(12-18-2012 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 06:18 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  Why do people NOT understand that USTA is still a novelty in SA? Outside of them putting up 9-10 win seasons, AND bringing in good OOC games, their attendance WILL fall.

How in the hell are two seasons any indication on long-term support? I don't understand at all. Actually I can't believe this conversation is occurring.

Even though the numbers are impressive, there's another side to those numbers.

During an 8 win season in 2012, USTA's attendance dropped a little over 7K from 2011 levels, which demonstrates your point. That's with the novelty still existing.

28K average attendance in a program's second year is impressive. However, Tulane, SMU, Memphis, etc have all taken grief over their attendance, but with a former national championship head coach and 8 wins, each of those programs would be playing before full or near full houses and not before 28K.

UTSA may be the perfect addition to the surviving conference in 3-6 years, but not at this time.

What do you mean "novelty?" You act like the people in San Antonio have never seen college football before . . . these folks choose between Texas A&M - Kingsville (Div. II, leads the nation in home attendance); Texas State (record crowds in 2012), Texas A&M (first year in the SEC); Texas, and Baylor . . . and they still put 28,000 people in the stands playing in a conference no one has ever heard of against teams no one cares about . . . your arguments are laughable . . .

You and others are arguing that Fresno State (or another long-time western team) should be added even though Fresno State only draws 30,000 average attendance despite the fact that they have been in the WAC forever, haven't won a conference championship in 13 years, and have lost 4 of their last 5 bowls. . . your kind of logic is why that kind of new Big East, like the old Big East, will fail . . .

(12-17-2012 08:56 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  Meanwhile, every team we add takes from the pot, 16 is bad enough, now folks want 18?!

Exactly how does Memphis and Tulane add to the football pot? Navy and Air Force should they come on for football only would be a net positive.

Creighton and Wichita State are net positive in they bring NCAA credits and reduced travel costs for non revenue sports.

(12-18-2012 10:24 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 06:18 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  Why do people NOT understand that USTA is still a novelty in SA? Outside of them putting up 9-10 win seasons, AND bringing in good OOC games, their attendance WILL fall.

How in the hell are two seasons any indication on long-term support? I don't understand at all. Actually I can't believe this conversation is occurring.

Even though the numbers are impressive, there's another side to those numbers.

During an 8 win season in 2012, USTA's attendance dropped a little over 7K from 2011 levels, which demonstrates your point. That's with the novelty still existing.

28K average attendance in a program's second year is impressive. However, Tulane, SMU, Memphis, etc have all taken grief over their attendance, but with a former national championship head coach and 8 wins, each of those programs would be playing before full or near full houses and not before 28K.

UTSA may be the perfect addition to the surviving conference in 3-6 years, but not at this time.

What do you mean "novelty?" You act like the people in San Antonio have never seen college football before . . . these folks choose between Texas A&M - Kingsville (Div. II, leads the nation in home attendance); Texas State (record crowds in 2012), Texas A&M (first year in the SEC); Texas, and Baylor . . . and they still put 28,000 people in the stands playing in a conference no one has ever heard of against teams no one cares about . . . your arguments are laughable . . .

You and others are arguing that Fresno State (or another long-time western team) should be added even though Fresno State only draws 30,000 average attendance despite the fact that they have been in the WAC forever, haven't won a conference championship in 13 years, and have lost 4 of their last 5 bowls. . . your kind of logic is why that kind of new Big East, like the old Big East, will fail . . .

Obviously you've not read any of my posts in their entirety. UTSA may indeed be a good candidate, after a reasonable number of years actually playing FBS football. Additionally, those years will give the attendance a chance to level off from its current decline following its first year.

In the end we'll see who is added and who isn't. You nor I will decide. However, you and I should hope and trust that the process of voting on additions is performed by informed university presidents and not just a rubber stamp committee. That process should result in the correct invitees gaining approval.

What problem could you possibly have with that approach?

edit: perhaps you could refresh my memory regarding my campaigning for Fresno State.

