Belt officials need to be looking at endowment and research profile for future expansion members.

Hasn't UNC-Charlotte adding football, let move them on up, they are an old Sunbelt team. ODU too.

(02-13-2012 10:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I think UTSA would be a really great option for the belt because they bring a good market and a good stadium from my understanding. And unlike some FCS teams UTSA already has a schedule to become a D1 school so it would be as low a risk as you can make in terms of adding an fcs team. I just can't get excited about TXST now because I have never heard of them and it just seems like a WAC desperation move up. And to put things in perspective their literally at the same level as South Alabama right now so a 2013 join would be pretty ideal.

La Tech...I just may have pride but I think I would rather see big on their knee's or go back to FCS from the way their fans used to talk about us. A little over a year ago Tech fans mocked the Sun Belt and claimed they were runner ups for conference USA or bound to be in the alliance. So I ask why not Georgia St? UTSA technically won't be a FCS move up because they are WAC bound and La Tech has had some decent seasons to be followed by bad ones. But it won't help us a lot going forward to add them, won't give us a new market, and won't improve recruiting. Georgia St is not very well followed but gives a great market and probably decent attendance over time because I'm sure most Sun Belt schools have many alumni in the city.

Never heard of us? Troy played in the Southland Football Conference with us not ten/fifteen years ago.

I'm not saying we've made a name for ourselves like Appy or Georgia Southern, but we are a good addition if you want to expand your Texas presence?

The WAC liked us because we were located between two major media markets, we are the third most popular school by total apps in a high population state, and we are finally committed to improving our athletics.

(02-13-2012 10:39 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I think UTSA would be a really great option for the belt because they bring a good market and a good stadium from my understanding. And unlike some FCS teams UTSA already has a schedule to become a D1 school so it would be as low a risk as you can make in terms of adding an fcs team. I just can't get excited about TXST now because I have never heard of them and it just seems like a WAC desperation move up. And to put things in perspective their literally at the same level as South Alabama right now so a 2013 join would be pretty ideal.

La Tech...I just may have pride but I think I would rather see big on their knee's or go back to FCS from the way their fans used to talk about us. A little over a year ago Tech fans mocked the Sun Belt and claimed they were runner ups for conference USA or bound to be in the alliance. So I ask why not Georgia St? UTSA technically won't be a FCS move up because they are WAC bound and La Tech has had some decent seasons to be followed by bad ones. But it won't help us a lot going forward to add them, won't give us a new market, and won't improve recruiting. Georgia St is not very well followed but gives a great market and probably decent attendance over time because I'm sure most Sun Belt schools have many alumni in the city.

Never heard of us? Troy played in the Southland Football Conference with us not ten/fifteen years ago.

I'm not saying we've made a name for ourselves like Appy or Georgia Southern, but we are a good addition if you want to expand your Texas presence?

The WAC liked us because we were located between two major media markets, we are the third most popular school by total apps in a high population state, and we are finally committed to improving our athletics.

Compare yourselves with TX-SA. What do you bring that they don't ?

Also, would your fans want to come to the Belt over what is left of the WAC ?

(02-13-2012 10:39 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I think UTSA would be a really great option for the belt because they bring a good market and a good stadium from my understanding. And unlike some FCS teams UTSA already has a schedule to become a D1 school so it would be as low a risk as you can make in terms of adding an fcs team. I just can't get excited about TXST now because I have never heard of them and it just seems like a WAC desperation move up. And to put things in perspective their literally at the same level as South Alabama right now so a 2013 join would be pretty ideal.

La Tech...I just may have pride but I think I would rather see big on their knee's or go back to FCS from the way their fans used to talk about us. A little over a year ago Tech fans mocked the Sun Belt and claimed they were runner ups for conference USA or bound to be in the alliance. So I ask why not Georgia St? UTSA technically won't be a FCS move up because they are WAC bound and La Tech has had some decent seasons to be followed by bad ones. But it won't help us a lot going forward to add them, won't give us a new market, and won't improve recruiting. Georgia St is not very well followed but gives a great market and probably decent attendance over time because I'm sure most Sun Belt schools have many alumni in the city.

Never heard of us? Troy played in the Southland Football Conference with us not ten/fifteen years ago.

I'm not saying we've made a name for ourselves like Appy or Georgia Southern, but we are a good addition if you want to expand your Texas presence?

The WAC liked us because we were located between two major media markets, we are the third most popular school by total apps in a high population state, and we are finally committed to improving our athletics.

