(10-04-2010 01:12 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 12:56 PM)WKUSledgeHammer Wrote:  

(10-03-2010 09:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-30-2010 09:57 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(09-29-2010 05:37 PM)MG61 Wrote:  Good for them. We won't have to be concerned about them coming here and telling us why we should take them in the Belt. They should be happy joining the 6 remaining WACsters and making it to FBS status. Just think. 4 of the 6 teams in the new WAC Lite have been Belt members. Tech (before football), NMSU, Idaho and USU. Maybe the conference should be called Belt Lite ?:odie:

----------------------------------------------
Individual bias can backfire. The Sunbelt is going to regret their failure to be pro active and bring in these teams, especially utsa. Far too many fans look only at this or next season whereby the restructures are being set up for the long haul. UTSA is nothing today but in 10yr could easily be pulling 50,000 fans to a financially healthy and winning program.

I really doubt we will regret it.

If they get good, our members will vote to extend membership and they will accept.

If they don't get good, nothing lost by us.

I agree. What's to regret? These programs the WAC are going after aren't even FBS. And the WAC is now moving to glorified FCS status. Who wants to wait 10 years for them? I don't.

This does conjure up visions of La Tech and UTSA a few years down the road competing with each other over who gets chosen to receive an SBC bid. Not too farfetched a scenario when you consider the ongoing drain of travel in the still far-flung WAC.

but the wac is not all that far flung anymore. Hawaii is far flung but dont be surprised if they leave soon. texas will be the center of the new WAC. four schools will be in or around TEXAS. Montana and Utah st will now be far flung schools. i said alot of people think they are now stronger based on the rankings of the schools now. other than MT and Troy who is winning in the belt. who really who? I mean i know we suck right now as well but come on. What strong conference are you talking about. UNT ULL ULM ASU WKu FAU UNT. All very bad this year. FIU seems a little stronger but really look at the belt. you really think the new WAC won't at least be on this level? App St and USA will compete immediately in the belt. I mean I know that you guys need the new WAC to look bad to make the belt look better but nobody is really fooled. I actually think that the belt is getting worse. A few years ago you guys were starting to get some teams that were competing and making the belt look better but the last two years have gotten worse. I mean what has happened to ASU

(10-04-2010 08:27 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 01:12 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 12:56 PM)WKUSledgeHammer Wrote:  

(10-03-2010 09:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-30-2010 09:57 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  ----------------------------------------------
Individual bias can backfire. The Sunbelt is going to regret their failure to be pro active and bring in these teams, especially utsa. Far too many fans look only at this or next season whereby the restructures are being set up for the long haul. UTSA is nothing today but in 10yr could easily be pulling 50,000 fans to a financially healthy and winning program.

I really doubt we will regret it.

If they get good, our members will vote to extend membership and they will accept.

If they don't get good, nothing lost by us.

I agree. What's to regret? These programs the WAC are going after aren't even FBS. And the WAC is now moving to glorified FCS status. Who wants to wait 10 years for them? I don't.

This does conjure up visions of La Tech and UTSA a few years down the road competing with each other over who gets chosen to receive an SBC bid. Not too farfetched a scenario when you consider the ongoing drain of travel in the still far-flung WAC.

but the wac is not all that far flung anymore. Hawaii is far flung but dont be surprised if they leave soon. texas will be the center of the new WAC. four schools will be in or around TEXAS. Montana and Utah st will now be far flung schools. i said alot of people think they are now stronger based on the rankings of the schools now. other than MT and Troy who is winning in the belt. who really who? I mean i know we suck right now as well but come on. What strong conference are you talking about. UNT ULL ULM ASU WKu FAU UNT. All very bad this year. FIU seems a little stronger but really look at the belt. you really think the new WAC won't at least be on this level? App St and USA will compete immediately in the belt. I mean I know that you guys need the new WAC to look bad to make the belt look better but nobody is really fooled. I actually think that the belt is getting worse. A few years ago you guys were starting to get some teams that were competing and making the belt look better but the last two years have gotten worse. I mean what has happened to ASU

Hey slim, you've beaten Grambling! We've won two games against FBS programs, so if that makes us bad then Tech is total sh*t!

