The New Cowboy's Stadium and Recruiting
by UT_BKC on Aug 5, 2009 11:39 AM CDT
Email
Print
I was reading Burnt Orange Gold in The Eyes of Texas, and it brought me back to something I started thinking about a year ago when Arkansas dropped us to play A&M for 10 years (by the way, great article and great magazine!).
Does the new Dallas Cowboy stadium hurt us in recruiting?
Having a BIG game in Dallas every year, obviously, really helps our exposure there. Although it currently isn’t nearly as important as the Red River Shoot Out Rivalry, the A&M/Ark game will still be a highly promoted game between 2 BCS teams.
Arkansas has always attempted to pull talent from the north end of the state in much the same way as OU has. Now they have a big game in the second biggest recruiting hot bed in Texas. Even worse, as much as some of us would like to deny it, A&M still has a big following and Sherman has done a good job of recruiting. Now he can tell recruits in Dallas that they can come to A&M and be guaranteed of playing in the (new) Cotton Bowl every year in front of their friends and family on national TV.
OU is also getting the opportunity to play the first game in this new stadium. Will they get more games like this? Will their extra exposure hurt us?
Do we start seeing a few more 4 and 5 star recruits start slipping away because of this?
With that in mind, I would like to see us get another game in Dallas each year. Do a long term deal with a BCS team if we have to, or invite UTEP/TCU/A New Warm Body to play us there each year.
Also, while making my scheduling/recruiting wish list, here are a couple other things:
1) Play in Houston every year. I think it’s great that we might play in Reliant next year. That will be good for us. I say either invite a team to play in Reliant every year, or set up Home-Away with Rice and UH so that we play one of them in Houston every year (the other at home, obviously).
2) Pick a state and mine it by scheduling some games there. Florida and California are the next largest hot beds for recruiting but distance and competition (at least in Florida) may be too great. I would actually set my sights on Louisiana. Not as many recruits, but we are much closer. That would save money on recruiting trips, plus, we’d already have a bit more exposure there, and making it to camps/campus would be easier on recruits. I believe going and playing a game there every other year would, in the long run, pay off for us in recruiting Louisiana (and maybe even east Texas). We could play LSU, but I don’t think we have to; Tulane would work just fine. Maybe we could invite FSU/Ga/South Carolina or someone similar to meet us in the ‘middle’ and play at the Superdome occasionally?
The only problem I see is the decrease in home games. That would be 1 in Dallas and Houston every year, and one in Louisiana every other. So an average of 1.5 home non-con games and 3.5 conference games gives us only 5 home games a year (if I’m correct about the number of home conference games). Maybe a big time deal at Jerry World would be enough to make up for the lost revenue from the home game?
What are your thoughts? Does this hurt us? As mentioned in Burnt Orange Gold, we can't just ignore this and write it off because “We're Texas.” We have to look at the possibility that teams that we are already competing heavily against for recruits might get an advantage playing in what will be the newest, best football stadium in a city full of talented high school players. And if it does, what do we do about it?
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Playing at least one game in Dallas and one in Houston every season, perhaps alternating between beating up local teams (Rice/UH in Houston; TCU/SMU/UNT in Dallas) and facing a high-quality opponent would be a good idea, but I think every-other year would be more realistic. Home games are important, and I can’t see UT agreeing to play visitor to Rice, Houston, TCU, SMU, etc. without getting at least one, probably two reciprocals.
Example of non-conference schedule in consecutive seasons:
200_
Arkansas @DKR
Rice @Reliant
TCU @DKR
Brush-up game (New Mexico, UTEP, etc.) @DKR
200_+1
Respectable Mid-Major University (BYU, UCF, Southern Miss, Troy, etc.)
Arkansas @Shantytown
TCU @Jerryworld or Ft. Worth
Rice @DKR
I definitely think UT missed the boat by not locking Arkansas into a long-term alternating agreement. I think it’d make great sense for the opening game of every-other season to be Arkansas visiting UT, and then if possible make UT @Ark a non-opening game, mostly because UT needs to push for home openers every year.