I think the WAC will work out just as well or better for TxState

you can compete with any of the current members, the WAC has proven time and again that schools can move up from it (though those chances may be narrowing now for everyone) and with a small conference schedule it gives you a chance to mold your OOC schedule to fit what you need to do to build your program instead of trying to "build a conference" which really comes from programs building themselves up anyway

I never recall anyone ever saying "man conference X is so tough every school went .500 in conference"

the WAC has a "story" as well and if a school or two can get rolling it will be back to being a media darling and talking about how time and again schools can join the WAC and make a name for themselves

winning is contagious and the WAC gives their schools a chance to win and to get to a bowl game and build upon that along with the media just waiting for the next WAC team to surprise everyone like so many others have

(02-13-2012 10:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  A little over a year ago Tech fans mocked the Sun Belt and claimed they were runner ups for conference USA or bound to be in the alliance.

A year ago? Try 'yesterday'....and probably today as well.

(02-13-2012 10:39 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I think UTSA would be a really great option for the belt because they bring a good market and a good stadium from my understanding. And unlike some FCS teams UTSA already has a schedule to become a D1 school so it would be as low a risk as you can make in terms of adding an fcs team. I just can't get excited about TXST now because I have never heard of them and it just seems like a WAC desperation move up. And to put things in perspective their literally at the same level as South Alabama right now so a 2013 join would be pretty ideal.

La Tech...I just may have pride but I think I would rather see big on their knee's or go back to FCS from the way their fans used to talk about us. A little over a year ago Tech fans mocked the Sun Belt and claimed they were runner ups for conference USA or bound to be in the alliance. So I ask why not Georgia St? UTSA technically won't be a FCS move up because they are WAC bound and La Tech has had some decent seasons to be followed by bad ones. But it won't help us a lot going forward to add them, won't give us a new market, and won't improve recruiting. Georgia St is not very well followed but gives a great market and probably decent attendance over time because I'm sure most Sun Belt schools have many alumni in the city.

Never heard of us? Troy played in the Southland Football Conference with us not ten/fifteen years ago.

I'm not saying we've made a name for ourselves like Appy or Georgia Southern, but we are a good addition if you want to expand your Texas presence?

The WAC liked us because we were located between two major media markets, we are the third most popular school by total apps in a high population state, and we are finally committed to improving our athletics.

Sorry that was before my time. All I know is that you guys are one of the largest in the state. Troy isn't hot stuff and I'm not saying we are if I'm making it seem like that. But just to me if it was UTSA and TxSt I would take UTSA.

Both seems like it would have a negative effect on the conference and Texas recruiting. I'm sure UNT isn't very thrilled about either of you moving up to begin with and I can understand because I don't want to see Jax St move up.

(02-13-2012 11:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:39 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I think UTSA would be a really great option for the belt because they bring a good market and a good stadium from my understanding. And unlike some FCS teams UTSA already has a schedule to become a D1 school so it would be as low a risk as you can make in terms of adding an fcs team. I just can't get excited about TXST now because I have never heard of them and it just seems like a WAC desperation move up. And to put things in perspective their literally at the same level as South Alabama right now so a 2013 join would be pretty ideal.

La Tech...I just may have pride but I think I would rather see big on their knee's or go back to FCS from the way their fans used to talk about us. A little over a year ago Tech fans mocked the Sun Belt and claimed they were runner ups for conference USA or bound to be in the alliance. So I ask why not Georgia St? UTSA technically won't be a FCS move up because they are WAC bound and La Tech has had some decent seasons to be followed by bad ones. But it won't help us a lot going forward to add them, won't give us a new market, and won't improve recruiting. Georgia St is not very well followed but gives a great market and probably decent attendance over time because I'm sure most Sun Belt schools have many alumni in the city.

Never heard of us? Troy played in the Southland Football Conference with us not ten/fifteen years ago.

I'm not saying we've made a name for ourselves like Appy or Georgia Southern, but we are a good addition if you want to expand your Texas presence?

The WAC liked us because we were located between two major media markets, we are the third most popular school by total apps in a high population state, and we are finally committed to improving our athletics.

Sorry that was before my time. All I know is that you guys are one of the largest in the state. Troy isn't hot stuff and I'm not saying we are if I'm making it seem like that. But just to me if it was UTSA and TxSt I would take UTSA.

Both seems like it would have a negative effect on the conference and Texas recruiting. I'm sure UNT isn't very thrilled about either of you moving up to begin with and I can understand because I don't want to see Jax St move up.

