(06-15-2014 10:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  UAB is hardly even a real program,

From what I've read the actual game of football has very little to do with that.

(06-17-2014 08:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 10:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  UAB is hardly even a real program,

From what I've read the actual game of football has very little to do with that.

???

(06-16-2014 05:55 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The Georgia State and Georgia Southern situation is going to be interesting as to who has the better long term program.

Georgia Southern has the tradition but Georgia State is located directly in Atlanta. Both have 4 players in the NFL currently even though Georgia State is a young program. That new Georgia State stadium may tip the scales.

Of course it may very well be both end up strong in the #4 recruiting state with only 2 other FBS schools.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Georgia State went winless last year. If they get Turner Field, that may be what saves them from becoming an Eastern Michigan. Georgia Tech is easy walking distance from the campus (they even shared a dorm for a while) and UGA is the big dawg in Atlanta and is only about 75 minutes away.

Georgia Southern has potential. The problem is that they are in the middle of nowhere, 60 miles from Savannah. Not sure I've ever seen an emptier interstate than I-16. And Statesboro isn't even on the interstate. Its off a little. They've got to rely on getting their alumni back on campus. Empty stadiums don't facilitate recruiting.

(06-17-2014 08:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 10:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  UAB is hardly even a real program,

From what I've read the actual game of football has very little to do with that.

???

Just saying, from what I've read/heard, that it's rooted in UA politics, etc.

(06-17-2014 09:04 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 10:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  UAB is hardly even a real program,

From what I've read the actual game of football has very little to do with that.

???

Just saying, from what I've read/heard, that it's rooted in UA politics, etc.

Why does a satellite school need a football team in that context? It's a drain on resources for the University.

(06-17-2014 09:56 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 09:04 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 10:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  UAB is hardly even a real program,

From what I've read the actual game of football has very little to do with that.

???

Just saying, from what I've read/heard, that it's rooted in UA politics, etc.

Why does a satellite school need a football team in that context? It's a drain on resources for the University.

The same reason any school should get to have a team, because they want one.

Charlotte, though not as bad as it is for UAB, faced a tough road getting football started because some Chapel Hill folks thought we should "just concentrate on intramurals and go to Chapel Hill or Raleigh if we wanted to watch football". I mean, a former UNC system president came on our campus and told us that flat out. Luckily, we told him to go fak himself. UAB doesn't have that option since it is under the same Board as UA. At least Charlotte has a seperate Board.

(06-17-2014 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 09:56 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 09:04 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  From what I've read the actual game of football has very little to do with that.

???

Just saying, from what I've read/heard, that it's rooted in UA politics, etc.

Why does a satellite school need a football team in that context? It's a drain on resources for the University.

The same reason any school should get to have a team, because they want one.

Charlotte, though not as bad as it is for UAB, faced a tough road getting football started because some Chapel Hill folks thought we should "just concentrate on intramurals and go to Chapel Hill or Raleigh if we wanted to watch football". I mean, a former UNC system president came on our campus and told us that flat out. Luckily, we told him to go fak himself. UAB doesn't have that option since it is under the same Board as UA. At least Charlotte has a seperate Board.

The situation isnt quite analogous. Theoretically the members of the UNC system are equals with a flagship.

That isn't true in the UA system. There is a university, UA, and subordinate schools, UAB and UAH. That's why they have letters after their name.

They are schools designed for overflow, to hold graduate programs, like UA's medical school, and for commuters.

They are not equals in the UA system by design or mission.

You could also say UAB and UAH are places where you can go to avoid the attitude of Tuscaloosa.

Unless you are a Greek jock or a drunk you might have a better experience at a UAB or a Charlotte over Alabama or UNC plus inexpensive CUSA tickets for a Top 10 conference.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-15-2014 01:26 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  UTSA doing well was obvious to me: FB starved large city with no local NFL team, great tourist city (easy to get P5 teams to play in SA), Larry Coker HC, Great recruiting base to mine leftovers after UT/TAMU/Baylor/TTech/TCU pick, finally the AlamoDome is a great facility.

I had debates with numerous CUSA fans in the past that UTSA was a great add...even before they were added. Many thought UTSA would never amount to anything.