It depends on what you mean “on the table.” Was it something that could have been pursued? Yes. Was it something that was discussed with any seriousness before the Ark-aTm series was established? I’m inclined to guess that it wasn’t. But I tend to think of Arkansas as the best possible opponent for an every-year, non-conference opponent, like Iowa-ISU, Louisville-Kentucky, Michigan-Notre Dame, etc. There’s the historical and, um, “lively” rivalry, the fact that Ark would actually bring some credibility to UT’s non-con schedule, and the possibility of further increasing recruiting strength toward the northeast.
by burntorangehorn on Aug 5, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Not that keen on a permanent Arkansas rivalry
It doesn’t do anything for me. I’d like the flexibility to have other primary BCS opponents each year. Imagine having Arkansas as the most exciting non-conference game EVERY year, since as current scheduling goes we’d see no other BCS non-conference opponents. I like having the variety of UCLA and Ole Miss to look forward to in upcoming years.
The Arkansas “rivalry” has also struck me as being waaaaay too one-sided in terms of intensity. A few years ago, Houston Nutt started punishing players during practice by making the bad apples wear pink jerseys. Eventually, the breast cancer lobby complained about the inappropriate use of pink. (I’m not sure at what point the breast cancer lobby gained a monopoly on determining what constitutes an appropriate use of the color pink, but that’s another post.) Nutt said that, instead, of pink, he would make his players where burnt orange because of their hatred of UT.
Keep in mind that this is 15+ years after Arkansas left the SWC. If Mack Brown decided he wanted to punish players by making them wear the colors of a rival, how far down the list of bad jerseys would the Razorbacks be?
Having Arkansas as the most exciting annual non-conference game every year sure beats the heck out of having some years when UCF is the most exciting one and then occasionally facing a UCLA or Ole Miss. But there’s absolutely no reason why UT couldn’t play Ark on a permanent basis, then face another quality (BCS or higher mid-major) opponent in addition.
And I think Texas players who were indeed Texas fans before coming to UT would probably put Arkansas third at worst, behind OU and aTm.
by burntorangehorn on Aug 5, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Will Muschamp's influence....
…..on OOC scheduling will be a real boost to our home schedules of the future.
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
Why so much deference to Muschamp, who has very little known history in terms of recruiting, and so little deference to the holdover recruiting staff?
by burntorangehorn on Aug 6, 2009 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions
As I've pointed out on.....
…… a number of occasions, Oscar Giles is probably our finest identifier of player talent. In addition, he gets them on campus!! Finally, his player development (coaching & teaching) skills are as pure as we have on this staff. With going on 11 years of experience, why the heck is he the least compensated assistant on the staff? He deserves much better.
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
Seems irrelevant to me
Remember that Cowboys Stadium is only going to be the shiny new thing for a couple of years. I can’t imagine that it’s going to be a long-term detriment to us. Can you imagine any recruit saying now, “Well, Texas wants me, and all things considered, I’d rather be a Horn, but if I go to A&M, I get to play Arkansas in Cowboys Stadium, so College Station here I come!” Doesn’t seem that plausible to me — but if there is such a recruit and that’s the determining factor, I’m not sure he’s the guy I’d want anyway.
And planting the flag in additional states might be easier in a sport like basketball, with its much longer schedule, than in football. It’d be great to play a bunch of games across the country, but with only 12 games, and one already slated for a neutral site, there’s really no way to dedicate any other regularly-scheduled games at neutral sites. Though once-in-a-blue-moon one-off neutral site games would be fine (as I suggested in another thread, if Army is looking for future opponents for games in Yankee Stadium, count me in).
That’s pretty much exactly the mentality I’m talking about. Of course playing one game a year in Dallas isn’t going to make all the difference. It can however be a contributing factor. You get a big game in a big stadium. If you’re from Dallas, you get to play in front of all your family and friends (and the ease of family getting to see games certainly does make a big difference). The Aggies get an easy opportunity to get some tickets to recruits and have them watch their game, and that’s the biggest thing. It is more exposure at a high level. If that wasn’t dangerous, there would have been a long term deal to play LSU in Reliant long ago.
We certainly shouldn’t get intot he mentality of “I don’t want 4/5 star recruits X, Y, and Z because they are attracted to the chance to play in a big game close to home.” Instead, we should look at why that is attractive to them, and attempt to make ourselves more appealing in that area.