(12-18-2012 10:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 08:24 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 07:30 PM)monty Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:40 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:21 PM)monty Wrote:  Old Dominion is an unranked, read tier 3, National University - I thought the strategy was align with powerful eastern universities?

Again, I know your poking fun, but so we're clear here, you're cherry picking statements out of context:

1. I think Old Dominion is a possibility now as a basketball add (Olympic sports) to go with a football-only western school . . . combined with the fact that because their arch rival is VCU, you might get both;

2. I don't think Old Dominion is a possibility for football now for a lot of reasons . . . not the least of which is they only have a 19,800-seat stadium. . . I do think they are a possibility down the road in 5-10 years if their football team continues to sustain success, they increase their attendance average, and they expand their stadium; and

3. the statement about powerful (your word, not mine) "eastern universities" was in reference to what happens when Boise State, SDSU, UConn, and Cincinnati have left . . . if Old Dominioin is not in the conference at that time, it is not a school I likely would add unless their football just really explodes by then because it does not bring academic standing (AAU, Carnegie Tier 1, etc.) and are not a large, public urban research institution.

I'm not trying to poke fun (well, not completely) I'm just trying to understand the rubric to grade these teams, because it just seems to be a bunch of random schools where the only concern is how close to the Atlantic (bonus points for being in Virginia) they are whether they are prominent in academics or athletics or not.

Huh? The rubric is that Old Dominion and VCU would be solid basketball additions in the right geographic footprint that the Big East would be lucky to have to fill in for a likely Fresno State football add . . . ODU football . . . they have made nice run in FCS football this year . . . but not a fit now; maybe in a few years . . .

Niether Old Dominion or UTSA is going anywhere. If they are successful, they will be a prime future target should a team be poached from the Big East. Until then, let them develop in a feeder conference. There will be plenty of time to add them in the future if they develop into something special.

But they never will... let them wait 100 year tradition.

Still coiled and ready to strike...

(12-18-2012 10:39 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Exactly how does Memphis and Tulane add to the football pot? Navy and Air Force should they come on for football only would be a net positive.

Creighton and Wichita State are net positive in they bring NCAA credits and reduced travel costs for non revenue sports.

That's a legitimate question and I'm not sure that anything any of us can say will fully answer your question.

We let football somewhat wilt on the vine for the last few years. Money is being invested in practice facilities, weight facilities, the city's renovation of the Liberty Bowl, and investment in a bright young coach resulted in a marked improvement at the end of this year.

It's not like we've been lifeless the last 10 years as some may have you believe however. 2003 through 2005 we were averaging 40K and have participated in bowl games 5 of the last 9 years, but believe that we can surpass the results in those years.

(12-18-2012 10:24 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 06:18 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  Why do people NOT understand that USTA is still a novelty in SA? Outside of them putting up 9-10 win seasons, AND bringing in good OOC games, their attendance WILL fall.

How in the hell are two seasons any indication on long-term support? I don't understand at all. Actually I can't believe this conversation is occurring.

Even though the numbers are impressive, there's another side to those numbers.

During an 8 win season in 2012, USTA's attendance dropped a little over 7K from 2011 levels, which demonstrates your point. That's with the novelty still existing.

28K average attendance in a program's second year is impressive. However, Tulane, SMU, Memphis, etc have all taken grief over their attendance, but with a former national championship head coach and 8 wins, each of those programs would be playing before full or near full houses and not before 28K.

UTSA may be the perfect addition to the surviving conference in 3-6 years, but not at this time.

What do you mean "novelty?" You act like the people in San Antonio have never seen college football before . . . these folks choose between Texas A&M - Kingsville (Div. II, leads the nation in home attendance); Texas State (record crowds in 2012), Texas A&M (first year in the SEC); Texas, and Baylor . . . and they still put 28,000 people in the stands playing in a conference no one has ever heard of against teams no one cares about . . . your arguments are laughable . . .