(10-05-2010 07:47 AM)CajunT Wrote:  Hey slim, you've beaten Grambling! We've won two games against FBS programs, so if that makes us bad then Tech is total sh*t!

(10-05-2010 08:34 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 07:47 AM)CajunT Wrote:  Hey slim, you've beaten Grambling! We've won two games against FBS programs, so if that makes us bad then Tech is total sh*t!

uuh this year i included us in that but other than the top two in your conference you are all sporting losing records and you are suddenly getting a superiority complex over the WAC. Utah state just beat bYU. Idaho just won its 4th game. Tech is adjusting to a new system but they will get better. The belt is gradually getting worse. And I am sorry ULL has wins over two sunbelt teams that just happen to be a little worse than they are this year. You got creamed by MT who didnt even have their starting qb. You are regressing. Get rid of that coach already. Sorry ULL you are kinda bad this year and I think you know it. but hey so are we and believe me we know it. we have had four qbs in four weeks without the luxury of having injuries cause them like UNT> my point is do you think that the schools the WAC are adding can do any worse than the belt and stop trying to use the demise of the WAC to make you feel better about the belt.Sunbelt schools should be winning to make them feel better about themselves. If you guys didnt have each other, you would get no wins at all. hey and thanks for the slim after the four peanut butter cups I just ate, I kinda needed that

(10-05-2010 04:50 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 08:34 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 07:47 AM)CajunT Wrote:  Hey slim, you've beaten Grambling! We've won two games against FBS programs, so if that makes us bad then Tech is total sh*t!

uuh this year i included us in that but other than the top two in your conference you are all sporting losing records and you are suddenly getting a superiority complex over the WAC. Utah state just beat bYU. Idaho just won its 4th game. Tech is adjusting to a new system but they will get better. The belt is gradually getting worse. And I am sorry ULL has wins over two sunbelt teams that just happen to be a little worse than they are this year. You got creamed by MT who didnt even have their starting qb. You are regressing. Get rid of that coach already. Sorry ULL you are kinda bad this year and I think you know it. but hey so are we and believe me we know it. we have had four qbs in four weeks without the luxury of having injuries cause them like UNT> my point is do you think that the schools the WAC are adding can do any worse than the belt and stop trying to use the demise of the WAC to make you feel better about the belt.Sunbelt schools should be winning to make them feel better about themselves. If you guys didnt have each other, you would get no wins at all. hey and thanks for the slim after the four peanut butter cups I just ate, I kinda needed that

Memo, your barely beat freakin Grambling dude! Shut your pie hole SWAC boy!

(10-05-2010 06:17 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 04:50 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 08:34 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 07:47 AM)CajunT Wrote:  Hey slim, you've beaten Grambling! We've won two games against FBS programs, so if that makes us bad then Tech is total sh*t!

uuh this year i included us in that but other than the top two in your conference you are all sporting losing records and you are suddenly getting a superiority complex over the WAC. Utah state just beat bYU. Idaho just won its 4th game. Tech is adjusting to a new system but they will get better. The belt is gradually getting worse. And I am sorry ULL has wins over two sunbelt teams that just happen to be a little worse than they are this year. You got creamed by MT who didnt even have their starting qb. You are regressing. Get rid of that coach already. Sorry ULL you are kinda bad this year and I think you know it. but hey so are we and believe me we know it. we have had four qbs in four weeks without the luxury of having injuries cause them like UNT> my point is do you think that the schools the WAC are adding can do any worse than the belt and stop trying to use the demise of the WAC to make you feel better about the belt.Sunbelt schools should be winning to make them feel better about themselves. If you guys didnt have each other, you would get no wins at all. hey and thanks for the slim after the four peanut butter cups I just ate, I kinda needed that

Memo, your barely beat freakin Grambling dude! Shut your pie hole SWAC boy!

how does the fact that we suck make you suck any less. duuuude. its just so funny that the only reason so many on here want the WAC to suck is so that the belt can disguise the fact that they suck as well instead of realizing that you need to win not to suck no matter what the WAC does. If the WAc loses it still won't change the fact that only two programs in the belt will finish with a winning record. do you guys really believe that eSPN is going to dish out more money to the belt just because they are now giving less to the WAC. OOOH lets rush out to pay a conference with eight losing teams more money because now the wac has three new teams moving up. And by the way if us beating grambling makes me a SWAC boy than that must make you a SLC runner up boy. bwaahhhhhhhh