Tickets to recruits
Keep in mind that these Dallas-area recruits (who are of course already getting a game a year in Dallas by coming to UT) in whom we’d be interested would also get tickets to the Red River Shootout — another chance to play in a big game close to home. Something tells me that the atmosphere in the Cotton Bowl this October will be a wee bit more exciting than it will be in Cowboys Stadium when two out-of-the-top-25 teams meet.
This isn’t just a “We’re Texas” thing: it’s partly a Red River Shootout game thing — I’d take the atmosphere in the Cotton Bowl over the atmosphere in any gigantic NFL stadium with any two similar teams who haven’t played each other in 20 years. But I also think you might be over-estimating the ability of Cowboys Stadium to allow for a truly exciting atmosphere. That thing is huge, and even when covered, noise just isn’t going to be as loud in there (for college and pro games) as it will be in smaller, older stadiums like the Cotton Bowl. That’s tended to be the case in most newer NFL stadiums which have opened in recent years. The Sports Guy on ESPN had an excellent column last fall detailing what has been, essentially, the complete loss of any sense of home-field advantage in the NFL due to the antiseptic, quiet atmosphere created by these new stadiums.
Yes, we do have a much bigger game in Dallas. But you can’t say that this game will not increase the exposure that A&M has currently.
It’s also not just A&M, although I think they stand to benefit the most.
The sooners have another game there this year as well. My fear is that our influence in Dallas and ability to get recruits out of that city will decrease while our opponents’ increases.
You might be right about the atmosphere, but I still have the feeling that Jerry World will eventually take over, and the Cotton Bowl will get moved (as well as the 5th BCS game getting moved there).
The problem is the comparison . . .
. . . between the Cotton Bowl and the “Shiny New Thing”. It seems amazingly short-sighted to agree to play in the Cotton Bowl rather than the JerryDome. What is the upside? We (UT and OU) could have, by a stroke of the pen, agreed to play in the “Shiny New Thing”. If that had happened we would not be having this conversation.
On the other hand, don’t be fooled into thinking that getting to the JerryDome is easy. I would rather drive to Austin to a really nice on-campus stadium that fight traffic and parking in Arlington (at least for a couple of years it will really suck). I don’t think that Ark or A&M will get a recruiting boost over UT from this game. But, they just might get a boost over OU!!!!!
the advantage for A&M and Arkansas isn't just in recruiting
it is financial, too.
Their deal with Jerryworld pays them more every year than the deal OU and texas have with the Cotton Bowl.
It is one of the very few things that $Bill has done right at A&M.
As for setting up something to benefit texas, why not take the step $Bill was terrified to take (because of the benefits of recruiting to LSU, he claimed) and set up a neutral site game series with LSU in Reliant for 6 years. Yes, you’d lose a home game, but playing LSU would be a lot more exciting for texas fans than playing Arkansas. As one commenter already pointed out, that rivalry is very one-sided in its hatred. I get the impression texas fans only think about Arkansas in years they’ve lost a game to them, in which case y’all are pissed b/c you lost a game. If you win the game, you move on to whoever you play the next week. I’ve talked to many Arkansas fans, and they consider y’all an archrival. However, getting LSU in Reliant would give you two high-profile neutral site games in Texas’ two biggest cities every year, and would probably go far towards preparing y’all for post-season play. You’d essentially be playing two games in a bowl-type atmosphere every year.
The other option would be a neutral site home-and-away deal, where you do Reliant one year, Superdome in New Orleans in alternate years, and give your fanbase a fun road trip.
Just thinking out loud here. I hope DeLoss decides both ideas suck, b/c I think they’d both help your program.
How would tickets be given out?
Would season ticket holders still get a seat for the “home” game or would it be like ou and based on LF contributions?
Beergut…how is TAMU and the piggies giving out tickets?
We're Texas...and you're NOT
Beergut…how is TAMU and the piggies giving out tickets?
