(09-04-2013 12:04 PM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 09:30 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 09:17 AM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 04:46 PM)GATA Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 04:35 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  I'd like for you to stop making our conference look bad by going to other forums and talking crap.

Also, neither of those teams are in the Sun Belt.

And, I think you [the OP] meant "a part of" not "apart."

"Apart" would mean that you are proud to be separated from the SBC.

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwmsp/2006/goalformulation/4.htm

See number 1.

Too soon

(09-02-2013 05:06 PM)MJG Wrote:  I pull for all the G5 schools against P5 schools especially the SBC and MAC .The MWC and AAC seem to think they are P5 conferences. C -USA is OK but seem to have some fans that want to kick the SBC on the way out.My take is the SBC is made up of the unwanted schools .The current and future members were passed over bye C-USA or the MWC. So lets support each other and Hopefully we can surpass these other conferences.

Here here!

(09-04-2013 10:12 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 06:16 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Charlotte wasn't kicked out of C-USA, they moved to the A-10 for the perceived greener basketball pastures. 49er football wasn't even on the radar yet. UTA has done more in basketball since they moved to the A-10 than they have. While they were in the A-10, they finished in the top three once, never made the NCAA's and had more bottom half finishes in conference than top. They may succeed in the watered down C-USA, but it isn't guaranteed.

You are kidding yourself if you think these moves by C-USA were about more than football. If everything else was equal but your football success was still at three wins a year, WKU wouldn't have gotten the invite. Their strategy was market first, football second.

Bottomline, C-USA would be markedly better off if they took Southern and App instead of either of FIU, FAU, UNCC or ODU in football. Of their adds, only MTSU, ODU and WKU have any real recent success in basketball. FIU, FAU and UTSA are terrible. La Tech and UNT have had moderate but unsustained recent success. USM and UAB are the only holdovers with any success in basketball.

I hope WKU can improve in basketball from their recent success. But is the formula includes a more prestigious conference.. well the current C-USA is a far cry from the Cincinnati, DePaul, Louisville, Marquette and Memphis days.

I'm not a UTSA shineshine pumper, but their athletic department overall is in good shape They were consistently in the running for the Southland Commissioners Cup and won the WAC Cup last year.
Thompson won the Southland a couple of years back and took them to the Big Dance.

They only won the WAC Commish Cup because they sponsored more sports than anyone else, and even then, needed to win the baseball tournament to get the extra 3.5 points to jump in front of Idaho. If you average out their points per sport, they would be fourth.

As for basketball:
2013 10-22, 8th in WAC
2012 18-14, T-4th SLC
2011 20-14, T-5th SLC, won play-in game of NCAA tourney after winning SLC touney
2010 19-11, T-5th SLC
2009 19-13, 6th SLC

They play patsies in non-conference, which boosts the record, but not the level of play. To have have 19 wins and not finish above 4th in the SLC is proof of that. it looks like being in C-USA isn't changing anything in basketball this year. Here's their non-conference home opponents:

Northern Arizona
McMurry
Texas-Pan American
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi
CSU Bakersfield
Georgia State
Cameron

Only Georgia State belongs to a conference that is in the top half of the NCAA.

Finally, the Convocation Center was a slightly above average SLC gym, but it is a liability otherwise. Their home attendance average (1,264) last year was slightly better than our worst attended game (1,066). We almost doubled their average.

UTSA, especially compared to C-USA past, is a liability.

UTSA basketball is not an addition that will improve or maintain C-USA's basketball prestige.

(09-05-2013 07:48 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 10:12 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 06:16 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Charlotte wasn't kicked out of C-USA, they moved to the A-10 for the perceived greener basketball pastures. 49er football wasn't even on the radar yet. UTA has done more in basketball since they moved to the A-10 than they have. While they were in the A-10, they finished in the top three once, never made the NCAA's and had more bottom half finishes in conference than top. They may succeed in the watered down C-USA, but it isn't guaranteed.

You are kidding yourself if you think these moves by C-USA were about more than football. If everything else was equal but your football success was still at three wins a year, WKU wouldn't have gotten the invite. Their strategy was market first, football second.

Bottomline, C-USA would be markedly better off if they took Southern and App instead of either of FIU, FAU, UNCC or ODU in football. Of their adds, only MTSU, ODU and WKU have any real recent success in basketball. FIU, FAU and UTSA are terrible. La Tech and UNT have had moderate but unsustained recent success. USM and UAB are the only holdovers with any success in basketball.

