(07-22-2012 06:46 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:33 PM)MG61 Wrote:  WOW, 6 pages concerning a newbie that is in another conference.

My thoughts exactly.

USA should be favored to win against UTSA. They are in their second year.

We should be favored too.

Does it mean that we will roll over them without breaking a sweat or that USA will also? If either of those happen, I will be shocked.

Haha Rev, I'm surprised you managed to escape the death grip of the bobcatfans forum. Good to see you here sir, your reputation certainly precedes you.

(07-22-2012 05:31 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:24 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 11:26 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  Looking over UT-San Antonio's 2012 football schedule, I see where the Roadrunners play 2 FCS teams, 1 Div. II team, and a NAIA team, yet they are members of the WAC, a supposedly FBS conference.

UTSA 2012 schedule:

8/30- @South Alabama - FBS(?)
9/8- vs. Texas A&M-Commerce - Div.II
9/15- @Georgia State - FCS
9/22- vs. Northwestern Okla. State - NAIA
9/29- @NMSU - FBS
10/13- @Rice - FBS
10/20- San Jose State - FBS
10/27- vs. Utah State - FBS
11/3- @Louisiana Tech - FBS
11/10-vs. McNeese State - FCS
11/17- @Idaho - FBC
11/24- Texas State - FBS(?)

If someone can, please explain how San Antonio is classified FBS with a schedule like that? I say they're a farce.

You've got the biggest balls I've seen, to talk about schedules. Have you seen South Alabama's schedule for it's first 2 seasons? You didn't even bother to play FCS teams, you scheduled only prep schools with less than 2,000 students. That has got to be the biggest joke of the year.

South Alabama is a favorite to win this season, but not a blowout and it can definitely go either way. It took 2OT for you to beat our freshmen, it will probably take 25OT's for you to beat our sophomores.

We weren't masquerading as FBS with last years schedule. I think that's the point.

Please post a link to a single official UTSA announcement, article, statement or anything written whatsoever where we claim to be FBS.

(07-22-2012 07:46 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:31 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:24 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 11:26 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  Looking over UT-San Antonio's 2012 football schedule, I see where the Roadrunners play 2 FCS teams, 1 Div. II team, and a NAIA team, yet they are members of the WAC, a supposedly FBS conference.

UTSA 2012 schedule:

8/30- @South Alabama - FBS(?)
9/8- vs. Texas A&M-Commerce - Div.II
9/15- @Georgia State - FCS
9/22- vs. Northwestern Okla. State - NAIA
9/29- @NMSU - FBS
10/13- @Rice - FBS
10/20- San Jose State - FBS
10/27- vs. Utah State - FBS
11/3- @Louisiana Tech - FBS
11/10-vs. McNeese State - FCS
11/17- @Idaho - FBC
11/24- Texas State - FBS(?)

If someone can, please explain how San Antonio is classified FBS with a schedule like that? I say they're a farce.

You've got the biggest balls I've seen, to talk about schedules. Have you seen South Alabama's schedule for it's first 2 seasons? You didn't even bother to play FCS teams, you scheduled only prep schools with less than 2,000 students. That has got to be the biggest joke of the year.

South Alabama is a favorite to win this season, but not a blowout and it can definitely go either way. It took 2OT for you to beat our freshmen, it will probably take 25OT's for you to beat our sophomores.

We weren't masquerading as FBS with last years schedule. I think that's the point.

Please post a link to a single official UTSA announcement, article, statement or anything written whatsoever where we claim to be FBS.

First, I will premise that I don't care about the schedule. Us start ups schedule who we can schedule.
I am a bit surprised that there is so much vitriol in this thread from fellow South fans.

But I do have a question.
USA, while not eligible to win the Belt, counts toward deciding the champ.
So a loss to us counts the same as a loss to UL, FAU, etc. for other Belt schools.

Is UTSA in the same boat?
Yall are playing a WAC schedule, not eligible for the title, but do your wins and losses against the eligible teams actually factor into deciding the champ?
Or are you de facto an OOC opponent that everyone is playing?

UTSA is an official member of the WAC. Their games count as conference games.

http://www.goutsa.com/ViewArticle.dbml?S...=205499880

(07-22-2012 07:46 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:31 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:24 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 11:26 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  Looking over UT-San Antonio's 2012 football schedule, I see where the Roadrunners play 2 FCS teams, 1 Div. II team, and a NAIA team, yet they are members of the WAC, a supposedly FBS conference.

