https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sec-dominated-big-3-sports-past-decade/

 

[GrayEagle]

21 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

And track is all of a sudden not a money drain? I mean it's the least relevant sport we have. It's a textbook money drain, and no conference cares if we have it if/when they ever come knocking. 

If we don't have track then we are not Division I.  We must have 14 sports for the top ranking.  Indoor track, outdoor track and cross country are vital for us to remain in the highest classification.  

By the way, it's not a given that adding baseball would force another women's sport.  If it did, bowling wouldn't cost much.

[Ben Gooding]

9 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Other than maybe Tennessee, the big colleges all consider the Big 3 sports to be football, men's basketball, and baseball: https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sec-dominated-big-3-sports-past-decade/

 

Just let him drivel. He's damn near mental when he has his green blinders on.