You and others are arguing that Fresno State (or another long-time western team) should be added even though Fresno State only draws 30,000 average attendance despite the fact that they have been in the WAC forever, haven't won a conference championship in 13 years, and have lost 4 of their last 5 bowls. . . your kind of logic is why that kind of new Big East, like the old Big East, will fail . . .

as someone who has been to a few UTSA games, those 28k figures are, lets say, generous. They do a great job selling tickets and counting a bunch of students that arent there. Not so much a great job getting people in the house.

(12-18-2012 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 06:18 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  Why do people NOT understand that USTA is still a novelty in SA? Outside of them putting up 9-10 win seasons, AND bringing in good OOC games, their attendance WILL fall.

How in the hell are two seasons any indication on long-term support? I don't understand at all. Actually I can't believe this conversation is occurring.

Even though the numbers are impressive, there's another side to those numbers.

During an 8 win season in 2012, USTA's attendance dropped a little over 7K from 2011 levels, which demonstrates your point. That's with the novelty still existing.

28K average attendance in a program's second year is impressive. However, Tulane, SMU, Memphis, etc have all taken grief over their attendance, but with a former national championship head coach and 8 wins, each of those programs would be playing before full or near full houses and not before 28K.

UTSA may be the perfect addition to the surviving conference in 3-6 years, but not at this time.

Not to nitpick but, UTSA averaged more than 28K and did not drop by 7K. If you take away the first game of 57K, their attendance was actually fairly similar from year one to 2 going to 35K and change to basically 30K. If you take out game one, it went from probably 32K to 30K. Not a huge drop.

(12-18-2012 11:00 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 10:24 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 06:18 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  Why do people NOT understand that USTA is still a novelty in SA? Outside of them putting up 9-10 win seasons, AND bringing in good OOC games, their attendance WILL fall.

How in the hell are two seasons any indication on long-term support? I don't understand at all. Actually I can't believe this conversation is occurring.

Even though the numbers are impressive, there's another side to those numbers.

During an 8 win season in 2012, USTA's attendance dropped a little over 7K from 2011 levels, which demonstrates your point. That's with the novelty still existing.

28K average attendance in a program's second year is impressive. However, Tulane, SMU, Memphis, etc have all taken grief over their attendance, but with a former national championship head coach and 8 wins, each of those programs would be playing before full or near full houses and not before 28K.

UTSA may be the perfect addition to the surviving conference in 3-6 years, but not at this time.

What do you mean "novelty?" You act like the people in San Antonio have never seen college football before . . . these folks choose between Texas A&M - Kingsville (Div. II, leads the nation in home attendance); Texas State (record crowds in 2012), Texas A&M (first year in the SEC); Texas, and Baylor . . . and they still put 28,000 people in the stands playing in a conference no one has ever heard of against teams no one cares about . . . your arguments are laughable . . .

You and others are arguing that Fresno State (or another long-time western team) should be added even though Fresno State only draws 30,000 average attendance despite the fact that they have been in the WAC forever, haven't won a conference championship in 13 years, and have lost 4 of their last 5 bowls. . . your kind of logic is why that kind of new Big East, like the old Big East, will fail . . .

as someone who has been to a few UTSA games, those 28k figures are, lets say, generous. They do a great job selling tickets and counting a bunch of students that arent there. Not so much a great job getting people in the house.

I've been to a few games too, and they are no more generous than anyone else's attendance figures. And as previously stated, they averaged more than 28K.

And by the way, you do realize they have 14K season tickets right.

Watch the video does this look like 28K to you.

http://www.goutsa.com/mediaPortal/player...M_ID=13100

(12-18-2012 10:39 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 08:56 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  Meanwhile, every team we add takes from the pot, 16 is bad enough, now folks want 18?!

Exactly how does Memphis and Tulane add to the football pot? Navy and Air Force should they come on for football only would be a net positive.

Creighton and Wichita State are net positive in they bring NCAA credits and reduced travel costs for non revenue sports.

We're already here, does it matter? Or were you fishing to see what kind of dumb **** homer response I might give you?

(12-18-2012 11:07 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:00 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 10:24 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 06:18 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  Why do people NOT understand that USTA is still a novelty in SA? Outside of them putting up 9-10 win seasons, AND bringing in good OOC games, their attendance WILL fall.

