(09-05-2014 11:38 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 11:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Quick question.....

Over/under on UTSA not being in C-USA. I'll set the number at 4 years.

I think I'll take the under. I think they're in either the MWC or the AAC by that time.

Over.

UTSA should be near the top of the list for the MWC, but I see no indication that either the MWC or AAC is expanding to 14 or 16 any time soon.

I could see if a UTSA explodes one of them going up to 14 in almost a pre-emptive strike. I'd give the AAC the advantage in this- having Houston and SMU already would give UTSA a thrill compared to who they would have in the MWC. Add someone on the east side(ODU?) and it actually makes scheduling easier- as you would have 6 division games and then 2 games vs other division- so only 1 road trip out west yearly(or east).

(09-05-2014 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 11:38 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 11:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Quick question.....

Over/under on UTSA not being in C-USA. I'll set the number at 4 years.

I think I'll take the under. I think they're in either the MWC or the AAC by that time.

Over.

UTSA should be near the top of the list for the MWC, but I see no indication that either the MWC or AAC is expanding to 14 or 16 any time soon.

I could see if a UTSA explodes one of them going up to 14 in almost a pre-emptive strike. I'd give the AAC the advantage in this- having Houston and SMU already would give UTSA a thrill compared to who they would have in the MWC. Add someone on the east side(ODU?) and it actually makes scheduling easier- as you would have 6 division games and then 2 games vs other division- so only 1 road trip out west yearly(or east).

With SMU and Houston in the division, I don't think the MW has a chance...unless the MW in the next few years gets the Access Bowl spot year in and year out, then there probably a little chance for the MW.
Texas St. thought would come to the MW and being a large school sandwich in the I35 corridor could play a role in TV also for expansion consideration.

UTSA/UTEP as a pair to the MWC would get the MWC back into Texas. UTEP basketball would be a nice add to the MWC.

But UTSA basketball is small time. They've got to compete with the Spurs, so I don't know how large of a following they could muster up, but according to the NCAA website, UTSA drew less than 1,000 per game last year, and that's unacceptable for the AAC and MWC IMO.

You can't deny that UTSA football has come a long way in a short time. Simply amazing.

Lets not jump the gun here on UTSA getting into the MWC or AAC. They are winning this year with a ton of 5th year seniors because of smart redshirting when the school first moved up. Will they be able to match this in future years with a younger team?

(09-05-2014 12:14 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Lets not jump the gun here on UTSA getting into the MWC or AAC. They are winning this year with a ton of 5th year seniors because of smart redshirting when the school first moved up. Will they be able to match this in future years with a younger team?

UTSA has been a program that I think we all expected to be really good- given everything. Maybe not quite this good. Don't see this as a fluke at all.

(09-05-2014 12:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 12:14 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Lets not jump the gun here on UTSA getting into the MWC or AAC. They are winning this year with a ton of 5th year seniors because of smart redshirting when the school first moved up. Will they be able to match this in future years with a younger team?

UTSA has been a program that I think we all expected to be really good- given everything. Maybe not quite this good. Don't see this as a fluke at all.

I don't think they are a fluke, but every team goes through down cycles every few years. They lose a ton of talent next year...the team almost certainly wont be as good as this one.

(09-05-2014 11:56 AM)Chappy Wrote:  UTSA/UTEP as a pair to the MWC would get the MWC back into Texas. UTEP basketball would be a nice add to the MWC.

But UTSA basketball is small time. They've got to compete with the Spurs, so I don't know how large of a following they could muster up, but according to the NCAA website, UTSA drew less than 1,000 per game last year, and that's unacceptable for the AAC and MWC IMO.

You can't deny that UTSA football has come a long way in a short time. Simply amazing.

That didn't hinder ECU from moving.

(09-05-2014 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  That didn't hinder ECU from moving.

Despite our poor history, there are still 4,500-5,500 fans at our games. That's not as small time as 937.

(09-05-2014 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 11:56 AM)Chappy Wrote:  UTSA/UTEP as a pair to the MWC would get the MWC back into Texas. UTEP basketball would be a nice add to the MWC.

