(11-05-2011 02:15 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:01 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 12:15 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  If C-USA and the MWC lose the named schools, then the gap between the Sun Belt and those conferences will shrink somewhat no matter who they add. I think minimizing the hit is one reason why they will expand. That and because they need to try and appease the T.V. money men. Expansion seems to always boil down to maximizing power and money.

As for the Sun Belt, if we don't lose any programs, the gap between our conference and C-USA will shrink dramatically. And, within a few years we could be at a point where the Sun Belt contends for the top non AQ spot.

Having said that, any Sun Belt team invited would accept an offer from C-USA.

As for expanding the Sun Belt, I think it's still too early to speculate. We are just now at a point where we can speculate about possible C-USA candidates. I'm no fan of UTSA, but I can see the value in the San Antonio market. Texas State should not even be in the discussion. I'm thinking when it's all over the Belt may only need 1 team to get to 8. 8 is not so bad. It would mean less teams to spit the money with. If the Belt sticks to its policy of not adding from the FCS, there would really be only two candidates for the spot, LA Tech and NMSU. LA Tech's administration has marginalized the Sun Belt in past statements, so I say NMSU would be the better of the two. If the new commissioner changes policy and considers FCS programs, UTSA would keep the Belt in Texas and provide a large market, but I think Appy State would be the best FCS candidate.

I can understand not being a fan of Texas State, but to say we don't even belong in the discussion is ignorant in my opinion. In fact, I think we have a similar profile to a lot of Belt schools.

34000+ enrollment
$20 million budget
Good baseball and softball
Good facilities (30K expansion to on-campus FB stadium, new BSB/SB stadiums, new T&F complex)
Endowment very similar to North Texas
Two major airports nearby
Hot co-eds
FB attendance averaging over 15k this year in a 16k stadium

Good softball and baseball ? Basketball is horrible and would affect the conference RPI. 15,000 attendance is well below startup member USA's nearly 19,500 and less than every current member. Texas State probably would not be one of the top candidates on the Sun belt wish list.

If you're going to talk smack saying our attendance is low, wait until we are capable of seating more than 16000.

Because right now:

Texas State - 94% full
USA - 48% full

(11-07-2011 06:21 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:15 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:01 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 12:15 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  If C-USA and the MWC lose the named schools, then the gap between the Sun Belt and those conferences will shrink somewhat no matter who they add. I think minimizing the hit is one reason why they will expand. That and because they need to try and appease the T.V. money men. Expansion seems to always boil down to maximizing power and money.

As for the Sun Belt, if we don't lose any programs, the gap between our conference and C-USA will shrink dramatically. And, within a few years we could be at a point where the Sun Belt contends for the top non AQ spot.

Having said that, any Sun Belt team invited would accept an offer from C-USA.

As for expanding the Sun Belt, I think it's still too early to speculate. We are just now at a point where we can speculate about possible C-USA candidates. I'm no fan of UTSA, but I can see the value in the San Antonio market. Texas State should not even be in the discussion. I'm thinking when it's all over the Belt may only need 1 team to get to 8. 8 is not so bad. It would mean less teams to spit the money with. If the Belt sticks to its policy of not adding from the FCS, there would really be only two candidates for the spot, LA Tech and NMSU. LA Tech's administration has marginalized the Sun Belt in past statements, so I say NMSU would be the better of the two. If the new commissioner changes policy and considers FCS programs, UTSA would keep the Belt in Texas and provide a large market, but I think Appy State would be the best FCS candidate.

I can understand not being a fan of Texas State, but to say we don't even belong in the discussion is ignorant in my opinion. In fact, I think we have a similar profile to a lot of Belt schools.

34000+ enrollment
$20 million budget
Good baseball and softball
Good facilities (30K expansion to on-campus FB stadium, new BSB/SB stadiums, new T&F complex)
Endowment very similar to North Texas
Two major airports nearby
Hot co-eds
FB attendance averaging over 15k this year in a 16k stadium

Good softball and baseball ? Basketball is horrible and would affect the conference RPI. 15,000 attendance is well below startup member USA's nearly 19,500 and less than every current member. Texas State probably would not be one of the top candidates on the Sun belt wish list.