How in the hell are two seasons any indication on long-term support? I don't understand at all. Actually I can't believe this conversation is occurring.

Even though the numbers are impressive, there's another side to those numbers.

During an 8 win season in 2012, USTA's attendance dropped a little over 7K from 2011 levels, which demonstrates your point. That's with the novelty still existing.

28K average attendance in a program's second year is impressive. However, Tulane, SMU, Memphis, etc have all taken grief over their attendance, but with a former national championship head coach and 8 wins, each of those programs would be playing before full or near full houses and not before 28K.

UTSA may be the perfect addition to the surviving conference in 3-6 years, but not at this time.

What do you mean "novelty?" You act like the people in San Antonio have never seen college football before . . . these folks choose between Texas A&M - Kingsville (Div. II, leads the nation in home attendance); Texas State (record crowds in 2012), Texas A&M (first year in the SEC); Texas, and Baylor . . . and they still put 28,000 people in the stands playing in a conference no one has ever heard of against teams no one cares about . . . your arguments are laughable . . .

You and others are arguing that Fresno State (or another long-time western team) should be added even though Fresno State only draws 30,000 average attendance despite the fact that they have been in the WAC forever, haven't won a conference championship in 13 years, and have lost 4 of their last 5 bowls. . . your kind of logic is why that kind of new Big East, like the old Big East, will fail . . .

as someone who has been to a few UTSA games, those 28k figures are, lets say, generous. They do a great job selling tickets and counting a bunch of students that arent there. Not so much a great job getting people in the house.

I've been to a few games too, and they are no more generous than anyone else's attendance figures. And as previously stated, they averaged more than 28K.

And by the way, you do realize they have 14K season tickets right.

Watch the video does this look like 28K to you.

http://www.goutsa.com/mediaPortal/player...M_ID=13100

and if they can play teams 25 miles away that bring 10-12k every home game, they'll be fine.

Sure, go with the theory that UTSA attendance will "level out" after a couple of years . . . no wait, what is your basis for that? . . . you're just making that up aren't you . . . there is every reason to believe that moving to the Big East, playing Boise State, SDSU, Houston, SMU, Cincinnati, etc. . . . especially if several of those games are on national television . . . will drive those attendance numbers up over 35,000 to 40,000 in a couple of years . . . your guess is as good as mine . . . what we know is there is no other candidate out there that can make a compelling case for how they are going to get their numbers up over current figures . . .

Did anybody say Memphis was invited for football? Duh. But we will be competitive faster than many assume.

(12-18-2012 11:17 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:07 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:00 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 10:24 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  Even though the numbers are impressive, there's another side to those numbers.

During an 8 win season in 2012, USTA's attendance dropped a little over 7K from 2011 levels, which demonstrates your point. That's with the novelty still existing.

28K average attendance in a program's second year is impressive. However, Tulane, SMU, Memphis, etc have all taken grief over their attendance, but with a former national championship head coach and 8 wins, each of those programs would be playing before full or near full houses and not before 28K.

UTSA may be the perfect addition to the surviving conference in 3-6 years, but not at this time.

What do you mean "novelty?" You act like the people in San Antonio have never seen college football before . . . these folks choose between Texas A&M - Kingsville (Div. II, leads the nation in home attendance); Texas State (record crowds in 2012), Texas A&M (first year in the SEC); Texas, and Baylor . . . and they still put 28,000 people in the stands playing in a conference no one has ever heard of against teams no one cares about . . . your arguments are laughable . . .

You and others are arguing that Fresno State (or another long-time western team) should be added even though Fresno State only draws 30,000 average attendance despite the fact that they have been in the WAC forever, haven't won a conference championship in 13 years, and have lost 4 of their last 5 bowls. . . your kind of logic is why that kind of new Big East, like the old Big East, will fail . . .

as someone who has been to a few UTSA games, those 28k figures are, lets say, generous. They do a great job selling tickets and counting a bunch of students that arent there. Not so much a great job getting people in the house.