UTSA 2012 schedule:

8/30- @South Alabama - FBS(?)
9/8- vs. Texas A&M-Commerce - Div.II
9/15- @Georgia State - FCS
9/22- vs. Northwestern Okla. State - NAIA
9/29- @NMSU - FBS
10/13- @Rice - FBS
10/20- San Jose State - FBS
10/27- vs. Utah State - FBS
11/3- @Louisiana Tech - FBS
11/10-vs. McNeese State - FCS
11/17- @Idaho - FBC
11/24- Texas State - FBS(?)

If someone can, please explain how San Antonio is classified FBS with a schedule like that? I say they're a farce.

You've got the biggest balls I've seen, to talk about schedules. Have you seen South Alabama's schedule for it's first 2 seasons? You didn't even bother to play FCS teams, you scheduled only prep schools with less than 2,000 students. That has got to be the biggest joke of the year.

South Alabama is a favorite to win this season, but not a blowout and it can definitely go either way. It took 2OT for you to beat our freshmen, it will probably take 25OT's for you to beat our sophomores.

We weren't masquerading as FBS with last years schedule. I think that's the point.

Please post a link to a single official UTSA announcement, article, statement or anything written whatsoever where we claim to be FBS.

UTSA is a transitional team. This is year 1 of 2 in their transition. Next year in year 2 of 2, they play all FBS opponents.

Last year UTSA lost by 3 at home to USA..by 3 to Mcneese on the road...and snuck by GASt at home by 3. We had maybe 5 kids that had played a college game before last year. Favorites sure, but none of the quasi fcs/fbs should "expect" a win against UTSA this year.

(07-22-2012 07:46 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:31 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:24 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 11:26 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  Looking over UT-San Antonio's 2012 football schedule, I see where the Roadrunners play 2 FCS teams, 1 Div. II team, and a NAIA team, yet they are members of the WAC, a supposedly FBS conference.

UTSA 2012 schedule:

8/30- @South Alabama - FBS(?)
9/8- vs. Texas A&M-Commerce - Div.II
9/15- @Georgia State - FCS
9/22- vs. Northwestern Okla. State - NAIA
9/29- @NMSU - FBS
10/13- @Rice - FBS
10/20- San Jose State - FBS
10/27- vs. Utah State - FBS
11/3- @Louisiana Tech - FBS
11/10-vs. McNeese State - FCS
11/17- @Idaho - FBC
11/24- Texas State - FBS(?)

If someone can, please explain how San Antonio is classified FBS with a schedule like that? I say they're a farce.

You've got the biggest balls I've seen, to talk about schedules. Have you seen South Alabama's schedule for it's first 2 seasons? You didn't even bother to play FCS teams, you scheduled only prep schools with less than 2,000 students. That has got to be the biggest joke of the year.

South Alabama is a favorite to win this season, but not a blowout and it can definitely go either way. It took 2OT for you to beat our freshmen, it will probably take 25OT's for you to beat our sophomores.

We weren't masquerading as FBS with last years schedule. I think that's the point.

Please post a link to a single official UTSA announcement, article, statement or anything written whatsoever where we claim to be FBS.

Yes, that is correct, sir. The thing is, we did not disguise our program as a FBS program as members of the Wacky WAC or even as football members of the SBC. We were unclassified our first two seasons and then we were transitional FCS in 2011. Duh, we knew what the hell we were doing and did it our way. Now, we enter the transitional period to FBS before joining the SBC as full football members in 2013. USA didn't try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, but you phony balonies are pathetically groping for notoriety. What a FARCE you all are. It will be a pleasure taking you impostors behind the woodshed an kicking you backsides. BTW, good luck with the creampuffs that dot your schedule.

(07-22-2012 10:47 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 07:46 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:31 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:24 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 11:26 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  Looking over UT-San Antonio's 2012 football schedule, I see where the Roadrunners play 2 FCS teams, 1 Div. II team, and a NAIA team, yet they are members of the WAC, a supposedly FBS conference.

UTSA 2012 schedule:

8/30- @South Alabama - FBS(?)
9/8- vs. Texas A&M-Commerce - Div.II
9/15- @Georgia State - FCS
9/22- vs. Northwestern Okla. State - NAIA
9/29- @NMSU - FBS
10/13- @Rice - FBS
10/20- San Jose State - FBS
10/27- vs. Utah State - FBS
11/3- @Louisiana Tech - FBS
11/10-vs. McNeese State - FCS
11/17- @Idaho - FBC
11/24- Texas State - FBS(?)

