San Antonio lands UFL team

[AndyG]

I dont see the threat to UTSA football as Wolfe seems to be so adamant about. There is a fan base of students and alumni that are going to commit to UTSA football at the dome, so that shouldn't be an issue. Division I football is great and all but it doesn't need to be the only option for football in San Antonio. And by the looks of it, UTSA will be playing ITT-Tech, Kaplan, etc. the first couple of years so once the excitement wears off, what will be the real draw for your average football fan in San Antonio? If a minor league team with NFL caliber talent is what we need to get behind, then so be it. At least its an option for the city.

I honestly had to look up some of the schools that are UTSA opponents. It will be those type of opponents for the next several years. We just can't sit an wait for UTSA to play Baylor at the dome in 2018. But , we can have quality pro football in 2010. The UFL is the next best thing to the NFL and I think we can all agree that San Antonio isn't getting an NFL team anytime soon. So let's support the UFL now.

[DMX7]

Blake, the NFL owns the San Antonio market with the Cowboys. But it only takes one owner with the will and resources to make it happen (to bring a team here). The NFL may not like it or want it, but I don't think they would step in and actually try to stop it. That undermines the value of ownership. When the Sonics in the NBA were moved to Oklahoma City, the league and league owners didn't stop it even though the Mavericks had a nice base there. Moving to a really small market wasn't good for the league at all but it would have jeopardized the leverage of all league owners to bargin with their city for new contracts, new stadiums, etc. if they had voted down the move.

That said, there is not reason right now to put a team in San Antonio. No owner has the desire, so it's just not going to happen in the foreseeable future. But I wouldn't argue that it can't if the right cir stances arose, which they can (quickly and unexpectedly).

[Blake]

Blake, the NFL owns the San Antonio market with the Cowboys. But it only takes one owner with the will and resources to make it happen (to bring a team here). The NFL may not like it or want it, but I don't think they would step in and actually try to stop it. That undermines the value of ownership. When the Sonics in the NBA were moved to Oklahoma City, the league and league owners didn't stop it even though the Mavericks had a nice base there. Moving to a really small market wasn't good for the league at all but it would have jeopardized the leverage of all league owners to bargin with their city for new contracts, new stadiums, etc. if they had voted down the move.

That said, there is not reason right now to put a team in San Antonio. No owner has the desire, so it's just not going to happen in the foreseeable future. But I wouldn't argue that it can't if the right cir stances arose, which they can (quickly and unexpectedly).

I wouldn't disagree with any of that except for the right cir stances rising quickly in SA......That just doesn't happen here.

[fyatuk]

Blake, the NFL owns the San Antonio market with the Cowboys. But it only takes one owner with the will and resources to make it happen (to bring a team here). The NFL may not like it or want it, but I don't think they would step in and actually try to stop it.

Well, the other owners have to approve, so it takes more than half the owners. Also, there has to be proof of financial gain for the team in question to prevent the other owners from saying no. That will prolly require an agreement on a new stadium here, since there's no gain in value for broadcast contracts, etc, to move here.

[lebomb]

I honestly had to look up some of the schools that are UTSA opponents. It will be those type of opponents for the next several years. We just can't sit an wait for UTSA to play Baylor at the dome in 2018. But , we can have quality pro football in 2010. The UFL is the next best thing to the NFL and I think we can all agree that San Antonio isn't getting an NFL team anytime soon. So let's support the UFL now.

.............and we know the teams in the UFL???

[fyatuk]

.............and we know the teams in the UFL???

Well, it's a farily bad comparison anyway.

I think the point was that if you look at the UFL schedule and you see Las Vegas Locomotives, Orlando Tuskers, Hartford Colonials, and Sacramento Mountain Lions, at least you've know those towns, even if you have no other information about the teams.

If you look at the UTSA schedule, unless you are truly hardcore, you'd have to do some googling to even find what city/state a lot of those teams are in.

It's kind of hard to get excited when I have no idea (off the top of my head) where Northeastern State, McMurry, Bacone, Northwestern State, McNeese State, and Minot State are located (not even which state).

At least with Southern Utah, South Alabama, UC Davis, and Georgia State you have a rough idea.

[lebomb]

Well, it's a farily bad comparison anyway.

I think the point was that if you look at the UFL schedule and you see Las Vegas Locomotives, Orlando Tuskers, Hartford Colonials, and Sacramento Mountain Lions, at least you've know those towns, even if you have no other information about the teams.

If you look at the UTSA schedule, unless you are truly hardcore, you'd have to do some googling to even find what city/state a lot of those teams are in.

It's kind of hard to get excited when I have no idea (off the top of my head) where Northeastern State, McMurry, Bacone, Northwestern State, McNeese State, and Minot State are located (not even which state).

At least with Southern Utah, South Alabama, UC Davis, and Georgia State you have a rough idea.

To me, it means basically the same thing. It really doesnt have anything to do with the location of the team, its not knowing who the the team is or who the the players are.............very much like the Utsa opponents mentioned above. The locomotives, Tuskers and Mountain lions??? are you ting me? Those schools are second tier, just like the UFL.