$Bill is holding up old ladies as they cross the street and demanding all their money for tickets. Seriously, our ticket plan for the Arkansas game is a joke. I believe the cheapest tickets are in the upper decks of the endzones, and those are going for $85. That is in addition to the $30 or $40 you will pay for parking, depending on whether or not you want to tailgate.
The decent seats between the 30s are going for $350, but $Bill tried to make it sound innocent by claiming $175 of the price is a “donation” to the athletic department. Donation or not, you are still looking at paying damn near $400 for a ticket to one freaking game.
I do know that the prices for the A&M-Arkansas game are more than what y’all are paying for the OU game, and considering the status of the two rivalries, the ranked teams involved, etc, that is just a f*cking joke. My understanding right now is that sales are not going well (surprise, surprise), but I don’t have any solid numbers to back that up.
In the scenario I outlined for y’all, I would assume a neutral site game with LSU would have tickets distributed based on donation amount, just like the OU game. When the series starts, however, there may not be as much demand as there is for OU tickets, so early on you may be able ot get tickets for face value. This is just a hypothetical, though.
I like the idea of an occasional game at a pro stadium if there’s a valid reason (state-of-the-art facility like Jerryworld or great tradition like Soldier or Lambeau), but the parking issue is probably my least favorite. I park for free and walk to every game I attend, unless I have a parking pass that is either inexpensive or comes with a ticket package. This includes Ravens and Orioles games here, ‘Horns and Jayhawks games back west, Cards games in StL, etc. I go out of my way to avoid paying for parking for sporting events. But what grinds my gears is when teams build their effing ballparks far away from the rest of the city. In addition to my hatred of Carl Peterson, part of the reason I refused to buy tickets to go to Chiefs games was that they had their stupid sports complex out on cheap pastureland outside the city, yet still charged $20-50 for parking. I imagine Jerryworld is going to be in an area where it’s impossible to go to the game without paying for parking or hopping on a bus, so I can guess that it’s another place I’d probably end up avoiding.
Plus, hell, who wants to sit around in traffic for two hours before and after a game? I’d rather walk out of the stadium and into a bar.
by burntorangehorn on Aug 6, 2009 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Again, it’s lame as hell to sit on the bus for hours before and after the game. Doesn’t that ruin the mood for you? Ever tried it?
by burntorangehorn on Aug 6, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
I ride the train to every baseball game I go to
It’s like a bus, except bigger.
And why would you sit on the bus for hours?
Because it takes a couple of hours for a bus to wade through the same traffic as all the cars do to get into and out of the Truman Sports Complex.
Trains? Don’t make me laugh. In middle America, trains are for cargo, not people. Ain’t got no use for efficient public transportation.
I’m not sure if you really think there are trains to ride to most of these isolated outside-the-city ballparks or not, but there usually are not.
by burntorangehorn on Aug 6, 2009 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions
I should have, but I didn’t mention the money. To me it positive feedback if done correctly that leads to better recruiting.
More money → better facilities/coaches/ect → more attractive to recruits → win more games → bigger better bowls, more fans in seats, more merchandising → make more money….
Piss off home fan base because of less games at home ->
Lose big revenue of big donors and luxury boxes → Less fans in seats
A&M
it might hurt a&m when the get beat down this year by Arkansas.
Apologies for Arrogance
But we’re Texas and the Aggies are not and will never be. I look for this game to have little impact on Texas recruiting and Sherman to be out of AM within 2 – 3 years.
by realmccoy on Aug 6, 2009 6:12 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Yeah, right, because we never go 7-13 against the aggies, have a 4-9 bowl record, and an overall 62% winning percentage…. Oh, wait, that was the 80s and 90s.
Ouch. Very ouch.
Anyone care to complain about Mack Brown? Anyone? HC?
by burntorangehorn on Aug 7, 2009 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions
Everything i read during the prior Ark/UT scheduling was that it helped Ark recruit more than UT to schedule games, regardless of location. It gave Ark a foothold to be relevant in Dallas/Texas that had weakened once they joined the SEC. A Dallas game benefits Ark even more so I am not upset by the A&M agreement. If anything, it will make A&M win/loss record worse for a few years without the normal Div II school Fran scheduled to boost the record.
by everything horns on Aug 7, 2009 2:48 PM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