But UTSA basketball is small time. They've got to compete with the Spurs, so I don't know how large of a following they could muster up, but according to the NCAA website, UTSA drew less than 1,000 per game last year, and that's unacceptable for the AAC and MWC IMO.

You can't deny that UTSA football has come a long way in a short time. Simply amazing.

That didn't hinder ECU from moving.

Tulane would have been a much better example.

Maybe if they change their name to San Antonio instead of UTSA. I don't want alphabet soup. But is everyone seriously getting worked up over UTSA because they beat Houston and lost to Arizona? The guys on their team are like 24 years old.

(09-05-2014 01:49 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Maybe if they change their name to San Antonio instead of UTSA. I don't want alphabet soup. But is everyone seriously getting worked up over UTSA because they beat Houston and lost to Arizona? The guys on their team are like 24 years old.

I don't think it's just that but market, facility, everything looks like it is a winner for them. I think it's also kind of funny you would say that given a lot of folks just think of you guys as ECU. Also- no one seems to have a problem with UNLV.

(09-05-2014 12:14 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Lets not jump the gun here on UTSA getting into the MWC or AAC. They are winning this year with a ton of 5th year seniors because of smart redshirting when the school first moved up. Will they be able to match this in future years with a younger team?

Do we know that they have not done that every year since? Meaning they might have a stream of 5th year seniors the next few years.

(09-05-2014 01:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 01:49 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Maybe if they change their name to San Antonio instead of UTSA. I don't want alphabet soup. But is everyone seriously getting worked up over UTSA because they beat Houston and lost to Arizona? The guys on their team are like 24 years old.

I don't think it's just that but market, facility, everything looks like it is a winner for them. I think it's also kind of funny you would say that given a lot of folks just think of you guys as ECU. Also- no one seems to have a problem with UNLV.

I was thinking the same thing. There is also SMU, UCF, and USF. I mean, at this point, not sure I understand that argument.

(09-05-2014 01:49 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Maybe if they change their name to San Antonio instead of UTSA. I don't want alphabet soup. But is everyone seriously getting worked up over UTSA because they beat Houston and lost to Arizona? The guys on their team are like 24 years old.

It's very impressive considering some other young start ups in major metropolitan areas....

(09-05-2014 02:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 12:14 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Lets not jump the gun here on UTSA getting into the MWC or AAC. They are winning this year with a ton of 5th year seniors because of smart redshirting when the school first moved up. Will they be able to match this in future years with a younger team?

Do we know that they have not done that every year since? Meaning they might have a stream of 5th year seniors the next few years.

Agreed. It's a strategy that has worked at BYU for a long time. Could work here too, even though UTSA isn't going to have the guys returning from LDS missions that BYU has.

(By the way, even for BYU, the age difference is hugely exaggerated by media and fans who don't look at the actual numbers. According to this article, even with 80 out of 105 players who had served missions, the average age of BYU's 2008 football team was 21, while the average age of USC's team the same season was 20, which sounds about right for a team that does a lot of redshirting like Carroll's teams did.)

(09-05-2014 12:59 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  That didn't hinder ECU from moving.

Despite our poor history, there are still 4,500-5,500 fans at our games. That's not as small time as 937.

I thought only football mattered?

(09-05-2014 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 02:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 12:14 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Lets not jump the gun here on UTSA getting into the MWC or AAC. They are winning this year with a ton of 5th year seniors because of smart redshirting when the school first moved up. Will they be able to match this in future years with a younger team?

Do we know that they have not done that every year since? Meaning they might have a stream of 5th year seniors the next few years.

Agreed. It's a strategy that has worked at BYU for a long time. Could work here too, even though UTSA isn't going to have the guys returning from LDS missions that BYU has.

(By the way, even for BYU, the age difference is hugely exaggerated by media and fans who don't look at the actual numbers. According to this article, even with 80 out of 105 players who had served missions, the average age of BYU's 2008 football team was 21, while the average age of USC's team the same season was 20, which sounds about right for a team that does a lot of redshirting like Carroll's teams did.)

Being 20 in college sports is like hitting 30 in pro.

Age 23=45 y/o baseball player.