SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   San Antonio (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=447)
-   -   UTSA Construction Update (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=136811)

sirkingwilliam Sep 6, 2008 8:47 PM

I wonder if UTSA is already scouting for players? I hope they're scouting local as SA produces good talent that has nowhere else to go but other colleges.

oldmanshirt Sep 7, 2008 3:54 AM

^^^I don't see how they could do that without a coaching staff.

sirkingwilliam Sep 7, 2008 5:56 AM

You're right.

I thought they did hire a coach but that was UIW! lol

TXlifeguard Sep 8, 2008 12:06 AM

Good update on where things stand
 
From the Paisano, UTSA's student paper:

STORY

Football influences upgrades in athletic program
Oscar Gonzalez
Issue date: 8/26/08

UTSA is on the verge of announcing the start of football, a new $80 million athletic complex and a move toward a top level NCAA conference.

UTSA athletic officials are awaiting permission from The University of Texas (UT) System to announce an athletic fundraising initiative to help establish a football program and move all 17 sports toward a Football Bowl Subdivision (Division 1A) conference.

"At that point, we will be asking everyone-boosters to alumni -to help raise the funds needed," Athletic Director Lynn Hickey said. "Right now we are waiting to hear from the UT System to give us permission to announce the initiative. It could take four to five weeks."

The move to establish football took shape after students approved a referendum last year to increase athletic fees and when the community approved $22.05 million City bonds and County tax elections.

Budget increase

The athletic department needs to raise $15 million from donors over the next five to seven years to increase its annual operations budget from $8 million to more than $20 million. When fully implemented, the student approved athletic fee will generate approximately $15 million annually.

According to Hickey, The UT System could grant permission to proceed by mid-September.

The university needs at least a $10 million budget to operate a football program as well as the other 16 sports in its current conference, the Southland Conference. But that's approximately half as much as the budgets of Conference USA, a next level conference of metropolitan area universities of similar size and academic stature as UTSA.

The Western Division of Conference USA includes Houston, Rice, UTEP, SMU, Tulsa and Tulane-all geographically convenient for UTSA teams and fans.

Out of the 12 universities currently in Conference USA, the University of Southern Mississippi has an enrollment under 15,000, half the size of UTSA, and ranks last in total annual operations budget at $15 million. Ten of the Conference USA schools have operating budgets greater than $20 million. The University of Central Florida ranks first with an annual budget of $30 million.

Football Coach

According to a football timeline released by the university a year ago, UTSA is to hire a head coach by February 2009.

Brad Parrott, associate athletic director for external affairs, said waiting until then will allow UTSA to evaluate all interested coaches after the 2008 college and professional football seasons.

After all the football seasons are completed in January 2009, coaches can visit UTSA without violating contracts that last through the current seasons. The university may consider hiring a coach coming out of retirement.

"We are getting lots of calls. There are many candidates who are very interested in the position," Parrott said. "They see the potential UTSA has."

Basketball improvements

In order to move into an elite conference such as Conference USA, UTSA must become a financial asset to the conference.

Every team that a conference sends to the NCAA basketball tournament in March receives a lump sum of money, which is determined by that team's point of elimination. The funds are then distributed evenly among the other universities in the conference.

Men's basketball head coach Brooks Thompson and his staff will bring in ten newcomers as well as two new coaches to Thompson's coaching staff.

UTSA basketball is highlighted on ESPN.com as a team "overdue for a run of good luck."

So, unless the basketball team turns itself into a potential contender to make the tournament every year, Conference USA, the Western Athletic Conference and other Division 1A conferences will be looking elsewhere for a school that can become an asset.

Facility upgrades

A master plan has been developed for a new UTSA athletic complex to be built on land UTSA recently acquired between Hausman Road and Loop 1604 near Kyle Seale Parkway.

The 125 acres will be the home for new baseball and softball stadiums, tennis courts, a football practice facility and initially a combination of a soccer and track stadium. Space has been allocated to eventually hold a stand-alone soccer stadium and football stadium, as well as a new Convocation Center.

Construction of the first phase of the Competitive Athletic Complex will begin as soon as the university is able to demonstrate just exactly how the $22.05 million in City and County funds will be invested. University officials are currently working with the City and County on contracts to determine when funds will be available.

While a new Convocation Center is being considered, the athletic department is set to unveil its new redesigned basketball court in the current Convocation Center. The new court will don the new Roadrunner logo. Other upgrades being considered are a new scoreboard and electronic message boards.

What's next

University and athletic department officials recently visited the University of Central Florida (UCF) and the University of South Florida (USF) to look at athletic facilities, discuss fundraising initiatives and help determine what must be accomplished to be considered for a Division 1A conference. UCF and USF both jumped to Division 1A football during the past 10 years.

The first phase of the athletic fee will be in place this semester. While students may not notice the fee increase in their tuition (one dollar per hour for the first 12 hours of each semester), they will see the effort and progress being made by UTSA Athletics throughout campus.