If you're going to talk smack saying our attendance is low, wait until we are capable of seating more than 16000.

Because right now:

Texas State - 94% full
USA - 48% full

Don't get you panties in a wad. Nobody is "talking smack" just referring to official attendance numbers. "Wait until" doesn't compute with what is actually happening right now.

(11-07-2011 06:21 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:15 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:01 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 12:15 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  If C-USA and the MWC lose the named schools, then the gap between the Sun Belt and those conferences will shrink somewhat no matter who they add. I think minimizing the hit is one reason why they will expand. That and because they need to try and appease the T.V. money men. Expansion seems to always boil down to maximizing power and money.

As for the Sun Belt, if we don't lose any programs, the gap between our conference and C-USA will shrink dramatically. And, within a few years we could be at a point where the Sun Belt contends for the top non AQ spot.

Having said that, any Sun Belt team invited would accept an offer from C-USA.

As for expanding the Sun Belt, I think it's still too early to speculate. We are just now at a point where we can speculate about possible C-USA candidates. I'm no fan of UTSA, but I can see the value in the San Antonio market. Texas State should not even be in the discussion. I'm thinking when it's all over the Belt may only need 1 team to get to 8. 8 is not so bad. It would mean less teams to spit the money with. If the Belt sticks to its policy of not adding from the FCS, there would really be only two candidates for the spot, LA Tech and NMSU. LA Tech's administration has marginalized the Sun Belt in past statements, so I say NMSU would be the better of the two. If the new commissioner changes policy and considers FCS programs, UTSA would keep the Belt in Texas and provide a large market, but I think Appy State would be the best FCS candidate.

I can understand not being a fan of Texas State, but to say we don't even belong in the discussion is ignorant in my opinion. In fact, I think we have a similar profile to a lot of Belt schools.

34000+ enrollment
$20 million budget
Good baseball and softball
Good facilities (30K expansion to on-campus FB stadium, new BSB/SB stadiums, new T&F complex)
Endowment very similar to North Texas
Two major airports nearby
Hot co-eds
FB attendance averaging over 15k this year in a 16k stadium

Good softball and baseball ? Basketball is horrible and would affect the conference RPI. 15,000 attendance is well below startup member USA's nearly 19,500 and less than every current member. Texas State probably would not be one of the top candidates on the Sun belt wish list.

If you're going to talk smack saying our attendance is low, wait until we are capable of seating more than 16000.

Because right now:

Texas State - 94% full
USA - 48% full

Seriously? The "wait until we have more capacity" argument means absolutely nothing unless you are already reaching attendance numbers that are 100% of capacity. All that means is that you will have more empty seats.

(11-06-2011 04:43 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  

(11-06-2011 09:26 AM)gatadotcom Wrote:  

.

Is Georgia State's mascot the demon dog from Ghostbusters?

THAT'S AWESOME! The Georgia State Demon Dogs! Or GARGOYLES! That's unique!
As for not BELONGING because our 2 year old program lost a game, I dont know Southern fans, its a reach. All I have to say is, you didnt think we'd ever start a program...and we did. Just keep watching...it's about to get soooo much crazier! I mean literally, you are going to lose your mind when you see whats coming.

(11-07-2011 07:59 PM)Mean Green Matt Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 06:21 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:15 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:01 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 12:15 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  If C-USA and the MWC lose the named schools, then the gap between the Sun Belt and those conferences will shrink somewhat no matter who they add. I think minimizing the hit is one reason why they will expand. That and because they need to try and appease the T.V. money men. Expansion seems to always boil down to maximizing power and money.

As for the Sun Belt, if we don't lose any programs, the gap between our conference and C-USA will shrink dramatically. And, within a few years we could be at a point where the Sun Belt contends for the top non AQ spot.

Having said that, any Sun Belt team invited would accept an offer from C-USA.

