http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/UTSA_...tball.html
As an independent, no less. They don't even have a football team right now. No mentions of a stadium in the article. Where will they play and will it be good enough to get them the BCS invite they're hoping for?
It seems that the "cowboy attitude" extends to athletic administrators in Texas. This is a really dumb idea.
(01-31-2010 09:26 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/UTSA_...tball.html
As an independent, no less. They don't even have a football team right now. No mentions of a stadium in the article. Where will they play and will it be good enough to get them the BCS invite they're hoping for?
It seems that the "cowboy attitude" extends to athletic administrators in Texas. This is a really dumb idea.
They will play at the Alamo Dome.
Plenty of good talent will fall into their laps...but going the indy route isn't easy. The early body bag games aren't pretty. Temple went through it recently and it was real ugly at times.
With the WAC having a standing invite for North Texas, I'm sure they would tender the same to UTSA.
The way the BCS is set up, any school has pretty much has to be in a conference. Scheduling will be a nightmare as an Indy. My guess is they just haven't made a decision yet as to where they'll go conference wise.
Its either WAC or SBC. SBC is more stable but the WAC has bigger D1 names in it as well as a nice TV deal with ESPN for Friday night exposure. If Boise moves from the WAC to the MWC as anticipated that might change.
(02-01-2010 02:43 AM)sconer Wrote: [ -> ]Plenty of good talent will fall into their laps...but going the indy route isn't easy. The early body bag games aren't pretty. Temple went through it recently and it was real ugly at times.
There startup would resemble those of FAU & FIU. Lot's of good talent and football lovers in Texas.
(02-01-2010 09:49 AM)Arrohead Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2010 02:43 AM)sconer Wrote: [ -> ]Plenty of good talent will fall into their laps...but going the indy route isn't easy. The early body bag games aren't pretty. Temple went through it recently and it was real ugly at times.
There startup would resemble those of FAU & FIU. Lot's of good talent and football lovers in Texas.
Yup. I think TX is in a better position than FL.
UTSA is where Larry Coker is in post-Miami days. With a proven head coach and the talent available in Texas, the sky's the limit for a new program.
Keep in mind ... C-USA could potentially be losing another member or two to the Big East if the Big 10 decides it wants Pitt/Rutgers and Pitt/Rutgers wants the Big 10. C-USA may be interested in UTSA to have an even stronger profile than they already have in Texas (Houston, Rice, UTEP, SMU). Also could go the Sun Belt route, especially if C-USA steals away any Sun Belt Members (Troy/FAU/FIU just to name some possibilities). Sun Belt's got one team in Texas (UNT) and the conference sure wouldn't mind increasing their presence in state recruiting.
Here's their proposed timeline. Sounds interesting, possibly slightly far fetched though and is depending heavily on Texas talent producing quickly.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_n...eline.html
(02-01-2010 09:45 AM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ]With the WAC having a standing invite for North Texas, I'm sure they would tender the same to UTSA.
The way the BCS is set up, any school has pretty much has to be in a conference. Scheduling will be a nightmare as an Indy. My guess is they just haven't made a decision yet as to where they'll go conference wise.
Its either WAC or SBC. SBC is more stable but the WAC has bigger D1 names in it as well as a nice TV deal with ESPN for Friday night exposure. If Boise moves from the WAC to the MWC as anticipated that might change.
NIU along with North Texas, Arkansas State, and the UL Cajuns were in a WESTERN conference as part of the Big West football consortium. None of the SBC schools involved are interested in another WESTERN conference affiliation. It did not work for our schools or fans. Southern football fans had little to no interest in the WESTERN schools and vice versa.
The WAC has very few choices for expansion should the need occur so I think UTSA may be on their radar.
(02-01-2010 10:12 AM)marklbgsu Wrote: [ -> ]UTSA is where Larry Coker is in post-Miami days. With a proven head coach and the talent available in Texas, the sky's the limit for a new program.