The athletic department knows what students really want-big-time college football. The clock is ticking and the athletic department is just as eager as the students to get there.

sirkingwilliam Sep 8, 2008 9:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXlifeguard (Post 3784720)

The 125 acres will be the home for new baseball and softball stadiums, tennis courts, a football practice facility and initially a combination of a soccer and track stadium. Space has been allocated to eventually hold a stand-alone soccer stadium and football stadium, as well as a new Convocation Center.

I was hoping that would happen.

oldmanshirt Sep 8, 2008 1:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXlifeguard (Post 3784720)
The athletic department needs to raise $15 million from donors over the next five to seven years to increase its annual operations budget from $8 million to more than $20 million. When fully implemented, the student approved athletic fee will generate approximately $15 million annually.

According to Hickey, The UT System could grant permission to proceed by mid-September.

The university needs at least a $10 million budget to operate a football program as well as the other 16 sports in its current conference, the Southland Conference. But that's approximately half as much as the budgets of Conference USA, a next level conference of metropolitan area universities of similar size and academic stature as UTSA.

These paragraphs kind of confused me. Do they need to raise $15 million annually or just initially until the new athletic fees kick in? Are they saying it costs $10 million to operate a football program plus the $8 million they currently budget for existing sports, or would a football program in the Southland Conf really only require a $2 million budget?

I guess it makes sense if you say: Current $8 million + $15 million generated by new athl fees = $23 million, which is in the ballpark of what they'd need to operate in C-USA. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.

ydoc14 Sep 8, 2008 1:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam (Post 3785397)
I was hoping that would happen.

Me too because I don't want them playing in the Alamodome forever.

verbl Sep 23, 2008 5:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ydoc14 (Post 3785519)
Me too because I don't want them playing in the Alamodome forever.

Yeah, that would kinda suck.. I wanna see a roadrunner stadium.:) :)

tgannaway89 Sep 25, 2008 5:16 AM

This may boost the UTSA Athletic Park construction:

http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sa...2/daily25.html

The city is guaranteed to host several finalists games (soccer, swimming, volleyball) over the next few years. They will not attract as many guests as basketball, but will still feed the economy. The huge influx of hotels and retail to the area make the UTSA Athletics Park a desirable destination. It also may encourage businesses to look into purchasing naming rights with all of the attention the athletics park would be receiving.

STLtoSA Sep 26, 2008 4:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgannaway89 (Post 3821090)
This may boost the UTSA Athletic Park construction:

http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sa...2/daily25.html

The city is guaranteed to host several finalists games (soccer, swimming, volleyball) over the next few years. They will not attract as many guests as basketball, but will still feed the economy. The huge influx of hotels and retail to the area make the UTSA Athletics Park a desirable destination. It also may encourage businesses to look into purchasing naming rights with all of the attention the athletics park would be receiving.

Being that St. Louis and San Antonio being the only two cities that I have lived in other than in college, it looks like I am 2 for 2 here.

oldmanshirt Dec 13, 2008 1:56 PM

Finally an official update on the football program/athletic complex:

Regents will weigh UTSA football plan
By Jerry Briggs - Express-News

UTSA football may take a step closer to reality next week when the University of Texas System regents discuss the issue.

More than a year after the idea was first proposed, the regents have put the issue on the agenda of their two-day session starting Thursday in Austin.

The plan calls for the University of Texas at San Antonio to develop an athletic complex, add a football program and position the school to move all its sports teams into a new conference with a higher caliber of athletics.

The proposed on-campus athletics complex is described in documents as an $84 million project. It would include a football practice field and competitive playing facilities for baseball, softball, soccer, track and tennis.

Initially, UTSA would play in the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA) with a projected kickoff in fall 2011.

Actual games would be at the Alamodome.

Also, the plan calls for UTSA to upgrade all of its 16 sports teams, so the school eventually would be in position to receive an invitation to a conference in the Football Bowl Subdivision, the highest level of Division I.

On the regents' agenda, a document states that the UT System interim chancellor, three vice chancellors and UTSA President Ricardo Romo “concur in the recommendation'' that UTSA should be authorized to proceed with the athletics initiative.

“First of all, that is outstanding,'' UTSA athletic director Lynn Hickey said Friday night. “It's great to hear that there is a positive recommendation going forward.''

If the regents approve the plan, UTSA would be able to start searching for a coach or a football program administrator immediately.

Hickey declined to speculate on what could happen, noting that the regents could approve the plan “with stipulations,'' or could table it.


“At this point, to be given a direction one way or the other would be very good,'' Hickey said. “We're just very excited that there is full discussion on this issue. We'll get to hear how the board feels about our vision plan.''

To implement the plan, UTSA would be faced with a massive fundraising campaign.

For football alone, the university would need to raise $15 million over the next eight years.