I've been to a few games too, and they are no more generous than anyone else's attendance figures. And as previously stated, they averaged more than 28K.

And by the way, you do realize they have 14K season tickets right.

Watch the video does this look like 28K to you.

http://www.goutsa.com/mediaPortal/player...M_ID=13100

and if they can play teams 25 miles away that bring 10-12k every home game, they'll be fine.

LOL...do you see 10-12 TX State fans in the crowd. They brought very few fans actually. They only averaged 18K "announced" attendance in their own stadium (much, much less if you take out TT game), and you think they brought 12K to SA...LOL. BTW San Marcos is over 50 miles from SA not 25.

(12-18-2012 11:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 06:18 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  Why do people NOT understand that USTA is still a novelty in SA? Outside of them putting up 9-10 win seasons, AND bringing in good OOC games, their attendance WILL fall.

How in the hell are two seasons any indication on long-term support? I don't understand at all. Actually I can't believe this conversation is occurring.

Even though the numbers are impressive, there's another side to those numbers.

During an 8 win season in 2012, USTA's attendance dropped a little over 7K from 2011 levels, which demonstrates your point. That's with the novelty still existing.

28K average attendance in a program's second year is impressive. However, Tulane, SMU, Memphis, etc have all taken grief over their attendance, but with a former national championship head coach and 8 wins, each of those programs would be playing before full or near full houses and not before 28K.

UTSA may be the perfect addition to the surviving conference in 3-6 years, but not at this time.

Not to nitpick but, UTSA averaged more than 28K and did not drop by 7K. If you take away the first game of 57K, their attendance was actually fairly similar from year one to 2 going to 35K and change to basically 30K. If you take out game one, it went from probably 32K to 30K. Not a huge drop.

For some reason, it's been a little difficult for me to find UTSA's 2012 average attendance. 28,200 is the number that I initially found, but I think I found a more accurate number of 29,226. 35K is the number that UTSA uses when it promotes its breakout season for FBS, which is a great number for its first season.

This is the NCAA site for stats and for some reason UTSA isn't listed, or I've over looked it.
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2012/Internet/a...NDANCE.pdf

I'm not trying to make things look different than they actually are. If there are better numbers available, I'd welcome them. Intelligent discussion can only occur when facts are known. Emotions don't help any of us in what should be fact based discussions.

(12-18-2012 11:21 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  Sure, go with the theory that UTSA attendance will "level out" after a couple of years . . . no wait, what is your basis for that? . . . you're just making that up aren't you . . . there is every reason to believe that moving to the Big East, playing Boise State, SDSU, Houston, SMU, Cincinnati, etc. . . . especially if several of those games are on national television . . . will drive those attendance numbers up over 35,000 to 40,000 in a couple of years . . . your guess is as good as mine . . . what we know is there is no other candidate out there that can make a compelling case for how they are going to get their numbers up over current figures . . .

Don't be silly. That's only true for teams that have been FBS since before there was a Division I-A. Those teams' attendance would improve with replacing C-USA games against Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, UTEP, ECU and Marshall with Big EAst games against Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, UConn, ECU and Boise.

UTSA games at the Alamodome would look like Tulane games at the Superdome if they were playing SMU and ECU instead of Northwest Oklahoma A&T.

(12-18-2012 02:37 PM)monty Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:28 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:29 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:19 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 08:56 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  Meanwhile, every team we add takes from the pot, 16 is bad enough, now folks want 18?!

You can't have a viable western all sports conference and stay at 14. Even 16 is very questionable. If you want a small eastern all sports conference then you will try to invite western teams for football only and they will tell you no thanks.

Yes you can, the MWC survived as a conference for half a decade with only 8 teams. We can get by with 6 or 7 team divisions.

The MWC wasn't flying non revenue sports across the country. The two aren't even comparable.

Yea they were. san Diego to laramie, colorado springs and ft collings is not a drive around the corner. How about sending softball to wherever in the middle of nowhere La Tech is that you guys did for years? Just wait, your athletic department will get mighty sick of the travel for title ix sports in the MWC

A flight to Denver and van ride is nothing compared to flying them via commercial flights to Florida, UConn, or ECU. As for Fresno we know how expensive flying to Louisiana can be which is why you see Fresno fans advocating for enough schools in the west that you can have a complete conference for most minor sports where not every team in conference will sponsor them. That means ideally 10 per division.