If someone can, please explain how San Antonio is classified FBS with a schedule like that? I say they're a farce.

You've got the biggest balls I've seen, to talk about schedules. Have you seen South Alabama's schedule for it's first 2 seasons? You didn't even bother to play FCS teams, you scheduled only prep schools with less than 2,000 students. That has got to be the biggest joke of the year.

South Alabama is a favorite to win this season, but not a blowout and it can definitely go either way. It took 2OT for you to beat our freshmen, it will probably take 25OT's for you to beat our sophomores.

We weren't masquerading as FBS with last years schedule. I think that's the point.

Please post a link to a single official UTSA announcement, article, statement or anything written whatsoever where we claim to be FBS.

Yes, that is correct, sir. The thing is, we did not disguise our program as a FBS program as members of the Wacky WAC or even as football members of the SBC. We were unclassified our first two seasons and then we were transitional FCS in 2011. Duh, we knew what the hell we were doing and did it our way. Now, we enter the transitional period to FBS before joining the SBC as full football members in 2013. USA didn't try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, but you phony balonies are pathetically groping for notoriety. What a FARCE you all are. It will be a pleasure taking you impostors behind the woodshed an kicking you backsides. BTW, good luck with the creampuffs that dot your schedule.

Why all the ranting about UTSA when they aren't even a Sun Belt member ? Jealousy ?

(07-22-2012 10:47 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 07:46 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:31 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 05:24 PM)Yankee Runner Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 11:26 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  Looking over UT-San Antonio's 2012 football schedule, I see where the Roadrunners play 2 FCS teams, 1 Div. II team, and a NAIA team, yet they are members of the WAC, a supposedly FBS conference.

UTSA 2012 schedule:

8/30- @South Alabama - FBS(?)
9/8- vs. Texas A&M-Commerce - Div.II
9/15- @Georgia State - FCS
9/22- vs. Northwestern Okla. State - NAIA
9/29- @NMSU - FBS
10/13- @Rice - FBS
10/20- San Jose State - FBS
10/27- vs. Utah State - FBS
11/3- @Louisiana Tech - FBS
11/10-vs. McNeese State - FCS
11/17- @Idaho - FBC
11/24- Texas State - FBS(?)

If someone can, please explain how San Antonio is classified FBS with a schedule like that? I say they're a farce.

You've got the biggest balls I've seen, to talk about schedules. Have you seen South Alabama's schedule for it's first 2 seasons? You didn't even bother to play FCS teams, you scheduled only prep schools with less than 2,000 students. That has got to be the biggest joke of the year.

South Alabama is a favorite to win this season, but not a blowout and it can definitely go either way. It took 2OT for you to beat our freshmen, it will probably take 25OT's for you to beat our sophomores.

We weren't masquerading as FBS with last years schedule. I think that's the point.

Please post a link to a single official UTSA announcement, article, statement or anything written whatsoever where we claim to be FBS.

Yes, that is correct, sir. The thing is, we did not disguise our program as a FBS program as members of the Wacky WAC or even as football members of the SBC. We were unclassified our first two seasons and then we were transitional FCS in 2011. Duh, we knew what the hell we were doing and did it our way. Now, we enter the transitional period to FBS before joining the SBC as full football members in 2013. USA didn't try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, but you phony balonies are pathetically groping for notoriety. What a FARCE you all are. It will be a pleasure taking you impostors behind the woodshed an kicking you backsides. BTW, good luck with the creampuffs that dot your schedule.

Ok, let me try this again. This time, I'm gonna don my purple dinosaur suit and explain it to you like you are 5. We have never claimed to be FBS. If you can provide a link to an official UTSA announcement that implies this, then I stand corrected. We might have said that we will be FBS, but nowhere have we said that we are.
We are not faking that we are WAC members, we actually are. So, what are we faking?

It is my understanding that UTSA was required to join the WAC earlier than planned in order to fill out the conference schedule. My thought is its absurd for anyone to claim that UTSA is FBS with this schedule. If UTSA isn't claiming to be FBS, others seem to be grouping them with FBS and classifying you as such.

My point was, and remains, that UTSA is FCS in actuality and should be an underdog at any FBS or FBS transitional team. The good news UTSA fans is you get a chance to prove me wrong.

Serious question: Does UTSA count as a FBS opponent this year? For bowl eligibility of opponents?

I believe that UTSA only counts for bowl eligibility for members of the WAC in 2012.

(07-22-2012 11:02 PM)MG61 Wrote:  Why all the ranting about UTSA when they aren't even a Sun Belt member ? Jealousy ?