UTSA has secured more than $22 million in funding for the complex through public funds. Included in that figure is $15 million from the recently approved extension of the venue tax.

tgannaway89 Dec 13, 2008 9:28 PM

It is set to go before the board just after noon on Thursday. There is no reason to believe the board will not approve the UTSA Athletic Initiative Business Plan.

The entire plan is available on the upcoming agenda:

http://www.utsystem.edu/bor/AgendaBo...8&192008AB.pdf

Proposed athletics complex site plan:

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6...icsplanfu2.gif

I am kinda disappointed that UTSA Blvd. will not be extended to the new development. It would provide really convenient access between the main campus and athletics park. The Babcock/Hausman intersection is already a nightmare and will only be worse with Hausman being the main thoroughfare.

Boquillas Dec 13, 2008 10:58 PM

UTSA Blvd ends at Babcock. Always has, always will. The street running through the College Park subdivision is UTSA Drive. I grew up on UTSA Drive and Foothills Court (the first street in the subdivision). There are already idiots tearing through that subdivision at dangerous speeds. No houses front Hausman. Let them race down Hausman all they want. They can widen Hausman. They can't widen UTSA Drive, unless they plan on ripping out people's driveways. I know the subdivision is suburban sprawl, and far be it for me to be a NIMBY, but there's plenty of other access to the property, and the UTSA car culture has been coddled long enough. Let them walk to the games through College Park. The idiot kids living in Las Colinas and the Oaks and all the other complexes are still driving to school for crying out loud. Non-students coming to games will have access from 1604 regardless, so it shouldn't be an issue.

tgannaway89 Dec 14, 2008 1:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boquillas (Post 3972164)
UTSA Blvd ends at Babcock. Always has, always will. The street running through the College Park subdivision is UTSA Drive. I grew up on UTSA Drive and Foothills Court (the first street in the subdivision). There are already idiots tearing through that subdivision at dangerous speeds. No houses front Hausman. Let them race down Hausman all they want. They can widen Hausman. They can't widen UTSA Drive, unless they plan on ripping out people's driveways. I know the subdivision is suburban sprawl, and far be it for me to be a NIMBY, but there's plenty of other access to the property, and the UTSA car culture has been coddled long enough. Let them walk to the games through College Park. The idiot kids living in Las Colinas and the Oaks and all the other complexes are still driving to school for crying out loud. Non-students coming to games will have access from 1604 regardless, so it shouldn't be an issue.

My main concern was that the current design isn't pedestrian friendly. If they at least extend the sidewalks from UTSA Blvd. to the new athletics park it would only be a 1/2 mile walk from campus. Students aren't going to walk all the way to Hausman and it would be dangerous to walk 1604 access roads.

sirkingwilliam Dec 14, 2008 4:31 AM

Is that arena for basketball?

Boquillas Dec 14, 2008 4:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgannaway89 (Post 3972351)
My main concern was that the current design isn't pedestrian friendly. If they at least extend the sidewalks from UTSA Blvd. to the new athletics park it would only be a 1/2 mile walk from campus. Students aren't going to walk all the way to Hausman and it would be dangerous to walk 1604 access roads.

I agree, but I think it would be more pedestrian friendly if they just used the space they have on their side of Babcock. I know development of the Leon Creek area is part of the proposed "master plan," but that was before football was being considered. I'd really like to see a dense campus come out of this, seeing as how UTSA is becoming less and less of a commuter school.

And I agree about the lack of sidewalks between University Oaks and Babcock. I used to walk that way every day from College Park, on the street or on the grass. Definitely something they should get working on.

tgannaway89 Dec 14, 2008 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam (Post 3972528)
Is that arena for basketball?

Yes! :D

The original plan was to expand/renovate the convocation center this year. Instead campus planners decided it would be better to build a new arena as the current convocation center is too small and out-of-date for serious collegiate basketball. It was built in 1975 and only holds 5,100 people. It will still be used or intramural and commencement ceremonies once the new facility is built [no timetable for construction of latter athletic park phase(s) yet]. I'm hoping the school plans to sell naming rights for the various stadiums to help fund construction.

NThomas Dec 15, 2008 2:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgannaway89 (Post 3973511)
Yes! :D

The original plan was to expand/renovate the convocation center this year. Instead campus planners decided it would be better to build a new arena as the current convocation center is too small and out-of-date for serious collegiate basketball. It was built in 1975 and only holds 5,100 people. It will still be used or intramural and commencement ceremonies once the new facility is built [no timetable for construction of latter athletic park phase(s) yet]. I'm hoping the school plans to sell naming rights for the various stadiums to help fund construction.

With Whataburger's relocation, it could be called the: Whatabasket...:jester:

STLtoSA Dec 15, 2008 4:10 PM

Is anyone else wondering where the parking is? That must be one huge parking garage.

It looks like they are trying to cram as much into that amount of space. It doesn't look like a very well thought out plan.

alexjon Dec 15, 2008 5:06 PM

Regardless, I'm glad I left UTSA.

Of course, UW's teams aren't doing so hot but maybe will be better when I start up in 2010.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.