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.

UTSA will be FCS transitional for 2012, FBS transitional for 2013 and full FBS 2014. They are 1 year behind TXST. We will be FBS transitional for the 2012 season and full members when we join the Belt.

On ESPN, they do not specify that UTSA is transitional, but that they are a WAC member. On USA's schedule they say the Jaguars are Division I-AA. Jus' sayin'.

FYI - Northwestern Oklahoma State is a NCAA DII transitional team

From NAIA to what? To NCAA Division II, but not to FCS or FBS, right?

(07-21-2012 12:07 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  Yes, but are NOT transiioning to FBS, right?

No of course not, I don't think he was trying to make any implication about the impact on UTSA's schedule, rather just letting you know that they aren't NAIA as you had indicated.

UTSA is in the same transitional year that USA was last year. The reason they're playing so many WAC schools is because the WAC schools need games, if the WAC had ten members, UTSA would likely be playing a schedule a lot more like yours last year.

(07-21-2012 12:14 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:07 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  Yes, but are NOT transiioning to FBS, right?

No of course not, I don't think he was trying to make any implication about the impact on UTSA's schedule, rather just letting you know that they aren't NAIA as you had indicated.

UTSA is in the same transitional year that USA was last year. The reason they're playing so many WAC schools is because the WAC schools need games, if the WAC had ten members, UTSA would likely be playing a schedule a lot more like yours last year.

Well, if it's not indicated on their site or Wikipedia, then how is one to know?

(07-21-2012 12:18 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:14 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:07 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  Yes, but are NOT transiioning to FBS, right?

No of course not, I don't think he was trying to make any implication about the impact on UTSA's schedule, rather just letting you know that they aren't NAIA as you had indicated.

UTSA is in the same transitional year that USA was last year. The reason they're playing so many WAC schools is because the WAC schools need games, if the WAC had ten members, UTSA would likely be playing a schedule a lot more like yours last year.

Well, if it's not indicated on their site or Wikipedia, then how is one to know?

Are you referring to UTSA's status or Northwestern Oklahoma?

(07-21-2012 12:23 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:18 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:14 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:07 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  Yes, but are NOT transiioning to FBS, right?

No of course not, I don't think he was trying to make any implication about the impact on UTSA's schedule, rather just letting you know that they aren't NAIA as you had indicated.

UTSA is in the same transitional year that USA was last year. The reason they're playing so many WAC schools is because the WAC schools need games, if the WAC had ten members, UTSA would likely be playing a schedule a lot more like yours last year.

Well, if it's not indicated on their site or Wikipedia, then how is one to know?

Are you referring to UTSA's status or Northwestern Oklahoma?

Northwestern Oklahoma's status. I didn't see it on their site.

(07-21-2012 12:29 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:23 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:18 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:14 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:07 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  Yes, but are NOT transiioning to FBS, right?

No of course not, I don't think he was trying to make any implication about the impact on UTSA's schedule, rather just letting you know that they aren't NAIA as you had indicated.

UTSA is in the same transitional year that USA was last year. The reason they're playing so many WAC schools is because the WAC schools need games, if the WAC had ten members, UTSA would likely be playing a schedule a lot more like yours last year.

Well, if it's not indicated on their site or Wikipedia, then how is one to know?

Are you referring to UTSA's status or Northwestern Oklahoma?

Northwestern Oklahoma's status. I didn't see it on their site.

I doubt there are many, even among Northwestern Oklahoma alumni who are dying for athletic info at this point...

UTSA is FBS transitional. The "transition" is a 2 year process. FCS transitional is a Div iI school moving to FCS.

Nortwestern Oklahoma wasn't oked by the NCAA for transition last year. South Nazerene was and joined the GAC which has teams in Arkansas and Oklahoma. That may have changed this year and as I know the Great American Conf. is still wanting Northwestern Oklahome St.

LOL.

NWOSU was approved along with 7 other schools for DII membership beginning this season. I believe that this transition from NAIA to NCAA DII is a 3 year process.

I follow DII football in addition to my Texas State Bobcats because I have an undergraduate degree from a DII school in Oklahoma that is a member of the Great American Conference.

(07-21-2012 01:16 PM)panama Wrote:  UTSA is FBS transitional. The "transition" is a 2 year process. FCS transitional is a Div iI school moving to FCS.

Actually, they are FCS transitional this year and FBS transitional next. Just like we were last year. FCS transitional does not implicate moving up or down it just says that they are FCS and transitioning therefore not eligible for the playoffs. Next year they will be FBS but transitional therefore not eligible for bowl games.

Will inasmuch as this is their second year to play any kind of football, their schedule looks very aggressive to me.

(07-21-2012 03:13 PM)Grandgreen Wrote:  Will inasmuch as this is their second year to play any kind of football, their schedule looks very aggressive to me.

Not sure what "inasmuch" means but I agree. Actually, their schedule is just WAC and then what op was talking about. Not all that aggressive but starting next year they will have their hands full.

UTSA will probably have their hands full with their schedule this season.

(07-21-2012 04:12 PM)chazg Wrote:  UTSA will probably have their hands full with their schedule this season.

This is very true but not because it is top notch competition. They are 2nd year and I would be shocked if they won a single WAC game.

(07-21-2012 04:37 PM)tw_fatcat Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 04:12 PM)chazg Wrote:  UTSA will probably have their hands full with their schedule this season.

This is very true but not because it is top notch competition. They are 2nd year and I would be shocked if they won a single WAC game.

seems like only a few "offs" on the schedule..everyone has those ...you are the "off" on someone else's schedule...