(10-05-2010 08:49 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 06:17 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 04:50 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 08:34 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 07:47 AM)CajunT Wrote:  Hey slim, you've beaten Grambling! We've won two games against FBS programs, so if that makes us bad then Tech is total sh*t!

uuh this year i included us in that but other than the top two in your conference you are all sporting losing records and you are suddenly getting a superiority complex over the WAC. Utah state just beat bYU. Idaho just won its 4th game. Tech is adjusting to a new system but they will get better. The belt is gradually getting worse. And I am sorry ULL has wins over two sunbelt teams that just happen to be a little worse than they are this year. You got creamed by MT who didnt even have their starting qb. You are regressing. Get rid of that coach already. Sorry ULL you are kinda bad this year and I think you know it. but hey so are we and believe me we know it. we have had four qbs in four weeks without the luxury of having injuries cause them like UNT> my point is do you think that the schools the WAC are adding can do any worse than the belt and stop trying to use the demise of the WAC to make you feel better about the belt.Sunbelt schools should be winning to make them feel better about themselves. If you guys didnt have each other, you would get no wins at all. hey and thanks for the slim after the four peanut butter cups I just ate, I kinda needed that

Memo, your barely beat freakin Grambling dude! Shut your pie hole SWAC boy!

how does the fact that we suck make you suck any less. duuuude. its just so funny that the only reason so many on here want the WAC to suck is so that the belt can disguise the fact that they suck as well instead of realizing that you need to win not to suck no matter what the WAC does. If the WAc loses it still won't change the fact that only two programs in the belt will finish with a winning record. do you guys really believe that eSPN is going to dish out more money to the belt just because they are now giving less to the WAC. OOOH lets rush out to pay a conference with eight losing teams more money because now the wac has three new teams moving up.

Dude, stop crying! If you are going to come here and run smack saying Sun Belt programs suck, you better bring something more then a freakin victory over a SWAC program! Don't tell me about the past, Dooley is gone. Don't tell me about your future SBC/WAC/SLC conference, today you are draging the WAC down in power rankings with no FBS wins. TECH SUCKS! Now stop making yourself look like a idiot!

(10-05-2010 09:09 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 08:49 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 06:17 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 04:50 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 08:34 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  

uuh this year i included us in that but other than the top two in your conference you are all sporting losing records and you are suddenly getting a superiority complex over the WAC. Utah state just beat bYU. Idaho just won its 4th game. Tech is adjusting to a new system but they will get better. The belt is gradually getting worse. And I am sorry ULL has wins over two sunbelt teams that just happen to be a little worse than they are this year. You got creamed by MT who didnt even have their starting qb. You are regressing. Get rid of that coach already. Sorry ULL you are kinda bad this year and I think you know it. but hey so are we and believe me we know it. we have had four qbs in four weeks without the luxury of having injuries cause them like UNT> my point is do you think that the schools the WAC are adding can do any worse than the belt and stop trying to use the demise of the WAC to make you feel better about the belt.Sunbelt schools should be winning to make them feel better about themselves. If you guys didnt have each other, you would get no wins at all. hey and thanks for the slim after the four peanut butter cups I just ate, I kinda needed that

Memo, your barely beat freakin Grambling dude! Shut your pie hole SWAC boy!

how does the fact that we suck make you suck any less. duuuude. its just so funny that the only reason so many on here want the WAC to suck is so that the belt can disguise the fact that they suck as well instead of realizing that you need to win not to suck no matter what the WAC does. If the WAc loses it still won't change the fact that only two programs in the belt will finish with a winning record. do you guys really believe that eSPN is going to dish out more money to the belt just because they are now giving less to the WAC. OOOH lets rush out to pay a conference with eight losing teams more money because now the wac has three new teams moving up.

Dude, stop crying! If you are going to come here and run smack saying Sun Belt programs suck, you better bring something more then a freakin victory over a SWAC program! Don't tell me about the past, Dooley is gone. Don't tell me about your future SBC/WAC/SLC conference, today you are draging the WAC down in power rankings with no FBS wins. TECH SUCKS! Now stop making yourself look like a idiot!

whatever you are completely missing the point as usual by turning it into a pissing match. the comment is about making your own conference better by improving it not by hoping it looks better because another one is rebuilding itself. ESPN may reduce the WAC contract but it will not be shifted over to the belt when they are not performing any better. the belt is established but it is actually not performing as well as it was five short years ago. It actually looks like its getting worse.