As for expanding the Sun Belt, I think it's still too early to speculate. We are just now at a point where we can speculate about possible C-USA candidates. I'm no fan of UTSA, but I can see the value in the San Antonio market. Texas State should not even be in the discussion. I'm thinking when it's all over the Belt may only need 1 team to get to 8. 8 is not so bad. It would mean less teams to spit the money with. If the Belt sticks to its policy of not adding from the FCS, there would really be only two candidates for the spot, LA Tech and NMSU. LA Tech's administration has marginalized the Sun Belt in past statements, so I say NMSU would be the better of the two. If the new commissioner changes policy and considers FCS programs, UTSA would keep the Belt in Texas and provide a large market, but I think Appy State would be the best FCS candidate.

I can understand not being a fan of Texas State, but to say we don't even belong in the discussion is ignorant in my opinion. In fact, I think we have a similar profile to a lot of Belt schools.

34000+ enrollment
$20 million budget
Good baseball and softball
Good facilities (30K expansion to on-campus FB stadium, new BSB/SB stadiums, new T&F complex)
Endowment very similar to North Texas
Two major airports nearby
Hot co-eds
FB attendance averaging over 15k this year in a 16k stadium

Good softball and baseball ? Basketball is horrible and would affect the conference RPI. 15,000 attendance is well below startup member USA's nearly 19,500 and less than every current member. Texas State probably would not be one of the top candidates on the Sun belt wish list.

If you're going to talk smack saying our attendance is low, wait until we are capable of seating more than 16000.

Because right now:

Texas State - 94% full
USA - 48% full

Seriously? The "wait until we have more capacity" argument means absolutely nothing unless you are already reaching attendance numbers that are 100% of capacity. All that means is that you will have more empty seats.

You can't benchmark two programs' attendance when one has the ability to seat more people. And when our expansion opens next year, I don't think attendance will stay where it's at. Texas Tech, Nevada, La Tech, NMSU, and yes even Idaho will draw more than Tarleton, Nicholls, Lamar, Northwestern State, and Prairie View A&M.

(11-08-2011 01:18 AM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 07:59 PM)Mean Green Matt Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 06:21 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:15 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:01 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  I can understand not being a fan of Texas State, but to say we don't even belong in the discussion is ignorant in my opinion. In fact, I think we have a similar profile to a lot of Belt schools.

34000+ enrollment
$20 million budget
Good baseball and softball
Good facilities (30K expansion to on-campus FB stadium, new BSB/SB stadiums, new T&F complex)
Endowment very similar to North Texas
Two major airports nearby
Hot co-eds
FB attendance averaging over 15k this year in a 16k stadium

Good softball and baseball ? Basketball is horrible and would affect the conference RPI. 15,000 attendance is well below startup member USA's nearly 19,500 and less than every current member. Texas State probably would not be one of the top candidates on the Sun belt wish list.

If you're going to talk smack saying our attendance is low, wait until we are capable of seating more than 16000.

Because right now:

Texas State - 94% full
USA - 48% full

Seriously? The "wait until we have more capacity" argument means absolutely nothing unless you are already reaching attendance numbers that are 100% of capacity. All that means is that you will have more empty seats.

You can't benchmark two programs' attendance when one has the ability to seat more people. And when our expansion opens next year, I don't think attendance will stay where it's at. Texas Tech, Nevada, La Tech, NMSU, and yes even Idaho will draw more than Tarleton, Nicholls, Lamar, Northwestern State, and Prairie View A&M.

Sure you can. If neither stadium is filling up, the capacity is completely and 100% irrelevant. Yes, UTSA has a bigger stadium, but if Bobcat stadium magically seated 30k tomorrow, your attendance numbers wouldn't change. The attendance will probably go up next year, but the concept stays the same.

Georgia Southern > Georgia State

(11-08-2011 01:18 AM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 07:59 PM)Mean Green Matt Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 06:21 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:15 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:01 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  I can understand not being a fan of Texas State, but to say we don't even belong in the discussion is ignorant in my opinion. In fact, I think we have a similar profile to a lot of Belt schools.