Keep in mind ... C-USA could potentially be losing another member or two to the Big East if the Big 10 decides it wants Pitt/Rutgers and Pitt/Rutgers wants the Big 10. C-USA may be interested in UTSA to have an even stronger profile than they already have in Texas (Houston, Rice, UTEP, SMU). Also could go the Sun Belt route, especially if C-USA steals away any Sun Belt Members (Troy/FAU/FIU just to name some possibilities). Sun Belt's got one team in Texas (UNT) and the conference sure wouldn't mind increasing their presence in state recruiting.
Here's their proposed timeline. Sounds interesting, possibly slightly far fetched though and is depending heavily on Texas talent producing quickly.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_n...eline.html
I suspect Texas State is already pounding hard on the SBC door seeking admission. UTSA would have to bump them out of line.
Sooner rather than later there will be enough TX FBS schools to make a Texas Conference.
Stanley: Aren't we about there?
Texas
Texas Tech
North Texas Baylor
SMU
UTEP
Houston
Rice
TCU
That's eight ... San Antonio would make 9.
You didn't count correctly. We have 10.
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Houston
Baylor
Rice
Southern Methodist
Texas Christian
North Texas
UT-El Paso
Texas State + UT-San Antonio would make it 12.
The WAC does not have a standing invite to North Texas. When the WAC got raided, they wanted a 9th member and didn't want Idaho. North Texas was told join or we will get Louisiana-Lafayette. Both said no. The commissioner talked to Arkansas State and Middle Tennessee State but by that point the western schools who didn't want to go east any way had as much interest as ASU and MT had in them.
They have a 9th member now and zero desire to go east.
My sense of the UTSA situation is they aren't having much luck raising money and don't believe that they can attain their goals if an extended FCS period is on the table.
I don't think UTSA is seriously on the Sun Belt radar at this point and don't believe they are on CUSA's either. If CUSA were to lose a team, they would call Middle Tennessee, Troy, Arkansas State, or Florida Atlantic long before they run down the phone list to get to UTSA.
I'm not saying UTSA is a never with the Sun Belt. With New Orleans leaving and a change in league rules required for Denver to stay past the impending deadline to add more sports or leave, the Belt will soon be at 11 full members and 10 for football and the idea of 12 for football (with or without Arkansas Little Rock) will carry some interest.
However, the list of schools that might get a look is broader than just UTSA and would certainly include: Texas State and Charlotte who have clearly expressed their desire to play FBS football and would also include the usual suspects of FCS schools noted to toy with the idea such as Georgia State, Georgia Southern, Appalachain State, and Missouri State as well as looking at schools such as Lamar that have a long association with a number of Sun Belt members (and is a former member) and hybrid ideas of inserting the academies in as "half members" (ie. each plays a four rather than eight game slate).
My take is that UTSA isn't making nearly as big a gamble as it appears because this is a do or die situation and without the gamble football won't become a reality.
(02-02-2010 12:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]The WAC does not have a standing invite to North Texas. When the WAC got raided, they wanted a 9th member and didn't want Idaho. North Texas was told join or we will get Louisiana-Lafayette. Both said no. The commissioner talked to Arkansas State and Middle Tennessee State but by that point the western schools who didn't want to go east any way had as much interest as ASU and MT had in them.
I agree that North Texas has said no to the WAC. What I'm saying is at anytime they change their answer to yes, they'll be automatically invited. Its up to them as to what they want to do.
Now I suppose if the WAC lost Boise State, it could offer both UTSA and UNT where they would be in a league playing appealing regional rivals La Tech and NMSU, along with some names like Fresno and Hawaii. That league would have the ability to get a Texas based bowl agreement along with having the New Mexico in toe.
The WAC has a significant advantage over the SBC in that if the MWC moves up to the BCS it will be the only conference non-AQ conference in the West and one of the few in the Mountain/Pacific timezones providing them more TV options.
There is also more basketball cash in the WAC as they have a tradition of playing at a higher level than the SBC.
I would not worry though about the long term future of the SBC as it will be up to 10 members in 2013 with several regional schools expressing interest in moving up. I just question whether its in the best interest to be there for North Texas a school that is far enough west to fit into the better positioned WAC.