(10-05-2010 09:57 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 09:09 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 08:49 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 06:17 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 04:50 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  uuh this year i included us in that but other than the top two in your conference you are all sporting losing records and you are suddenly getting a superiority complex over the WAC. Utah state just beat bYU. Idaho just won its 4th game. Tech is adjusting to a new system but they will get better. The belt is gradually getting worse. And I am sorry ULL has wins over two sunbelt teams that just happen to be a little worse than they are this year. You got creamed by MT who didnt even have their starting qb. You are regressing. Get rid of that coach already. Sorry ULL you are kinda bad this year and I think you know it. but hey so are we and believe me we know it. we have had four qbs in four weeks without the luxury of having injuries cause them like UNT> my point is do you think that the schools the WAC are adding can do any worse than the belt and stop trying to use the demise of the WAC to make you feel better about the belt.Sunbelt schools should be winning to make them feel better about themselves. If you guys didnt have each other, you would get no wins at all. hey and thanks for the slim after the four peanut butter cups I just ate, I kinda needed that

Memo, your barely beat freakin Grambling dude! Shut your pie hole SWAC boy!

how does the fact that we suck make you suck any less. duuuude. its just so funny that the only reason so many on here want the WAC to suck is so that the belt can disguise the fact that they suck as well instead of realizing that you need to win not to suck no matter what the WAC does. If the WAc loses it still won't change the fact that only two programs in the belt will finish with a winning record. do you guys really believe that eSPN is going to dish out more money to the belt just because they are now giving less to the WAC. OOOH lets rush out to pay a conference with eight losing teams more money because now the wac has three new teams moving up.

Dude, stop crying! If you are going to come here and run smack saying Sun Belt programs suck, you better bring something more then a freakin victory over a SWAC program! Don't tell me about the past, Dooley is gone. Don't tell me about your future SBC/WAC/SLC conference, today you are draging the WAC down in power rankings with no FBS wins. TECH SUCKS! Now stop making yourself look like a idiot!

whatever you are completely missing the point as usual by turning it into a pissing match. the comment is about making your own conference better by improving it not by hoping it looks better because another one is rebuilding itself. ESPN may reduce the WAC contract but it will not be shifted over to the belt when they are not performing any better. the belt is established but it is actually not performing as well as it was five short years ago. It actually looks like its getting worse.

And you are missing my point! People are getting tired of your synopsis of the WAC and its greatness there of. Are we to come here and constantly, read the ranting of another Tech fan that is part of collective group thought in Ruston , and would rather go independent then join the Sun Belt? Please tell me where I can send my check to advance the process of Tech going Independent? I look forward to seeing all the Jim Jones kool-aid drinkers at Tech jump of the cliff together. Ruston truly is a village of idiots.

(10-05-2010 10:15 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 09:57 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 09:09 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 08:49 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(10-05-2010 06:17 PM)CajunT Wrote:  Memo, your barely beat freakin Grambling dude! Shut your pie hole SWAC boy!

how does the fact that we suck make you suck any less. duuuude. its just so funny that the only reason so many on here want the WAC to suck is so that the belt can disguise the fact that they suck as well instead of realizing that you need to win not to suck no matter what the WAC does. If the WAc loses it still won't change the fact that only two programs in the belt will finish with a winning record. do you guys really believe that eSPN is going to dish out more money to the belt just because they are now giving less to the WAC. OOOH lets rush out to pay a conference with eight losing teams more money because now the wac has three new teams moving up.

Dude, stop crying! If you are going to come here and run smack saying Sun Belt programs suck, you better bring something more then a freakin victory over a SWAC program! Don't tell me about the past, Dooley is gone. Don't tell me about your future SBC/WAC/SLC conference, today you are draging the WAC down in power rankings with no FBS wins. TECH SUCKS! Now stop making yourself look like a idiot!

whatever you are completely missing the point as usual by turning it into a pissing match. the comment is about making your own conference better by improving it not by hoping it looks better because another one is rebuilding itself. ESPN may reduce the WAC contract but it will not be shifted over to the belt when they are not performing any better. the belt is established but it is actually not performing as well as it was five short years ago. It actually looks like its getting worse.