I would say so. You and I plus anyone reading this thread knows that South Alabama and Georgia State would trade places with UTSA in a heartbeat. If you say No then you are lying.

Some South Alabama fans have been so egotistical since the school started playing football. But then again I gotta remember most of these people are probably Alabama or Auburn fans first, so they think things are an entitlement and not a work.

(07-23-2012 01:33 AM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(07-22-2012 11:02 PM)MG61 Wrote:  Why all the ranting about UTSA when they aren't even a Sun Belt member ? Jealousy ?

I would say so. You and I plus anyone reading this thread knows that South Alabama and Georgia State would trade places with UTSA in a heartbeat. If you say No then you are lying.

Some South Alabama fans have been so egotistical since the school started playing football. But then again I gotta remember most of these people are probably Alabama or Auburn fans first, so they think things are an entitlement and not a work.

are you a mountaneer fan first?.

most of the folks i met in huntington were. and ALL the folks i ever met in charleston were. it's something all of our fanbases fight. usually not on our home message boards though. most of the south al fans here are their die hards.

i'm not even saying there's no utsa obsession in this thread. the auburn/bammer accusation doesn't necessarily apply though.

Herd, you have no clue about South Alabama or it's fans. Apparently you haven't been paying attention. With so many posts (10,000+) that you've made just proves to me that you have but little to do with your time. Nothing personal, just an observation. Oh, btw, the coosa conference is not any better than the SBC since the real programs have moved on. Watch out for the SBC, it is on it's way up the ladder.

(07-23-2012 07:47 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  Herd, you have no clue about South Alabama or it's fans. Apparently you haven't been paying attention. With so many posts (10,000+) that you've made just proves to me that you have but little to do with your time. Nothing personal, just an observation. Oh, btw, the coosa conference is not any better than the SBC since the real programs have moved on. Watch out for the SBC, it is on it's way up the ladder.

You do realize that USM has won more FBS games than most Sun Belt teams have even played? In the past five years USM, Tulsa, and ECU all have winning records, ony Troy can one in the Slum Belt. Tulsa has the second highest winning percentage over the span of any school not in or joining an AQ conference. USM ended the year ranked in the Top 20, the Sun Belt is still waiting for anyone to be ranked at any point in the season.

S0, tell me again how C-USA has no real programs left.

(07-22-2012 11:53 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  It is my understanding that UTSA was required to join the WAC earlier than planned in order to fill out the conference schedule.

This is the point many posters are missing in this "discussion". Benson emplored UTSA to expedite their transition to FBS once the WAC lost so many schools to the MWC. It was faster than UTSA originally planned; faster than the AD (Hickey) wanted. But they made that push to try and keep the WAC afloat. In doing to, Mr Benson actually "helped" UTSA get the recognition that propelled it to the forefront and be cherry picked by CUSA.

UTSA simply did what it was asked to do by the WAC; which in turn benefitted them greatly in the conference landscape. Right time, right place. Congrats to them.

Slum Belt? Classy posting by a typical coosa fan. USM, Bama's whipping boy, that's what you are really noted for, right? Give us a flipping break, and don't attempt to make something out of a conference that goes fishing in the FCS. Please go back to the coosa conference blog.

This is really very simple. 2012 is a transitional year. As such, UTSA is allowed to play some non FBS teams (I think they are playing 8 FBS/4 non FBS teams in 2012, 9 FBS if you count Georgia St). Next year in the final transition year, UTSA will play all FBS teams, to include New Mexico, Oklahoma State, Virginia, Houston, and Arizona. They are basically neither FCS nor FBS, but transitional. They are, however, full members of the WAC.

(07-23-2012 09:19 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  Slum Belt? Classy posting by a typical coosa fan. USM, Bama's whipping boy, that's what you are really noted for, right? Give us a flipping break, and don't attempt to make something out of a conference that goes fishing in the FCS. Please go back to the coosa conference blog.

Yawn, I'm not a C-USA fan, I'm a USM fan. My school actually has a history unlike yours so I don't have to resort to conference homerism like you.

Anyways, your own conference just added two FCS move ups plus your own start up squad genius. Try refuting my points instead of instead of hurling third grade insults. You said that C-USA lost it's "real programs", I posted facts to support my position that the conference did not. Do you have anything of susbstance to add or are you going to post more rambling nonsense?

It will be interesting watching the sunbelt and CUSA the next few years, to see all this works out. Is it football season yet?