Bingo

(02-13-2012 10:49 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:39 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I think UTSA would be a really great option for the belt because they bring

La Tech...I just may have pride but I think I would rather see big on their knee's or go back to FCS from the way their fans used to talk about us. A little over a year ago Tech fans mocked the Sun Belt and claimed they were runner ups for conference USA or bound to be in the alliance. So I ask why not Georgia St? UTSA technically won't be a FCS move up because they are WAC bound and La Tech has had some decent seasons to be followed by bad ones. But it won't help us a lot going forward to add them, won't give us a new market, and won't improve recruiting. Georgia St is not very well followed but gives a great market and probably decent attendance over time because I'm sure most Sun Belt schools have many alumni in the city.

Never heard of us? Troy played in the Southland Football Conference with us not ten/fifteen years ago.

I'm not saying we've made a name for ourselves like Appy or Georgia Southern, but we are a good addition if you want to expand your Texas presence?

The WAC liked us because we were located between two major media markets, we are the third most popular school by total apps in a high population state, and we are finally committed to improving our athletics.

Compare yourselves with TX-SA. What do you bring that they don't ?

Also, would your fans want to come to the Belt over what is left of the WAC ?

pride, history, tradition, on campus facilities, coverage in two media markets, strong alumni bases through out Texas
In terms of facilities, ours are better with the exception of the Alamo Dome.

That being said, their basketball is better, they got the dome, the focus of a single media market, and rumors of a new bowl game.

an Smu fan on the cusa board, calallenstang, said that the only people pushing for UTSA are people from outside the state. Everyone in Texas advocates for txstate (except UNT).

I can't speak for our fans. We've been hearing WAC WAC WAC for the last year so I think there would be some disappointment. However, fbs is fbs and we have to start somewhere.

Then again, I can't say if our opinion would be any different than UTSA.

(02-13-2012 11:11 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  A little over a year ago Tech fans mocked the Sun Belt and claimed they were runner ups for conference USA or bound to be in the alliance.

A year ago? Try 'yesterday'....and probably today as well.

You are correct . . try in the last few minutes . .

(02-13-2012 11:30 PM)MeanGreenFan123 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 11:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Sorry that was before my time. All I know is that you guys are one of the largest in the state. Troy isn't hot stuff and I'm not saying we are if I'm making it seem like that. But just to me if it was UTSA and TxSt I would take UTSA.

Both seems like it would have a negative effect on the conference and Texas recruiting. I'm sure UNT isn't very thrilled about either of you moving up to begin with and I can understand because I don't want to see Jax St move up.

Bingo

they are already in the passing lane and bumper to bumper with you academically while you have steam coming out from under the hood of the green Buick and are looking to move over into the break down lane...and it will only take a bowl win or two over the next decade for them to pass you by athletically

but hey that new "strategic plan and branding" that came out today should help right

(02-14-2012 12:00 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 11:30 PM)MeanGreenFan123 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 11:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Sorry that was before my time. All I know is that you guys are one of the largest in the state. Troy isn't hot stuff and I'm not saying we are if I'm making it seem like that. But just to me if it was UTSA and TxSt I would take UTSA.

Both seems like it would have a negative effect on the conference and Texas recruiting. I'm sure UNT isn't very thrilled about either of you moving up to begin with and I can understand because I don't want to see Jax St move up.

Bingo

they are already in the passing lane and bumper to bumper with you academically while you have steam coming out from under the hood of the green Buick and are looking to move over into the break down lane...and it will only take a bowl win or two over the next decade for them to pass you by athletically

but hey that new "strategic plan and branding" that came out today should help right

Why is there always a thread about academics when it comes to athletics? No school in this, or any other conference, and I'd venture to guess that this goes for the Ivy League as well, has all 4.0 26-36 ACT scorin' players. As long as they make it through the clearing house and the coaches want them, whether it's my team our yours, they'll take him...

(02-14-2012 12:22 AM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 12:00 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 11:30 PM)MeanGreenFan123 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 11:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Sorry that was before my time. All I know is that you guys are one of the largest in the state. Troy isn't hot stuff and I'm not saying we are if I'm making it seem like that. But just to me if it was UTSA and TxSt I would take UTSA.

Both seems like it would have a negative effect on the conference and Texas recruiting. I'm sure UNT isn't very thrilled about either of you moving up to begin with and I can understand because I don't want to see Jax St move up.