And you are missing my point! People are getting tired of your synopsis of the WAC and its greatness there of. Are we to come here and constantly, read the ranting of another Tech fan that is part of collective group thought in Ruston , and would rather go independent then join the Sun Belt? Please tell me where I can send my check to advance the process of Tech going Independent? I look forward to seeing all the Jim Jones kool-aid drinkers at Tech jump of the cliff together. Ruston truly is a village of idiots.

once again cajunT if this board is so tired of talk of the WAC why do you guys keep starting threads augmenting is every move. You clearly are very interested in the WAC. The wAc will take care of its own business one way or the other. Just commenting that you guys seem to think that the fall of the WAC will somehow change the perception of the belt. Unless the conference gets better, it won't. And I am not saying the WAC will be all that great. I do think adding the three teams they are adding is at least a step to restoring it. Arky st originally posted that once UTSA gets good then the belt can invite them. that is a complete joke. UTSA might have gone to the belt now but if they are responsible for restoring the WAc, they won't be chomping at the bit to come over to the belt. And just so you can clue in. If you don't want people commenting about the WAC, stop starting threads about it. DONT WANT NONE WONT BE NONE. you moron.

Sorry Cajun t I have talked to you on a personal level and I know you aren't a moron. Just your everyday blow hole

Honest questions--why should the SBC take UTSA and/or Texas State? Why would we want to take an FBS "in-training" program? What's the enrollment of UTSA and Texas State? I guess along those lines, why take "in-training programs" like Ga. Southern, Appy State, etc?

(10-06-2010 02:45 PM)TopperTorpedo Wrote:  Honest questions--why should the SBC take UTSA and/or Texas State? Why would we want to take an FBS "in-training" program? What's the enrollment of UTSA and Texas State? I guess along those lines, why take "in-training programs" like Ga. Southern, Appy State, etc?

The WAC would take them because they need to survive. Otherwise, they only reason to take a FCS team is if you see great potential in that school or they are already a part of the conference for everything but football.

UTSA's enrollment is 30,395. Texas State's is 32,586.

(10-06-2010 02:45 PM)TopperTorpedo Wrote:  Honest questions--why should the SBC take UTSA and/or Texas State? Why would we want to take an FBS "in-training" program? What's the enrollment of UTSA and Texas State? I guess along those lines, why take "in-training programs" like Ga. Southern, Appy State, etc?

Why take UTSA / Texas State? -
1. Both are large schools (30,000+) with a commitment to athletics (soon to be $20M budgets) and they are enhancing their facilities. Texas State is expanding the on campus stadium to 30,000. Building new T/F facility. New baseball/softball fields. Redone soccer, tennis, and arena (8500).
UTSA has the Alamodome and they are in talks with SA to partner on new baseball and basketball facilities.
2. It would provide the Sunbelt with another media outlet. Either school gives you press in San Antonio, but Texas State also opens Austin.
3. Another vein into Texas for recruiting
4. Could travel or become rivals with UL, UNT

Why take a "move up"?
I guess you take them to hope that they will one day pan out for you, or make the league better.
Texas State would bring a football team that has been in the Top-25 off and on for the past 5 years (2 playoff appearances). However, football does not always make the transition between divisions very well. We have solid Diamond sports, and Woman's programs that have dominated SLC for more than a decade.
UTSA brings a basketball contender, and other solid SLC programs to the table. They are are an unknown commodity in football but they are selling the their location and partnership with SA (Alamodome-Larry Coker-football crazy city-rumored extra bowl in SA) to get people to listen.

Size-
Both are over 30,000.
Texas State is a residential college, in a small town (50k) along the Texas Hill Country but 30 minutes to downtown Austin or suburban San Antonio by freeway.
UTSA is slowly trying to shed its commuter image (football should help). They have two campuses in SA, the main campus is on the NW side 17miles from the Riverwalk and Alamodome. UTSA has previously and will likely again leverage the tax base to get multi use facilities.