I always said five years is a good measure on what direction UTSA is going. This is going to be their second year in C-USA. Give it 3 more seasons and we can tell if they're the next UCF or the next UAB because UTSA has lots of common with those two.

(06-17-2014 11:32 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  You could also say UAB and UAH are places where you can go to avoid the attitude of Tuscaloosa.

Unless you are a Greek jock or a drunk you might have a better experience at a UAB or a Charlotte over Alabama or UNC plus inexpensive CUSA tickets for a Top 10 conference.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Plus, if you didn't get in that's always a good excuse.

(06-16-2014 05:55 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The Georgia State and Georgia Southern situation is going to be interesting as to who has the better long term program.

Georgia Southern has the tradition but Georgia State is located directly in Atlanta. Both have 4 players in the NFL currently even though Georgia State is a young program. That new Georgia State stadium may tip the scales.

Of course it may very well be both end up strong in the #4 recruiting state with only 2 other FBS schools.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

We are 2 of 4 FBS schools in a state that produces 180 to 190 FBS players yearly. We will both be more than fine.

(06-15-2014 02:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:29 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  UTSA has so much potential.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

But what if an NFL team comes to San Antonio? Suddenly, they play 3rd fiddle to the Spurs and that team.

An NFL team isn't coming to San Antonio because they would have nowhere to play.

(06-17-2014 11:39 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:26 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  UTSA doing well was obvious to me: FB starved large city with no local NFL team, great tourist city (easy to get P5 teams to play in SA), Larry Coker HC, Great recruiting base to mine leftovers after UT/TAMU/Baylor/TTech/TCU pick, finally the AlamoDome is a great facility.

I had debates with numerous CUSA fans in the past that UTSA was a great add...even before they were added. Many thought UTSA would never amount to anything.

I always said five years is a good measure on what direction UTSA is going. This is going to be their second year in C-USA. Give it 3 more seasons and we can tell if they're the next UCF or the next UAB because UTSA has lots of common with those two.

UTSA has more talent to mine in the local area than UAB does. If they can just hang on to recruits the B12 didn't want, they can finish in the upper half of CUSA yearly.

(06-17-2014 12:01 PM)panama Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 02:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:29 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  UTSA has so much potential.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

But what if an NFL team comes to San Antonio? Suddenly, they play 3rd fiddle to the Spurs and that team.

An NFL team isn't coming to San Antonio because they would have nowhere to play.

A new facility would be built to house an NFL team with the Alamodome as a stopgap measure until a new stadium could get built.

SA came within a whisker of getting the Saints in 2005 after Hurricana Katrina.

That said, the NFL doesn't seem interested in expanding now, and SA is apparently trying to get an MLS team in the interim.

(06-17-2014 12:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 11:39 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:26 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  UTSA doing well was obvious to me: FB starved large city with no local NFL team, great tourist city (easy to get P5 teams to play in SA), Larry Coker HC, Great recruiting base to mine leftovers after UT/TAMU/Baylor/TTech/TCU pick, finally the AlamoDome is a great facility.

I had debates with numerous CUSA fans in the past that UTSA was a great add...even before they were added. Many thought UTSA would never amount to anything.

I always said five years is a good measure on what direction UTSA is going. This is going to be their second year in C-USA. Give it 3 more seasons and we can tell if they're the next UCF or the next UAB because UTSA has lots of common with those two.

UTSA has more talent to mine in the local area than UAB does. If they can just hang on to recruits the B12 didn't want, they can finish in the upper half of CUSA yearly.

Like San Antonio, Birmingham and Orlando are in fertile recruiting areas dominated by a major conference(s). Big Brother in Austin is just an hour away just like Tuscaloosa and Gainesville are in Birmingham and Orlando. Their football is doing good now but what happens when the novelty wears off or when Coker leaves and get a bad coach? What about basketball? They're competing against the five time NBA champion Spurs and their basketball facility just sucks.

That's why I say five years is a good measure for any new football program to see if they're a success (like UCF) or UAB (a failure). You can throw Georgia State, Charlotte and Old Dominion in the let's see how they do in five years category as well.