34000+ enrollment
$20 million budget
Good baseball and softball
Good facilities (30K expansion to on-campus FB stadium, new BSB/SB stadiums, new T&F complex)
Endowment very similar to North Texas
Two major airports nearby
Hot co-eds
FB attendance averaging over 15k this year in a 16k stadium

Good softball and baseball ? Basketball is horrible and would affect the conference RPI. 15,000 attendance is well below startup member USA's nearly 19,500 and less than every current member. Texas State probably would not be one of the top candidates on the Sun belt wish list.

If you're going to talk smack saying our attendance is low, wait until we are capable of seating more than 16000.

Because right now:

Texas State - 94% full
USA - 48% full

Seriously? The "wait until we have more capacity" argument means absolutely nothing unless you are already reaching attendance numbers that are 100% of capacity. All that means is that you will have more empty seats.

You can't benchmark two programs' attendance when one has the ability to seat more people. And when our expansion opens next year, I don't think attendance will stay where it's at. Texas Tech, Nevada, La Tech, NMSU, and yes even Idaho will draw more than Tarleton, Nicholls, Lamar, Northwestern State, and Prairie View A&M.

And USA's home schedule this year (West Alabama, Lamar, UT-Martin, Henderson State Mississippi Valley State and Cal Poly) will probably prove not as effective as those of future seasons (NC State, Mississippi State, USM, La Tech, Tulane, Oklahoma State and SBC opponents) when it comes to drawing spectators.

(11-07-2011 11:10 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 09:35 PM)BMarkey Wrote:  If both Florida schools left, the Sun Belt would have no other Florida choice - at least until (and if) a host of tiny schools grew their programs to I-A. They include Florida Gulf Coast in the Fort Myers area, Ave Maria in Southwest Florida, Warner in Lake Wales and Edward Waters and Jacksonville in Jacksonville, and Stetson in DeLand. And maybe West Florida? I know of none with absolute plans to go to I-A, although FGCU has studied the move.

You forgot North Florida in Jacksonville.

UNF - a little under 17,000 enrolled

FGCU - has over 12,000 enrolled but most of its alumni are under 30 yrs old. The school did not exist until Fall of 1997.

For comparison

Mississippi State - 21,000 students
Western Kentucky - 21,000
Ole Miss - 20,000 students

Arkansas State - 18,000 students
Southern Mississippi - 18,000 students
Louisiana Lafayette - 16,000 students

North Florida - 16,000 students
South Alabama - 15,000 students
La Tech - 12,000 students
Louisiana Monroe - 8,000 students

UL has 17,000 students and growing with $150,000,000 in new dorm construction to accomodate an increasing enrollment. Goal is to have an enrollment of over 20,000 within the next 5 years, even with increasing entrance requirements, and we are already getting some of the top students in the state. Winning in football and basketball will help to accelerate things.

(11-07-2011 06:21 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:15 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:01 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 12:15 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  If C-USA and the MWC lose the named schools, then the gap between the Sun Belt and those conferences will shrink somewhat no matter who they add. I think minimizing the hit is one reason why they will expand. That and because they need to try and appease the T.V. money men. Expansion seems to always boil down to maximizing power and money.

As for the Sun Belt, if we don't lose any programs, the gap between our conference and C-USA will shrink dramatically. And, within a few years we could be at a point where the Sun Belt contends for the top non AQ spot.

Having said that, any Sun Belt team invited would accept an offer from C-USA.

As for expanding the Sun Belt, I think it's still too early to speculate. We are just now at a point where we can speculate about possible C-USA candidates. I'm no fan of UTSA, but I can see the value in the San Antonio market. Texas State should not even be in the discussion. I'm thinking when it's all over the Belt may only need 1 team to get to 8. 8 is not so bad. It would mean less teams to spit the money with. If the Belt sticks to its policy of not adding from the FCS, there would really be only two candidates for the spot, LA Tech and NMSU. LA Tech's administration has marginalized the Sun Belt in past statements, so I say NMSU would be the better of the two. If the new commissioner changes policy and considers FCS programs, UTSA would keep the Belt in Texas and provide a large market, but I think Appy State would be the best FCS candidate.