Why take us over App, GaSo, or GaSt?
It boils down to how you want the league to expand. Do you want to get into NC or GA and build up the East end of the conference or do you want to bring in another Texas team and build the west? Expanding either way could push you towards Divisional play and a championship.
App State and GA Southern bring you football pedigree with 9 NCs between them. However, how are the rest of their programs? what are their facilities like? How easy is it to get to Boone versus San Antonio or Austin? **- I can't answer those questions **

Adding UTSA/TXST
West Division - UTSA/TXST, ASU/UNT, ULM/UL
East Division - WKU/MT, Troy/USA, FAU/FIU

Adding GAxx (Southern or State)/ App
West- UNT/ASU, UL/ULM, MT/WKU
East- FAU/FIU, Troy/USA, GA/App
or
North- ASU, WKU, MT, App, Troy, GA
South- UNT, UL, ULM, USA, FAU, FIU

I hope addressed all of your questions. I have been on this board since June 2009 to learn about this conference. Texas State had already laid plans to move up after the moratorium was up and I knew that the SBC and/or WAC were our most possible options. I hoped that we might find a conference in the SBC because of the geographic proximity of the teams (9 teams in 1000 miles versus 2), the possibility of rivalries with the western half of the conference,and solid RPI figures (especially in baseball/softball).

Unlike, other posters from LaTech, UTSA, or Georgia Southern, I am not interested in stirring the pot or talking ill of the conference. Over the last 4 months, things have changed considerably and it does not appear that we will be calling the SBC home. Then again the WAC could dissolve tomorrow and we are back in the market. If we don't end up in the SBC, I look forward to scheduling H/Hs and coming to your campuses

(10-06-2010 05:29 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(10-06-2010 02:45 PM)TopperTorpedo Wrote:  Honest questions--why should the SBC take UTSA and/or Texas State? Why would we want to take an FBS "in-training" program? What's the enrollment of UTSA and Texas State? I guess along those lines, why take "in-training programs" like Ga. Southern, Appy State, etc?

Why take UTSA / Texas State? -
1. Both are large schools (30,000+) with a commitment to athletics (soon to be $20M budgets) and they are enhancing their facilities. Texas State is expanding the on campus stadium to 30,000. Building new T/F facility. New baseball/softball fields. Redone soccer, tennis, and arena (8500).
UTSA has the Alamodome and they are in talks with SA to partner on new baseball and basketball facilities.
2. It would provide the Sunbelt with another media outlet. Either school gives you press in San Antonio, but Texas State also opens Austin.
3. Another vein into Texas for recruiting
4. Could travel or become rivals with UL, UNT

Why take a "move up"?
I guess you take them to hope that they will one day pan out for you, or make the league better.
Texas State would bring a football team that has been in the Top-25 off and on for the past 5 years (2 playoff appearances). However, football does not always make the transition between divisions very well. We have solid Diamond sports, and Woman's programs that have dominated SLC for more than a decade.
UTSA brings a basketball contender, and other solid SLC programs to the table. They are are an unknown commodity in football but they are selling the their location and partnership with SA (Alamodome-Larry Coker-football crazy city-rumored extra bowl in SA) to get people to listen.

Size-
Both are over 30,000.
Texas State is a residential college, in a small town (50k) along the Texas Hill Country but 30 minutes to downtown Austin or suburban San Antonio by freeway.
UTSA is slowly trying to shed its commuter image (football should help). They have two campuses in SA, the main campus is on the NW side 17miles from the Riverwalk and Alamodome. UTSA has previously and will likely again leverage the tax base to get multi use facilities.

Why take us over App, GaSo, or GaSt?
It boils down to how you want the league to expand. Do you want to get into NC or GA and build up the East end of the conference or do you want to bring in another Texas team and build the west? Expanding either way could push you towards Divisional play and a championship.
App State and GA Southern bring you football pedigree with 9 NCs between them. However, how are the rest of their programs? what are their facilities like? How easy is it to get to Boone versus San Antonio or Austin? **- I can't answer those questions **

Adding UTSA/TXST
West Division - UTSA/TXST, ASU/UNT, ULM/UL
East Division - WKU/MT, Troy/USA, FAU/FIU

Adding GAxx (Southern or State)/ App
West- UNT/ASU, UL/ULM, MT/WKU
East- FAU/FIU, Troy/USA, GA/App
or
North- ASU, WKU, MT, App, Troy, GA
South- UNT, UL, ULM, USA, FAU, FIU

I hope addressed all of your questions. I have been on this board since June 2009 to learn about this conference. Texas State had already laid plans to move up after the moratorium was up and I knew that the SBC and/or WAC were our most possible options. I hoped that we might find a conference in the SBC because of the geographic proximity of the teams (9 teams in 1000 miles versus 2), the possibility of rivalries with the western half of the conference,and solid RPI figures (especially in baseball/softball).