(06-17-2014 12:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:01 PM)panama Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 02:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:29 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  UTSA has so much potential.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

But what if an NFL team comes to San Antonio? Suddenly, they play 3rd fiddle to the Spurs and that team.

An NFL team isn't coming to San Antonio because they would have nowhere to play.

A new facility would be built to house an NFL team with the Alamodome as a stopgap measure until a new stadium could get built.

SA came within a whisker of getting the Saints in 2005 after Hurricana Katrina.

That said, the NFL doesn't seem interested in expanding now, and SA is apparently trying to get an MLS team in the interim.

The Alamodome could be renovated to a NFL stadium, however, San Antonio has 2 big obstacles in there way. The Dallas and Houston owners. Neither one is willing to allow a 3rd NFL team in the state.

(06-17-2014 01:39 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:01 PM)panama Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 02:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:29 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  UTSA has so much potential.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

But what if an NFL team comes to San Antonio? Suddenly, they play 3rd fiddle to the Spurs and that team.

An NFL team isn't coming to San Antonio because they would have nowhere to play.

A new facility would be built to house an NFL team with the Alamodome as a stopgap measure until a new stadium could get built.

SA came within a whisker of getting the Saints in 2005 after Hurricana Katrina.

That said, the NFL doesn't seem interested in expanding now, and SA is apparently trying to get an MLS team in the interim.

The Alamodome could be renovated to a NFL stadium, however, San Antonio has 2 big obstacles in there way. The Dallas and Houston owners. Neither one is willing to allow a 3rd NFL team in the state.

Dreaming

The Georgia Dome is 5 times better than the Alamodome and is being torn DOWN for a $1.2B Dome. Unless San Antonio come up with that they are getting nothing.

(06-17-2014 01:39 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:01 PM)panama Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 02:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:29 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  UTSA has so much potential.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

But what if an NFL team comes to San Antonio? Suddenly, they play 3rd fiddle to the Spurs and that team.

An NFL team isn't coming to San Antonio because they would have nowhere to play.

A new facility would be built to house an NFL team with the Alamodome as a stopgap measure until a new stadium could get built.

SA came within a whisker of getting the Saints in 2005 after Hurricana Katrina.

That said, the NFL doesn't seem interested in expanding now, and SA is apparently trying to get an MLS team in the interim.

The Alamodome could be renovated to a NFL stadium, however, San Antonio has 2 big obstacles in there way. The Dallas and Houston owners. Neither one is willing to allow a 3rd NFL team in the state.

Jerry Jones didn't have a problem when Tom Benson moved the Saints to SA in 2005 (and stated he was going to keep them in SA until Paul Tagliabue convinced him to move them back to NO).

(06-17-2014 02:28 PM)panama Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 01:39 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:01 PM)panama Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 02:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  But what if an NFL team comes to San Antonio? Suddenly, they play 3rd fiddle to the Spurs and that team.

An NFL team isn't coming to San Antonio because they would have nowhere to play.

A new facility would be built to house an NFL team with the Alamodome as a stopgap measure until a new stadium could get built.

SA came within a whisker of getting the Saints in 2005 after Hurricana Katrina.

That said, the NFL doesn't seem interested in expanding now, and SA is apparently trying to get an MLS team in the interim.

The Alamodome could be renovated to a NFL stadium, however, San Antonio has 2 big obstacles in there way. The Dallas and Houston owners. Neither one is willing to allow a 3rd NFL team in the state.

Dreaming

The Georgia Dome is 5 times better than the Alamodome and is being torn DOWN for a $1.2B Dome. Unless San Antonio come up with that they are getting nothing.

Not sure GA dome is 5x better...they were built around same time. Having said that, I do agree new facility is a requirement. A-dome would be a decent 3 year stop gap measure until new facility is built. SA would find the funds to build one as they have been salivating over an NFL team for years/decades.

Not to derail the topic but I don't think the Dallas Cowboys would be opposed to having a third NFL team in Texas. The Cowboys are a national brand and they have followers all over. I could see the Houston Texans being opposed since they're more of a regional team and an NFL team in San Antonio would have more an impact in stealing fans.