Bingo

they are already in the passing lane and bumper to bumper with you academically while you have steam coming out from under the hood of the green Buick and are looking to move over into the break down lane...and it will only take a bowl win or two over the next decade for them to pass you by athletically

but hey that new "strategic plan and branding" that came out today should help right

Why is there always a thread about academics when it comes to athletics? No school in this, or any other conference, and I'd venture to guess that this goes for the Ivy League as well, has all 4.0 26-36 ACT scorin' players. As long as they make it through the clearing house and the coaches want them, whether it's my team our yours, they'll take him...

1. I believe it is because it is about COLLEGE athletics and athletics being used as a window to a UNIVERSITY

2. does anyone want to be in a conference filled with schools that load up on partial qualifiers and or use APR exemptions to sign academic morons....especially when that often gives that school an unfair advantage

3. the NCAA has already bumped up the APR requirements and might just keep doing it.....IMO it is a great way to weed out programs that really have no business in D1-A and should probably be spending more resources on academics.....if a school is in a conference that is filled with others not making their APR requirements that reflects badly on the conference and the other members and it can lead to a situation where a school that qualities for bowl games and NCAA tournaments does not get to participate in those.....that cost the conference money.....which cost the conference members money.....and if that school not making their APR requirements is out there taking bowl slots from other conference members by gaining a win over them with their non-student athletes and costing them a chance at a bowl.....that cost those members individually...if that school eventually drops down.....that leaves the conference in a bind.....if enough members eventually drop out.....that could leave you without a conference

4. conferences are paying more attention to academics and academic cooperation.....the best example is the Big 10 where they have a system in place to make cooperation on grant funding and other research very smooth, but others have similar things.....the Big 12 has a nuclear consortium that offers classes towards nuclear engineering and they will probably expand that in the future to include other research areas and I would imagine the PAC 12 and ACC will do similar things in the future when membership stabilizes

(02-14-2012 12:42 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 12:22 AM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 12:00 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 11:30 PM)MeanGreenFan123 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 11:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Sorry that was before my time. All I know is that you guys are one of the largest in the state. Troy isn't hot stuff and I'm not saying we are if I'm making it seem like that. But just to me if it was UTSA and TxSt I would take UTSA.

Both seems like it would have a negative effect on the conference and Texas recruiting. I'm sure UNT isn't very thrilled about either of you moving up to begin with and I can understand because I don't want to see Jax St move up.

Bingo

they are already in the passing lane and bumper to bumper with you academically while you have steam coming out from under the hood of the green Buick and are looking to move over into the break down lane...and it will only take a bowl win or two over the next decade for them to pass you by athletically

but hey that new "strategic plan and branding" that came out today should help right

Why is there always a thread about academics when it comes to athletics? No school in this, or any other conference, and I'd venture to guess that this goes for the Ivy League as well, has all 4.0 26-36 ACT scorin' players. As long as they make it through the clearing house and the coaches want them, whether it's my team our yours, they'll take him...

1. I believe it is because it is about COLLEGE athletics and athletics being used as a window to a UNIVERSITY

2. does anyone want to be in a conference filled with schools that load up on partial qualifiers and or use APR exemptions to sign academic morons....especially when that often gives that school an unfair advantage

3. the NCAA has already bumped up the APR requirements and might just keep doing it.....IMO it is a great way to weed out programs that really have no business in D1-A and should probably be spending more resources on academics.....if a school is in a conference that is filled with others not making their APR requirements that reflects badly on the conference and the other members and it can lead to a situation where a school that qualities for bowl games and NCAA tournaments does not get to participate in those.....that cost the conference money.....which cost the conference members money.....and if that school not making their APR requirements is out there taking bowl slots from other conference members by gaining a win over them with their non-student athletes and costing them a chance at a bowl.....that cost those members individually...if that school eventually drops down.....that leaves the conference in a bind.....if enough members eventually drop out.....that could leave you without a conference

4. conferences are paying more attention to academics and academic cooperation.....the best example is the Big 10 where they have a system in place to make cooperation on grant funding and other research very smooth, but others have similar things.....the Big 12 has a nuclear consortium that offers classes towards nuclear engineering and they will probably expand that in the future to include other research areas and I would imagine the PAC 12 and ACC will do similar things in the future when membership stabilizes

1) All that is "nice to know" stuff, but the question remains...why? If you want an aside about academics, start you an OT about academics.

