You nailed my other point. Some of these programs are really good but the kind of trash that generally comes forth from FCS fans can be a little much. Not every FCS team would come in and do well. Most wouldn't imo. There are a few that would probably come in and win a few games but as WKU, MT and others can attest; it's not easy to win Sun Belt games when you are paying the bills by playing Alabama, LSU and the like...your team gets beat to hell.

(03-17-2012 04:53 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  You nailed my other point. Some of these programs are really good but the kind of trash that generally comes forth from FCS fans can be a little much. Not every FCS team would come in and do well. Most wouldn't imo. There are a few that would probably come in and win a few games but as WKU, MT and others can attest; it's not easy to win Sun Belt games when you are paying the bills by playing Alabama, LSU and the like...your team gets beat to hell.

It gets funny.

The UTSA declaration is boiled down to... By god we are in Texas in a major area with a great stadium. Well UNT is in Texas, with more players within one hour of campus than UTSA and UNT has proven, it is possible to suck. Just showing up don't cut it.

Georgia State has a fringe that proclaims we are in a great recruiting area with a huge fan base so we will draw great. Well, Ga.Tech hasn't won an ACC title that didn't get stripped since 1998 and they aren't tearing up the ACC in attendance figures either. The Atlanta pro teams have proven that they aren't a consistent attendance draw.

Appalachian State says we draw awesome and we win, we can walk in. Yeah but chances are there are no more than 10 kids in any given recruiting class they'd offer as an FBS once they get in the groove. Winning in FCS is one thing FBS another. Last time I looked Arkansas State still holds one of the best post-season winning percentages in FCS and we've had a lot of terrible, terrible seasons in FBS. ULM won an FCS title and they've yet to make a bowl game. WKU won an FCS title and has posted one winning season in FBS but didn't win a single non-conference game this year. If they had won all the close ones 8-4 and Sun Belt champs but if they had lost all the close ones 4-8.

I mean you can go down the list.

Are there schools that make the move and have immediate success? Of course. Nevada and Marshall both did and both had it slide out from under them too. The margin of error is so much smaller.

(03-17-2012 01:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  How much were your season tickets?

My friends and I had 4 tickets near the 30 yard line about 20 rows up from the field and they were $250 a piece or about $40 a game each.

In 2012 those same tickets will be $270 each.

The picture in my signature was taken from my seat (that was the first kickoff in a UTSA game).

For the record, UTSA students get in "free" to all sporting events because they pay a fee to support the athletic programs at UTSA. That's pretty typical (right?).

An interesting thing to watch this year is how the South Alabama/UTSA game turns out. It's the first game of the season for both teams and both teams' first FBS game.

UTSA played South Alabama last year and UTSA lost in double overtime. If this year's game between the two is also close, it'd be possible to see basically how UTSA would do in the Sun Belt. Just watch and see how South Alabama does.

Having said that, how do you guys think South Alabama is going to do in the Sun Belt in 2012? If I had to guess, they are going to struggle and take some serious lumps. They might finish without a win in conference.

Quote:UTSA played South Alabama last year and UTSA lost in double overtime. If this year's game between the two is also close, it'd be possible to see basically how UTSA would do in the Sun Belt. Just watch and see how South Alabama does.

I strongly disagree. Transitive property doesn't really apply in football and you need more of a sample than a game or two. Some teams are just bad match ups for others, as well.

Nothing will show how UTSA would perform in the Belt other than UTSA being in the Belt.

To answer your question, I think we could go without a win but we could also go with a few. I really don't know, it depends on our new OC as well as if a few teams look us over. Two conference wins would be overachieving on our part and no conference wins is very possible.

(03-17-2012 07:57 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  I strongly disagree. Transitive property doesn't really apply in football and you need more of a sample than a game or two. Some teams are just bad match ups for others, as well.

Nothing will show how UTSA would perform in the Belt other than UTSA being in the Belt.

To answer your question, I think we could go without a win but we could also go with a few. I really don't know, it depends on our new OC as well as if a few teams look us over. Two conference wins would be overachieving on our part and no conference wins is very possible.

I know what you are saying. Comparing teams that way is not exact. However, if the game is close again, UTSA and South Alabama are at least in the same ballpark, one couldn't be considered obviously better than the other.

Starting a football program is a tough thing. UTSA is going to be absolutely blown out of the stadium a number of times each season for the next 5 seasons. It's going to get ugly. = /

Just look at our 2013 schedule. It's insane!

There are several programs that are sitting around "waiting" for a better offer from the Alliance that are going to be left holding a bag.

The Alliance did some great marketing by hinting they were going to 30. They got every hopped-up FCS program begging to be number 30 and talking about "The Alliance". Brilliant.

Releasing that list of names of "wannabes" was also brilliant marketing to make their remnant league still look more desirable.

But they aren't really going to 30. A lot of fans currently dissing the SBC maybe changing their tunes soon enough.

I am almost of the opinion that we should take Texas State and App State and leave these others to their own party.

It depends on S. Alabama's ooc schedule. If they schedule 3 AQ teams like the rest of us, they will probably struggle to win more than 2-3 games, at best.

(03-17-2012 08:43 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  It depends on S. Alabama's ooc schedule. If they schedule 3 AQ teams like the rest of us, they will probably struggle to win more than 2-3 games, at best.