(12-18-2012 11:31 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 06:18 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  Why do people NOT understand that USTA is still a novelty in SA? Outside of them putting up 9-10 win seasons, AND bringing in good OOC games, their attendance WILL fall.

How in the hell are two seasons any indication on long-term support? I don't understand at all. Actually I can't believe this conversation is occurring.

Even though the numbers are impressive, there's another side to those numbers.

During an 8 win season in 2012, USTA's attendance dropped a little over 7K from 2011 levels, which demonstrates your point. That's with the novelty still existing.

28K average attendance in a program's second year is impressive. However, Tulane, SMU, Memphis, etc have all taken grief over their attendance, but with a former national championship head coach and 8 wins, each of those programs would be playing before full or near full houses and not before 28K.

UTSA may be the perfect addition to the surviving conference in 3-6 years, but not at this time.

Not to nitpick but, UTSA averaged more than 28K and did not drop by 7K. If you take away the first game of 57K, their attendance was actually fairly similar from year one to 2 going to 35K and change to basically 30K. If you take out game one, it went from probably 32K to 30K. Not a huge drop.

For some reason, it's been a little difficult for me to find UTSA's 2012 average attendance. 28,200 is the number that I initially found, but I think I found a more accurate number of 29,226. 35K is the number that UTSA uses when it promotes its breakout season for FBS, which is a great number for its first season.

This is the NCAA site for stats and for some reason UTSA isn't listed, or I've over looked it.
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2012/Internet/a...NDANCE.pdf

I'm not trying to make things look different than they actually are. If there are better numbers available, I'd welcome them. Intelligent discussion can only occur when facts are known. Emotions don't help any of us in what should be fact based discussions.

You number is pretty close, they averaged between 29 and 30K.

(12-18-2012 11:27 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:17 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:07 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:00 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 10:24 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  What do you mean "novelty?" You act like the people in San Antonio have never seen college football before . . . these folks choose between Texas A&M - Kingsville (Div. II, leads the nation in home attendance); Texas State (record crowds in 2012), Texas A&M (first year in the SEC); Texas, and Baylor . . . and they still put 28,000 people in the stands playing in a conference no one has ever heard of against teams no one cares about . . . your arguments are laughable . . .

You and others are arguing that Fresno State (or another long-time western team) should be added even though Fresno State only draws 30,000 average attendance despite the fact that they have been in the WAC forever, haven't won a conference championship in 13 years, and have lost 4 of their last 5 bowls. . . your kind of logic is why that kind of new Big East, like the old Big East, will fail . . .

as someone who has been to a few UTSA games, those 28k figures are, lets say, generous. They do a great job selling tickets and counting a bunch of students that arent there. Not so much a great job getting people in the house.

I've been to a few games too, and they are no more generous than anyone else's attendance figures. And as previously stated, they averaged more than 28K.

And by the way, you do realize they have 14K season tickets right.

Watch the video does this look like 28K to you.

http://www.goutsa.com/mediaPortal/player...M_ID=13100

and if they can play teams 25 miles away that bring 10-12k every home game, they'll be fine.

LOL...do you see 10-12 TX State fans in the crowd. They brought very few fans actually. They only averaged 18K "announced" attendance in their own stadium (much, much less if you take out TT game), and you think they brought 12K to SA...LOL. BTW San Marcos is over 50 miles from SA not 25.

Hey, aTxTiger . . . you just keep making up reasons not to add UTSA. . . that way you'll feel better when we name Fresno State, they keep living in the past, drawing less than 30,000 a game, keep losing bowl games to teams we could have taken, and don't finish the season ranked again . . .

Here are your attendance numbers:
http://www.goutsa.com/SportSelect.dbml?&...SID=642048

Damn this dude has a hard on for UTSA. Unbelievable.