[fyatuk]

To me, it means basically the same thing. It really doesnt have anything to do with the location of the team, its not knowing who the the team is or who the the players are.............very much like the Utsa opponents mentioned above. The locomotives, Tuskers and Mountain lions??? are you ting me? Those schools are second tier, just like the UFL.

Makes a difference to me. There are some areas of the country I just love to cheer for or against, so if I know where a team is from it makes a difference in my interest level. For example, with UTSA I'm most likely to go to the Southern Utah game at the dome in 2012, just because I love cheering against anything Utah.

The UFL had a lot of players people were familiar with last year, and probably will this year, too, but that does involve looking up something about the UFL. In fact, they might pick up some pretty decent players considering the market is getting flooded with the NFL teams dropping their overpriced players since there is no cap ramifications right now.

And yeah, the UFL has some wacky names, but at least they aren't as odd as Mad Catz, etc, and actually have some relevance to the markets they are in.

UFL is indeed second tier, but UTSAs opponents are 3rd, 4th, or 5th tier. Not that it bothers me, since UTSA has to start out like that and they are working hard to get better opponents.

[lebomb]

Makes a difference to me. There are some areas of the country I just love to cheer for or against, so if I know where a team is from it makes a difference in my interest level. For example, with UTSA I'm most likely to go to the Southern Utah game at the dome in 2012, just because I love cheering against anything Utah.

The UFL had a lot of players people were familiar with last year, and probably will this year, too, but that does involve looking up something about the UFL. In fact, they might pick up some pretty decent players considering the market is getting flooded with the NFL teams dropping their overpriced players since there is no cap ramifications right now.

And yeah, the UFL has some wacky names, but at least they aren't as odd as Mad Catz, etc, and actually have some relevance to the markets they are in.

UFL is indeed second tier, but UTSAs opponents are 3rd, 4th, or 5th tier. Not that it bothers me, since UTSA has to start out like that and they are working hard to get better opponents.

Its all good............we just see it differently. Im just totally uninterested in the UFL. I mean completely. Not that Im right or anything, because we all have our own preferences.

[AndyG]

With the UFL ; you will get to know the teams in a short time. Some of the cities are also basketball rivals. If you follow pro football you will also know some of the players. It is second level pro football; but that is way beyond second level college football. If you watched Versus last season you should agree that it is quality football, if you didn't you should at least give it a chance.The main problem I have with anti-UFLer's is that many think that if they don't like it and don't want to see it; then city shouldn't allow anyone to see it.

[fyatuk]

The main problem I have with anti-UFLer's is that many think that if they don't like it and don't want to see it; then city shouldn't allow anyone to see it.

Yeah, that's the at ude that's been bothering me as well. It doesn't bother me coming from Hickey (since it's her job to look after the best interest of her programs, and obviously having any compe ion is bad for her program).

Like lebomb said, we all have our own preferences and it seems re ed to me to try and enforce our preferences on others.

[Cane]

To me, it means basically the same thing. It really doesnt have anything to do with the location of the team, its not knowing who the the team is or who the the players are.............very much like the Utsa opponents mentioned above. The locomotives, Tuskers and Mountain lions??? are you ting me? Those schools are second tier, just like the UFL.

Agreed.

[DMX7]

If you look at the UTSA schedule, unless you are truly hardcore, you'd have to do some googling to even find what city/state a lot of those teams are in.

It's only a first year schedule. The team is made up mostly of underclassmen, so you have to schedule easy the first year or so, and that means playing teams you've probably never heard of. It will get much more interesting in the years to come, but UFL could hurt the development of the program by stealing sponsors and casual fans. If it does that, then utsa football's long term potential could be diminished. It's just not worth it for a minor league team that will probably fold in 2 years or so.

[fyatuk]

It's only a first year schedule. The team is made up mostly of underclassmen, so you have to schedule easy the first year or so, and that means playing teams you've probably never heard of. It will get much more interesting in the years to come, but UFL could hurt the development of the program by stealing sponsors and casual fans. If it does that, then utsa football's long term potential could be diminished. It's just not worth it for a minor league team that will probably fold in 2 years or so.

I understand about the schedule. I mentioned that it doesn't really bother me, just not something that gets me excited. I've mentioned in other places I thought it was a very good 1st year schedule.

As far as the stealing of sponsors and casual fans go, Michael Sawaya said it all. UTSA has not shown anything to suggest that would be the case to a significant degree. The demographics and fan bases between college and pro are significantly different for the most part. Yeah, you might lose a little who were settling for UTSA because they got something that fit them better, but it's not likely to be enough to seriously hamper UTSA's development.

In the meantime you are passing up guaranteed city revenue in a down economy.

If the UFL is willing to sign a one year lease, or a multi-year lease with a city escape clause, I don't see any reason not to bring them in. If it does turn out they are significantly hurting UTSA, just kick them out. And that's if they survive long enough to truly interfere with UTSA which starts a full year later.