I can understand not being a fan of Texas State, but to say we don't even belong in the discussion is ignorant in my opinion. In fact, I think we have a similar profile to a lot of Belt schools.

34000+ enrollment
$20 million budget
Good baseball and softball
Good facilities (30K expansion to on-campus FB stadium, new BSB/SB stadiums, new T&F complex)
Endowment very similar to North Texas
Two major airports nearby
Hot co-eds
FB attendance averaging over 15k this year in a 16k stadium

Good softball and baseball ? Basketball is horrible and would affect the conference RPI. 15,000 attendance is well below startup member USA's nearly 19,500 and less than every current member. Texas State probably would not be one of the top candidates on the Sun belt wish list.

If you're going to talk smack saying our attendance is low, wait until we are capable of seating more than 16000.

Because right now:

Texas State - 94% full
USA - 48% full

Truthfully I really could care less about this argument, but I would like to add that a lot the UTSA #'s are inflated through massive buy offs by the local businesses and influential alumni and low cost promotions. My personal favorite was the bucket of chicken, 2 sides, 4 biscuits and 4 tickets to the UTSA game for $20. Those type of deals essentially are straight give aways and more appropriately are tickets that get considered as paid attendance regardless if the people show or not...

Lets wait a year ir two before we start jumping up and down about the great draw UTSA is right now. They are already seeing a decline. I would hope that the WAC games next year would help strengthen those numbers but conference realignment might kill that momentum.

I would still probably take them though over some of the other options just for local, recruiting base and proximity to UNT (if they stay). If UNT is gone, the Sun Belt might be better off making LA the westernmost point and filling in the west.

(11-08-2011 01:18 AM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 07:59 PM)Mean Green Matt Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 06:21 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:15 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 02:01 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  I can understand not being a fan of Texas State, but to say we don't even belong in the discussion is ignorant in my opinion. In fact, I think we have a similar profile to a lot of Belt schools.

34000+ enrollment
$20 million budget
Good baseball and softball
Good facilities (30K expansion to on-campus FB stadium, new BSB/SB stadiums, new T&F complex)
Endowment very similar to North Texas
Two major airports nearby
Hot co-eds
FB attendance averaging over 15k this year in a 16k stadium

Good softball and baseball ? Basketball is horrible and would affect the conference RPI. 15,000 attendance is well below startup member USA's nearly 19,500 and less than every current member. Texas State probably would not be one of the top candidates on the Sun belt wish list.

If you're going to talk smack saying our attendance is low, wait until we are capable of seating more than 16000.

Because right now:

Texas State - 94% full
USA - 48% full

Seriously? The "wait until we have more capacity" argument means absolutely nothing unless you are already reaching attendance numbers that are 100% of capacity. All that means is that you will have more empty seats.

You can't benchmark two programs' attendance when one has the ability to seat more people. And when our expansion opens next year, I don't think attendance will stay where it's at. Texas Tech, Nevada, La Tech, NMSU, and yes even Idaho will draw more than Tarleton, Nicholls, Lamar, Northwestern State, and Prairie View A&M.

You can spin this anyway you want, but spin if you will. You will not sell the SBC to accept your team/school.

2011 Season to date:

1. Nicholls State 12
@ TSU 38 Attn: 15,502

2. Tarleton 28
@ TSU 38 Attn: 15,800

3. Northwestern St. 23
@TSU 10 Attn: 14,443

4. Lamar 21
@ TSU 46 Attn: 15,028

Prarie View 26
@ TSU 34 Attn: 14,222

Capacity: 15,969
Ave. Attn: 15,002
So, what you are saying is that if your stadium was larger, the attendance would be considerbly higher, right?

I say BS, wishful thinking. TSU did not have a single capacity crowd. USA, in their 3rd year (2nd in FBS) and using a borrowed stadium that seats 40,000 is averaging 19,500. Your school has been playing football for decades is only averaging 15,502. Nope, your just spitting into the wind. You need to hope and pray the wacky WAC doesn't evaporate off the face of the earth, my friend.