Unlike, other posters from LaTech, UTSA, or Georgia Southern, I am not interested in stirring the pot or talking ill of the conference. Over the last 4 months, things have changed considerably and it does not appear that we will be calling the SBC home. Then again the WAC could dissolve tomorrow and we are back in the market. If we don't end up in the SBC, I look forward to scheduling H/Hs and coming to your campuses

I have no problem with the potential of Texas State or UTSA. Both schools have a bright future. Its the immediate impact of playing FBS football for the first three or four years on the Sun Belt that I'm more concerned about.

Let me also say, I don't have an interest in seeing the conference move east, we already have Florida schools. We don't need the added travel cost on our spring sports.

San Antonio is one of my favorite places and what little I've seen of San Marcos was OK, but having a road destination known for an outlet mall sounds like an expensive trip to me.

That said.

I don't care if each school has an enrollment of 100,000. Schools with large enrollments aren't always a good thing, because you can generate so much in student fees that you don't feel pushed to sell tickets and solicit donations. If only 5% of the students feel connected enough for it to be the first love in athletics, you end up with less student support than a school like Arkansas State. I've been on the Alumni board and the booster club board at Arkansas State and I can tell you from experience that the diploma means precious little when you are seeking the support of people 10-20 years after they graduate if they didn't go to games as a student.

Potential isn't worth much unless you harness it. A glass of tap water could power a city for a long time if someone could figure out how to harness fusion energy but so far that hasn't happened... but the potential is there.

If one of the Texas schools were winning the SLC in football or basketball, I might well be pushing hard for them because then I'd figure that worse case, they scale up to middle of the pack and do no harm but with a bigger stage might rise higher.

UTSA hasn't played a game. How do I assess them?
Texas State got wiped by Houston, beat a bad Division II by 14, beat an OK Cal-Poly and beat a bad Southern Utah. It's hard to take that fact set and conclude the program is where it needs to be.

I'm not saying neither can reach the level they need to be at but honestly would Texas State and UTSA be advocating to add Texas A&M Commerce to SLC right now because they'd be a good fit and hit an untapped market? Grand Valley State has been a highly successful Division II program but I don't see any agitation to add them to the Mo Valley for football.

I'm not opposed to UTSA or Texas State per se, I just want to make sure they have their house in order.

West:
North Texas
Texas State
Louisiana
ULM
stAte
South Alabama

East:
Troy
MTSU
Western Kentucky
App State
FAU
FIU

(10-06-2010 09:01 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  West:
North Texas
Texas State
Louisiana
ULM
stAte
South Alabama

East:
Troy
MTSU
Western Kentucky
App State
FAU
FIU

_____________________________________________
This looks like a workable plan. It just may be what the conference will look like in about 10 years.

(10-06-2010 09:01 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  West:
North Texas
Texas State
Louisiana
ULM
stAte
South Alabama

East:
Troy
MTSU
Western Kentucky
App State
FAU
FIU

Wouldn't that screw up basketball? Too many teams? I know the rumor that UALR might add football, but that just doesn't seem practical for them. Plus the rumor of Denver going to the WAC for BB.

Frankly, I don't want any new teams unless they're already playing FBS. And I'm not so sure enrollment means a lot. Look at FIU's attendance numbers for basketball. And the MAC and their student numbers aren't anything to be impressed with (Ball State has something like 20k enrollment and, what, something like 9k attending football games?)

(10-06-2010 09:01 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  West:
North Texas
Texas State
Louisiana
ULM
stAte
South Alabama

East:
Troy
MTSU
Western Kentucky
App State
FAU
FIU

Dividing up Troy and USA so they can meet twice a year - once in the regular season and once again in the championship game, right? I like the way you think.