As for the short list into CUSA, they'll probably look at WKU, MTSU, FAU, FIU. I'm sorry but A-State has very little chance at CUSA because of its small market state and medicore basketball. Down the road, the SBC could add Missouri State as a rival for A-State and that will be a nice little conference for A-State. Maybe if CUSA disinigrates something else could happen for A-State but I doubt it.
(02-02-2010 12:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Texas State and Charlotte who have clearly expressed their desire to play FBS football and would also include the usual suspects of FCS schools noted to toy with the idea such as Georgia State, Georgia Southern, Appalachain State, and Missouri State as well as looking at schools such as Lamar that have a long association with a number of Sun Belt members (and is a former member) and hybrid ideas of inserting the academies in as "half members" (ie. each plays a four rather than eight game slate).
My take is that UTSA isn't making nearly as big a gamble as it appears because this is a do or die situation and without the gamble football won't become a reality.
-Texas State along with UTSA and North Texas are all potential WAC candidates. The WAC may strike first and add Texas St/UTSA after Boise State leaves.
-Charlotte and Georgia State with FBS football are probably the top 2 CUSA candidates around. I could see CUSA going to 14 with Charlotte and Georgia State to cut down on travel costs and enhance basketball.
-The SBC is looking more at Appy State, Jacksonville State, Missouri State. Georgia Southern is small market and probably content with FCS and Southern Conference. Missouri State is in an odd location and would probably be as well off in the SBC/FBS situation.
-Unless you are talking VMI and the Citadel there is no way the SBC is going to get an academy rotation. The Big East reportedly offered Army/Navy but they turned it down because its too competitive. The MAC offered Army/Navy as regional schools, Army said yes Navy no. There is absolutely no reason Army/Navy would hook up with the SBC.
The MAC is not known to be a great academic conference like the Big Ten but its far better than the SBC.
You missed my point. It's not that UNT said, No. It's that the WAC no longer has interest in going east. The WAC would rather replace La.Tech than add another eastern school. If UNT called today they absolutely would not get in the WAC. If the WAC adds teams it will come from the pool of west coast FCS schools. UNT, Texas State, and UTSA aren't going to be WAC candidates.
Army/Navy rejected full status in the Big East. A hybrid of each playing four games merely reflects the direction of their scheduling.
CUSA isn't going to go to 14. The league is horribly divided right now. No candidate out there could get the 8 votes required to be admitted. If the rumors of their TV negotiations prove true, they will be too busy infighting to look outward and adding teams to a shrinking or stagnant revenue pool isn't going to happen.
As to who the Sun Belt is looking at, I can answer with certainty that no one is getting a serious look at this point. Texas State and UTSA have both been told until they get their house in order there is no reason to talk.
A change in the MWC status BCS AQ does nothing to help the WAC other than eliminate the threat of Boise being invited. Their current TV deal is based on the fact they are the only Mountain and Pacific time zone league willing to play non-standard dates for television on ESPN. The best thing that happened to the WAC after the split was the MWC signing the CSTV/Mtn agreement because that left ESPN needing non-standard inventory in the region.
The WAC gets 15 units this year and the Sun Belt will receive 10. The WAC has four units falling off after this distribution and they are currently on the bubble of being one bid.
Arkansas State has mediocre basketball right now but is in first place in the Sun Belt starting three freshmen, a soph and a junior under head coach John Brady, so I don't think mediocre is a long-term status. Prior to the Nutt debacle, Arkansas State went a decade in the top third of the nation in men's basketball attendance. Next year that status will return.
(02-02-2010 03:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]CUSA isn't going to go to 14. The league is horribly divided right now. No candidate out there could get the 8 votes required to be admitted. If the rumors of their TV negotiations prove true, they will be too busy infighting to look outward and adding teams to a shrinking or stagnant revenue pool isn't going to happen.
I'm not sure what is going to happen with CUSA. Its really a hybrid of two historic major conferences SWC and Metro. The problem is all the football powers from those two historic majors (Texas, Texas A&M, Florida State, South Carolina) are gone and replaced with schools that would have been average on that level (UTEP, Tulsa, Marshall, UCF).
I expect that to retain, improve TV dollars CUSA will have to move over to CSTV exclusive. That will benefit the SBC who can backfill ESPN Sunday night football.