(11-08-2011 01:51 AM)troy4ever21 Wrote:  Georgia Southern > Georgia State

Only in unemployment

(11-08-2011 01:38 PM)SidJag Wrote:  You can spin this anyway you want, but spin if you will. You will not sell the SBC to accept your team/school.

2011 Season to date:

1. Nicholls State 12
@ TSU 38 Attn: 15,502

2. Tarleton 28
@ TSU 38 Attn: 15,800

3. Northwestern St. 23
@TSU 10 Attn: 14,443

4. Lamar 21
@ TSU 46 Attn: 15,028

Prarie View 26
@ TSU 34 Attn: 14,222

Capacity: 15,969
Ave. Attn: 15,002
So, what you are saying is that if your stadium was larger, the attendance would be considerbly higher, right?

I say BS, wishful thinking. TSU did not have a single capacity crowd. USA, in their 3rd year (2nd in FBS) and using a borrowed stadium that seats 40,000 is averaging 19,500. Your school has been playing football for decades is only averaging 15,502. Nope, your just spitting into the wind. You need to hope and pray the wacky WAC doesn't evaporate off the face of the earth, my friend.

I'm fine with the argument you and Matt bring up in that we're not at capacity week in and week out. At least that's attainable. But to put us against a school who has the ability to seat more than 16000 is where I have a problem because all variables are not equal.

And to your last point, Texas State has a lot to offer a conference; especially when you consider enrollment, location, budget, and facilities. Should the WAC "evaporate off the face of the earth," I have no doubt we'll find a home for our programs, including FBS football.

(11-08-2011 01:51 AM)troy4ever21 Wrote:  Georgia Southern > Georgia State

Coming in and becoming competitive in football sooner rather than later, I agree, as a full membership expansion candidate I definitely disagree.

(11-08-2011 08:48 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-08-2011 01:38 PM)SidJag Wrote:  You can spin this anyway you want, but spin if you will. You will not sell the SBC to accept your team/school.

2011 Season to date:

1. Nicholls State 12
@ TSU 38 Attn: 15,502

2. Tarleton 28
@ TSU 38 Attn: 15,800

3. Northwestern St. 23
@TSU 10 Attn: 14,443

4. Lamar 21
@ TSU 46 Attn: 15,028

Prarie View 26
@ TSU 34 Attn: 14,222

Capacity: 15,969
Ave. Attn: 15,002
So, what you are saying is that if your stadium was larger, the attendance would be considerbly higher, right?

I say BS, wishful thinking. TSU did not have a single capacity crowd. USA, in their 3rd year (2nd in FBS) and using a borrowed stadium that seats 40,000 is averaging 19,500. Your school has been playing football for decades is only averaging 15,502. Nope, your just spitting into the wind. You need to hope and pray the wacky WAC doesn't evaporate off the face of the earth, my friend.

I'm fine with the argument you and Matt bring up in that we're not at capacity week in and week out. At least that's attainable. But to put us against a school who has the ability to seat more than 16000 is where I have a problem because all variables are not equal.

And to your last point, Texas State has a lot to offer a conference; especially when you consider enrollment, location, budget, and facilities. Should the WAC "evaporate off the face of the earth," I have no doubt we'll find a home for our programs, including FBS football.

The fact that TSU is not at capacity week in and week out is not an argument for not being in a conference with you guys. I'm on the record saying that I 100% want you in the conference, even over UTSA. My point is about the comparison that still doesn't seem to be sinking in.

The "variable" of stadium capacity is completely irrelevant. You should not have a problem with something irrelevant. If Texas State was turning people away at the gates and those people were not counted on attendance, THEN it would be an issue because if Texas State played in the Alamo Dome, the hypothetical people would not get turned away, and would subsequently be counted in the attendance figures. Until Texas State fills their stadium, there is no argument that a straight comparison between Texas State and UTSA attendance numbers is unfair.

What you are saying is equivalent to a NT fans saying "Hey, it's not fair to compare NT and UT attendance figures because they have more capacity". Unfortunately, we don't fill ours, so it is a non-issue.