Only two AQ this year.

Texas St. yes....App State ...I am just not convinced how good of an idea that would be.

(03-17-2012 08:47 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  Texas St. yes....App State ...I am just not convinced how good of an idea that would be.

Take Texas State, UTSA, La Tech, and Georgia State to get to 14 football schools. If La Tech won't come, take another school in the east (or New Mexico State).

Play 6 division games and 2 games out of division. Have a championship game.

That's what the Sun Belt should do. (My opinion.)

(03-17-2012 08:46 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 08:43 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  It depends on S. Alabama's ooc schedule. If they schedule 3 AQ teams like the rest of us, they will probably struggle to win more than 2-3 games, at best.

Only two AQ this year.

You get my point...

In order to be succesfull SBC schools will have to eventually be able to go to one money game per year. ASU will be trying to do this for 2013.

Until the majority of the teams in this league have gotten themselves to the point that they can drop to 1 money game most years, then it will be hard to convince FBS schools to join in.

(03-17-2012 11:43 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  In order to be succesfull SBC schools will have to eventually be able to go to one money game per year. ASU will be trying to do this for 2013.

Until the majority of the teams in this league have gotten themselves to the point that they can drop to 1 money game most years, then it will be hard to convince FBS schools to join in.

I totally agree with your statement.

All the money games our teams play really has a negative impact on the perception of the conference. In my opinion, the money games may help fund our sports, but they tend to keep attendance down once conference games start, because our teams usually start conference play with losing records of 0-4, or 1-3. When Saturday comes around, the average college football fan will stay home and watch a game on T.V., before he will go pay money to watch two teams with losing records. We have to fund our programs without so many money games.

I also wish we would focus more on scheduling nonconference BCS teams that are willing to give us home and home series.

(03-18-2012 08:45 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I also wish we would focus more on scheduling nonconference BCS teams that are willing to give us home and home series.

South has done this, we have home and home series with Navy and Mississippi State. We also have Oklahoma State on our home schedule, that one being a few years off though.

(03-18-2012 08:45 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 11:43 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  In order to be succesfull SBC schools will have to eventually be able to go to one money game per year. ASU will be trying to do this for 2013.

Until the majority of the teams in this league have gotten themselves to the point that they can drop to 1 money game most years, then it will be hard to convince FBS schools to join in.

I totally agree with your statement.

All the money games our teams play really has a negative impact on the perception of the conference. In my opinion, the money games may help fund our sports, but they tend to keep attendance down once conference games start, because our teams usually start conference play with losing records of 0-4, or 1-3. When Saturday comes around, the average college football fan will stay home and watch a game on T.V., before he will go pay money to watch two teams with losing records. We have to fund our programs without so many money games.

I also wish we would focus more on scheduling nonconference BCS teams that are willing to give us home and home series.

For some teams the last statement is nearly impossible. BCS schols will only travel if they can get a recruiting edge in the area. Schools like ASU, who dont have a lot of High School Talent in the area, will have a hard time bringing teams in.

Where we will have to make our money, is bringing strong non BCS schools in and beating them. I mean, lets face it, Boise doesnt have bring many BCS schools in, but they still are immensely popular with their fanbase.

(03-18-2012 09:11 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-18-2012 08:45 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 11:43 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  In order to be succesfull SBC schools will have to eventually be able to go to one money game per year. ASU will be trying to do this for 2013.

Until the majority of the teams in this league have gotten themselves to the point that they can drop to 1 money game most years, then it will be hard to convince FBS schools to join in.

I totally agree with your statement.

All the money games our teams play really has a negative impact on the perception of the conference. In my opinion, the money games may help fund our sports, but they tend to keep attendance down once conference games start, because our teams usually start conference play with losing records of 0-4, or 1-3. When Saturday comes around, the average college football fan will stay home and watch a game on T.V., before he will go pay money to watch two teams with losing records. We have to fund our programs without so many money games.

I also wish we would focus more on scheduling nonconference BCS teams that are willing to give us home and home series.

For some teams the last statement is nearly impossible. BCS schols will only travel if they can get a recruiting edge in the area. Schools like ASU, who dont have a lot of High School Talent in the area, will have a hard time bringing teams in.

Where we will have to make our money, is bringing strong non BCS schools in and beating them. I mean, lets face it, Boise doesnt have bring many BCS schools in, but they still are immensely popular with their fanbase.

Good point.

Maybe the presidents will create a football scheduling mandate, much like they did for scheduling non-conference basketball.

Maybe the new commish will get on that too.

(03-18-2012 09:48 AM)Usajags Wrote:  Maybe the new commish will get on that too.

I'd rather not discuss Benson. It's too early for me to be in a bad mood.

(03-17-2012 08:53 PM)jarmzet Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 08:47 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  Texas St. yes....App State ...I am just not convinced how good of an idea that would be.

Take Texas State, UTSA, La Tech, and Georgia State to get to 14 football schools. If La Tech won't come, take another school in the east (or New Mexico State).

Play 6 division games and 2 games out of division. Have a championship game.

That's what the Sun Belt should do. (My opinion.)

Why do we need to go to 14? what additional benefits would come from including 2 more teams?