Texas State is making a push to go from FCS to FBS football. By increasing the athletic fee $2 per year, over the next five years, we can help make this a reality. It's a good move for the entire university. Like it or not, an FBS football program brings more notoriety and will improve our enrollment and quality.
Fortunately, I'm a former student, so I don't need to get too heavily involved in this, but I would question the notion that it will bring money to the university.
The report that was presented to the school, which identified what would have to be done to move up, was pretty clear that this was going to be an added expense, not a source of revenue. The report also said that to be competitive, the school would need more money from the city, probably via hotel taxes.
However, support from student fees is a necessary but not sufficient condition for FBS football. The committee cited strong evidence suggesting that institutions which have moved to the FBS based primarily on student fees have charted a course to the bottom tier of FBS competition. For a transition to a truly competitive program, a funding pattern showing a balance between student fees and other sources of revenue is essential.
At least then, we could all say that the university would be nothing without the city.
Hey the move to Division IA from Division II, was such a positive move for the football team, why not? After 20 or so years the football program is competitive again why not go back to the cellar? Those old National Championships were overated anyway.
2007
McNeese State 7-0 / 11-1
Central Arkansas 5-2 / 6-5
Sam Houston State 5-2 / 7-4
Nicholls State 3-4 / 6-5 Texas State 3-4 / 4-7
Northwestern State 3-4 / 4-7
Southeastern Louisiana 2-5 / 3-8
Stephen F. Austin 0-7 / 0-11
2006
Texas State 3-3 / 5-6
2005
Texas State 5-1 / 11-3
2004
Texas State 3-2 / 5-6
2003
Southwest Texas State 1-4 / 4-8
2002
Southwest Texas State 1-5 / 4-7
2001
Southwest Texas State 0-6 / 4-7
2000
Southwest Texas State 5-2 / 7-4
1999
Southwest Texas State 2-5 / 3-8
I'd love to have a competitive FBS team, but we're pretty far from that.
I also liked this quote:
Quote:
Goal IV: Create institutional and community loyalty and support by promoting the highest levels of sportsmanship and integrity for all athletic constituents.
Perhaps the university will start to embrace the city and the former students in their effort to build loyalty.
I'm not a football fan so I am a bit biased, but maybe we should think about it when we can consistently beat up on our current conference. My undergraduate alma matter, UC Davis, just made the leap to Division I, but they had won their conference for something along the lines of 15 out of 20 years. Now they're going to get clobbered in Div. I. Texas State has had one good year in the past 9? It doesn't bode well, especially when there is an 800lb gorilla just 30 minutes up the road.
I'd also like to see the emphasis stay on improving academics. I'd like to see the numbers, but I don't believe that big football programs improve academic financing. Sure, they move a whole lot of money through a school in gross dollars, but what is the net effect when you count in all the construction, upkeep, higher pay for support staff, etc.? I don't think I should have to pay more money to stroke Trauths ego, and my gut feeling is that everything that comes along with the move will make all the Town-Gown issue worse. That's not what we need.
The sad thing is that this is a huge opportunity to heal some of the Town/Gown rifts, if, as I said before, the university would embrace the city and the former students in order to build some loyalty and some support.
Unfortunately, I believe Denise Trauth has little use for any of us. Maybe she'll change her tune when she has to ask for some of that hotel tax, but history shows that it is unlikely.
The move is not about being at that level now. The move is about building up our resources so we can get to that level in five years. Today was the summit of twenty plus years of work by many people I was heavily involved in this campaign and I can tell you that we were honest with the students. It's going to be a while for us to be competitive. We need to upgrade facilities, hire new staff, increase scholarships, and really beef up recruiting. That last one tends to take care of itself. Star athletes in high school don't want to go to an FCS school. They want to be in an FBS program. Thanks to today, that's where we will start to be in five years.
And please, do tell how this hurts town and gown relations, because I think that "argument" is pure crap. In five years when visiting teams and their fans come to San Marcos they will bring their money with them. How can increased sales hurt San Marcos?
Texas State has already seen the fiscal benefits too. Last week we pulled in a $1.3 million donation, with a million going to the athletics department and the remaining 300K to the Business school. Couple that with another million and an new $25,000 endowed scholarship and you see the alumni are opening their wallets again. They have been waiting on this moment. It's happening. The money is flowing.
Personally, I said that this was an opportunity to heal some of the town and gown rift, but that I doubted the university would reach out.
Your comments, bobcatfan, hint at that. Your knee-jerk dismissiveness of any possible problems from this for the city is a classic university stance.
What about the cost to the city when the university wants some of our hotel taxes? An FBS program is a money-losing proposition for most of the schools that participate. That's pretty well documented and the study done for our school indicated that there would need to be considerable outside funding to support a competitive program.
What about trash all over town from the tailgate parties? That's already an issue that has generated significant complaints.
What about traffic being disrupted? We have a huge traffic problem in this town and the university largely ignores those issues when deciding where to put all of these new parking garages or how to run the busses, etc.
What about the need for additional law enforcement for all of the out-of-town partiers? UPD, despite having jurisdiction everywhere in town, pretty much refuses to do any enforcement off-campus. So, if there are a bunch of rivals driving drunk through the city, SMPD will have to deal with it. If they start a big brawl on the square, SMPD will have to deal with it.
Sorry. It's not as simple as waiting five years and then getting together to count all of the money. There are a lot of issues here and, like I said before, several times, this is a great opportunity for the university to reach out to the former students and the city. I just don't see it happening.
Frankly, after the name change debacle, I'm surprised Trauth is even bothering to put this to a vote in the first place. History has shown that these votes don't change the course the university has plotted, one way or the other.
Linear Mode