(11-08-2011 09:39 PM)Mean Green Matt Wrote:  

(11-08-2011 08:48 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-08-2011 01:38 PM)SidJag Wrote:  You can spin this anyway you want, but spin if you will. You will not sell the SBC to accept your team/school.

2011 Season to date:

1. Nicholls State 12
@ TSU 38 Attn: 15,502

2. Tarleton 28
@ TSU 38 Attn: 15,800

3. Northwestern St. 23
@TSU 10 Attn: 14,443

4. Lamar 21
@ TSU 46 Attn: 15,028

Prarie View 26
@ TSU 34 Attn: 14,222

Capacity: 15,969
Ave. Attn: 15,002
So, what you are saying is that if your stadium was larger, the attendance would be considerbly higher, right?

I say BS, wishful thinking. TSU did not have a single capacity crowd. USA, in their 3rd year (2nd in FBS) and using a borrowed stadium that seats 40,000 is averaging 19,500. Your school has been playing football for decades is only averaging 15,502. Nope, your just spitting into the wind. You need to hope and pray the wacky WAC doesn't evaporate off the face of the earth, my friend.

I'm fine with the argument you and Matt bring up in that we're not at capacity week in and week out. At least that's attainable. But to put us against a school who has the ability to seat more than 16000 is where I have a problem because all variables are not equal.

And to your last point, Texas State has a lot to offer a conference; especially when you consider enrollment, location, budget, and facilities. Should the WAC "evaporate off the face of the earth," I have no doubt we'll find a home for our programs, including FBS football.

The fact that TSU is not at capacity week in and week out is not an argument for not being in a conference with you guys. I'm on the record saying that I 100% want you in the conference, even over UTSA. My point is about the comparison that still doesn't seem to be sinking in.

The "variable" of stadium capacity is completely irrelevant. You should not have a problem with something irrelevant. If Texas State was turning people away at the gates and those people were not counted on attendance, THEN it would be an issue because if Texas State played in the Alamo Dome, the hypothetical people would not get turned away, and would subsequently be counted in the attendance figures. Until Texas State fills their stadium, there is no argument that a straight comparison between Texas State and UTSA attendance numbers is unfair.

What you are saying is equivalent to a NT fans saying "Hey, it's not fair to compare NT and UT attendance figures because they have more capacity". Unfortunately, we don't fill ours, so it is a non-issue.

I completely understand what you're saying. I guess in my mind, it's the same reason you don't look at dollar amounts when pitting Target's and Walmart's financial statements against each other. My only beef was that USA and TXST are in completely different situations, so putting average football attendance figures next to each other doesn't say much. I'd put more stock in the comparison if it was USA/UTSA or USA/GSU just because all are recently started programs playing similar opponents in rented, off campus facilities.

The Sun Belt Conference currently has a "No FCS" expansion policy.

There is no point in posting your arguments here. I'm sure you have your own board where you can envision your programs future.

(11-09-2011 11:23 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The Sun Belt Conference currently has a "No FCS" expansion policy.

There is no point in posting your arguments here. I'm sure you have your own board where you can envision your programs future.

I guess we're in luck, because the NCAA doesn't consider us FCS anymore

http://www.ncaa.com/schools/texas-st

(11-09-2011 11:46 AM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(11-09-2011 11:23 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The Sun Belt Conference currently has a "No FCS" expansion policy.

There is no point in posting your arguments here. I'm sure you have your own board where you can envision your programs future.

I guess we're in luck, because the NCAA doesn't consider us FCS anymore

http://www.ncaa.com/schools/texas-st

BOOM!

In all seriousness, you can't say that TSU wouldn't have larger crowds in a larger stadium in the SBC. There would be bigger crowds. Not many people are going to show up and watch the Bobcats take on (for example...) Lamar. If Louisiana came to town, that would be a different story. Just because a school's stadium isn't large doesn't mean the program doesn't have potential if they move up. However, I agree that right now they're not at the needed level for an SBC team.