[AndyG]

If it's going to fold why worry? The problem is UTSA not having confidence in their own program. They want to be able to force feed us UTSA football; without us having a choice. It's wrong and shallow. San Antonio has a 2 million metro market and is big enough for both. With major national sponsorship that the UFL has (Motorola, Men's Warehouse etc) and a television contract you would think UTSA would be open to cross marketing. It would be different if it was the NFL. An NFL team would dominate everything , but UTSA would be silent for fear of looking stupid.

[fyatuk]

San Antonio has a 2 million metro market and is big enough for both. With major national sponsorship that the UFL has (Motorola, Men's Warehouse etc) and a television contract you would think UTSA would be open to cross marketing.

The problem is what's allowed within NCAA rules. There could be some serious issues there.

Plus the national sponsors the UFL has are not going to affect UTSA at all. It's local level sponsors that any co-marketting would involve. The UFL is not going to carve our a piece from its national contracts to give to a college in one city.

[AndyG]

The problem is what's allowed within NCAA rules. There could be some serious issues there.

Plus the national sponsors the UFL has are not going to affect UTSA at all. It's local level sponsors that any co-marketting would involve. The UFL is not going to carve our a piece from its national contracts to give to a college in one city.

But it wouldn't be surprising that co marketing deals are in place with Sac St and UConn, that involve national sponsors to at least some degree.
It also hard to imagine a UTSA sponsor would just jump over to the UFL, because they are in town.

[DMX7]

If it's going to fold why worry?

Because it would've disrupted the fragile growth phase of utsa football for nothing.

It would be different if it was the NFL. An NFL team would dominate everything , but UTSA would be silent for fear of looking stupid.

An NFL team is an NFL team. It would be great for the city way beyond however much it diminished utsa football.

A UFL team adds nothing and I'm not going to repeat the negatives.

[AndyG]

Because it would've disrupted the fragile growth phase of utsa football for nothing.



An NFL team is an NFL team. It would be great for the city way beyond however much it diminished utsa football.

A UFL team adds nothing and I'm not going to repeat the negatives.

Fragile growth , this is a small college football team, this adds very little; IWC and Trinity are already here. Very few people will give a crap.
The UFL team adds entretainment value and adds to the financial viability of the Alamodome.Again you seem you keep to referring to San Antonio as a small town that can't support more than one team.Very shallow and small townish.; maybe if this was Laredo or Odessa you would have a point but San Antonio ; this is a city of over 2 million.

[lebomb]

Fragile growth , this is a small college football team, this adds very little; IWC and Trinity are already here. Very few people will give a crap.
The UFL team adds entretainment value and adds to the financial viability of the Alamodome.Again you seem you keep to referring to San Antonio as a small town that can't support more than one team.Very shallow and small townish.; maybe if this was Laredo or Odessa you would have a point but San Antonio ; this is a city of over 2 million.

Andy, Im willing to bet you anything just as many or MORE people will give two S about the UFL.

[DMX7]

Fragile growth , this is a small college football team, this adds very little; IWC and Trinity are already here. Very few people will give a crap.
The UFL team adds entretainment value and adds to the financial viability of the Alamodome.Again you seem you keep to referring to San Antonio as a small town that can't support more than one team.Very shallow and small townish.; maybe if this was Laredo or Odessa you would have a point but San Antonio ; this is a city of over 2 million.

College football at least had the potential to sell out the Alamodome one day. UFL does not.

[fyatuk]

College football at least had the potential to sell out the Alamodome one day. UFL does not.

You can't really say that. "One day" is way too ambigious and leaves to many things open for interpretation. If we're just talking possibilities, then the UFL does indeed have the possibility, just not a very good one.

UTSA will only sell out the dome if a school with a big local following plays (UT, A&M, Army, etc), though. Not many programs can sell 65k+ to random games.

Besides, what's the relevance in ability to sell out the dome? From the city's perspective the only thing that matters is them being able to pay for their use of the dome.

[DMX7]

You can't really say that. "One day" is way too ambigious and leaves to many things open for interpretation. If we're just talking possibilities, then the UFL does indeed have the possibility, just not a very good one.

Average attedance was less than 10K for the UFL's first season. I guarantee UTSA averages more than that in its first season, at least 75% more at minimum.

[fyatuk]

Average attedance was less than 10K for the UFL's first season. I guarantee UTSA averages more than that in its first season, at least 75% more at minimum.

Only if you count the abandoned markets of New York and San Francisco. The league averaged about 15k in Las Vegas and about 12k in Orlando, without any real marketing. With a normal marketing campaign here in San Antonio they'd probably draw 15-18k. (we've historically put out 12-15k anyway).

Which is what I've always said UTSA would average in year one. I think year 2 for UTSA will drop off a little, though.

But again, what's the relevance?

[DMX7]

Only if you count the abandoned markets of New York and San Francisco. The league averaged about 15k in Las Vegas and about 12k in Orlando, without any real marketing. With a normal marketing campaign here in San Antonio they'd probably draw 15-18k. (we've historically put out 12-15k anyway).

Which is what I've always said UTSA would average in year one. I think year 2 for UTSA will drop off a little, though.

But again, what's the relevance?

The relevance is obvious; attendance is a primary gauge of interest and long term sustainability.