2) The off-season always brings about the same, tired conversations that are pointed. After a while, decent threads have to be relegated to the smack board because some "einstein" derails it.

3) What team or teams are you referring to?

4) Not everyone aspires to be a "rocket scientist." Congrats to the pac12 and acc. They have the funding, aid, and alumni to make things like that happen, at present...SBC has to crawl before it can walk, walk before it can run...with the current membership, it's time to start walking so we can learn to run with everyone else.

Now, can we get back to the mindless drivel of an SBC/WAC alliance...?

You fed the troll... God have mercy

(02-14-2012 01:03 AM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 12:42 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 12:22 AM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  

(02-14-2012 12:00 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 11:30 PM)MeanGreenFan123 Wrote:  Bingo

they are already in the passing lane and bumper to bumper with you academically while you have steam coming out from under the hood of the green Buick and are looking to move over into the break down lane...and it will only take a bowl win or two over the next decade for them to pass you by athletically

but hey that new "strategic plan and branding" that came out today should help right

Why is there always a thread about academics when it comes to athletics? No school in this, or any other conference, and I'd venture to guess that this goes for the Ivy League as well, has all 4.0 26-36 ACT scorin' players. As long as they make it through the clearing house and the coaches want them, whether it's my team our yours, they'll take him...

1. I believe it is because it is about COLLEGE athletics and athletics being used as a window to a UNIVERSITY

2. does anyone want to be in a conference filled with schools that load up on partial qualifiers and or use APR exemptions to sign academic morons....especially when that often gives that school an unfair advantage

3. the NCAA has already bumped up the APR requirements and might just keep doing it.....IMO it is a great way to weed out programs that really have no business in D1-A and should probably be spending more resources on academics.....if a school is in a conference that is filled with others not making their APR requirements that reflects badly on the conference and the other members and it can lead to a situation where a school that qualities for bowl games and NCAA tournaments does not get to participate in those.....that cost the conference money.....which cost the conference members money.....and if that school not making their APR requirements is out there taking bowl slots from other conference members by gaining a win over them with their non-student athletes and costing them a chance at a bowl.....that cost those members individually...if that school eventually drops down.....that leaves the conference in a bind.....if enough members eventually drop out.....that could leave you without a conference

4. conferences are paying more attention to academics and academic cooperation.....the best example is the Big 10 where they have a system in place to make cooperation on grant funding and other research very smooth, but others have similar things.....the Big 12 has a nuclear consortium that offers classes towards nuclear engineering and they will probably expand that in the future to include other research areas and I would imagine the PAC 12 and ACC will do similar things in the future when membership stabilizes

1) All that is "nice to know" stuff, but the question remains...why? If you want an aside about academics, start you an OT about academics.

2) The off-season always brings about the same, tired conversations that are pointed. After a while, decent threads have to be relegated to the smack board because some "einstein" derails it.

3) What team or teams are you referring to?

4) Not everyone aspires to be a "rocket scientist." Congrats to the pac12 and acc. They have the funding, aid, and alumni to make things like that happen, at present...SBC has to crawl before it can walk, walk before it can run...with the current membership, it's time to start walking so we can learn to run with everyone else.

Now, can we get back to the mindless drivel of an SBC/WAC alliance...?

Academics is important to a lot of conferences and CUSA was one of them considering 1/3 of their members were private institutions and several of the other remaining members were highly ranked national universities.

I can absolutely understand what you're saying and this particular guy is one of the biggest trolls around, but he's actually correct on a lot of what he's saying here.

IMO a MAC/SBC alliance would be better than a SBC/WAC alliance.

(02-16-2012 10:39 AM)GaSouthern Wrote:  IMO a MAC/SBC alliance would be better than a SBC/WAC alliance.

That's what I was about to say, I'm sure it has been said 100x here, but I am not reading 14 pages.

A) the WAC is the worst conference
B) the WAC probably will be extinct soon
C) the WAC is too far
D) better schools in the MAC


GO OWLS!

The SBC will absorb most of the WAC leftovers.

You very well may see an SBC/MAC alliance after that.

(02-16-2012 11:37 AM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  The SBC will absorb most of the WAC leftovers.

You very well may see an SBC/MAC alliance after that.

I don't think we will bother to talk to Idaho or SJSU or even USU if they get left out. Even talking to NMSU is probably a long-shot.

There really is nothing to gain aligning with the MAC either. Same time zones. Same basic TV value. $2 million split 24 ways is the same as $1 million split 12 ways.