I hope WKU can improve in basketball from their recent success. But is the formula includes a more prestigious conference.. well the current C-USA is a far cry from the Cincinnati, DePaul, Louisville, Marquette and Memphis days.

I'm not a UTSA shineshine pumper, but their athletic department overall is in good shape They were consistently in the running for the Southland Commissioners Cup and won the WAC Cup last year.
Thompson won the Southland a couple of years back and took them to the Big Dance.

They only won the WAC Commish Cup because they sponsored more sports than anyone else, and even then, needed to win the baseball tournament to get the extra 3.5 points to jump in front of Idaho. If you average out their points per sport, they would be fourth.

As for basketball:
2013 10-22, 8th in WAC
2012 18-14, T-4th SLC
2011 20-14, T-5th SLC, won play-in game of NCAA tourney after winning SLC touney
2010 19-11, T-5th SLC
2009 19-13, 6th SLC

They play patsies in non-conference, which boosts the record, but not the level of play. To have have 19 wins and not finish above 4th in the SLC is proof of that. it looks like being in C-USA isn't changing anything in basketball this year. Here's their non-conference home opponents:

Northern Arizona
McMurry
Texas-Pan American
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi
CSU Bakersfield
Georgia State
Cameron

Only Georgia State belongs to a conference that is in the top half of the NCAA.

Finally, the Convocation Center was a slightly above average SLC gym, but it is a liability otherwise. Their home attendance average (1,264) last year was slightly better than our worst attended game (1,066). We almost doubled their average.

UTSA, especially compared to C-USA past, is a liability.

UTSA basketball is not an addition that will improve or maintain C-USA's basketball prestige.

I see you know our enema . . . .

I pretty certain that Texas St, with Kaspar at the helm, will be a much more competitive team by year three than UTSA would ever be able to attain. UTSA draws for football because they play in the Alamodome near downtown with little else to compete with. When it comes to basketball, their on-campus arena might as well be several cities over as the campus is off the beaten path. The arena itself is out-dated, compared to TXST and even UTA, their on campus population is low, and also unlike us, they don't have established neighborhoods nearby. I would expect attendance to go up slightly in CUSA, but I think with the current variables, they are near the ceiling of what they can do basketball wise (same with baseball).

(09-05-2013 11:24 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I pretty certain that Texas St, with Kaspar at the helm, will be a much more competitive team by year three than UTSA would ever be able to attain. UTSA draws for football because they play in the Alamodome near downtown with little else to compete with. When it comes to basketball, their on-campus arena might as well be several cities over as the campus is off the beaten path. The arena itself is out-dated, compared to TXST and even UTA, their on campus population is low, and also unlike us, they don't have established neighborhoods nearby. I would expect attendance to go up slightly in CUSA, but I think with the current variables, they are near the ceiling of what they can do basketball wise (same with baseball).

I've always maintained that they're only in cusa because they "happen to be in san antonio." They've No History, No Facilities, No established Program of note . . if not for San Antonio (market), they'd still be in the Southland Conference . . . not sour grapes . .. just da facts . . .

(09-05-2013 02:20 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 11:24 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I pretty certain that Texas St, with Kaspar at the helm, will be a much more competitive team by year three than UTSA would ever be able to attain. UTSA draws for football because they play in the Alamodome near downtown with little else to compete with. When it comes to basketball, their on-campus arena might as well be several cities over as the campus is off the beaten path. The arena itself is out-dated, compared to TXST and even UTA, their on campus population is low, and also unlike us, they don't have established neighborhoods nearby. I would expect attendance to go up slightly in CUSA, but I think with the current variables, they are near the ceiling of what they can do basketball wise (same with baseball).

I've always maintained that they're only in cusa because they "happen to be in san antonio." They've No History, No Facilities, No established Program of note . . if not for San Antonio (market), they'd still be in the Southland Conference . . . not sour grapes . .. just da facts . . .

It's not just San Antonio. They have a large student body, but more importantly... They have Hickey.

(09-05-2013 02:28 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 02:20 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 11:24 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I pretty certain that Texas St, with Kaspar at the helm, will be a much more competitive team by year three than UTSA would ever be able to attain. UTSA draws for football because they play in the Alamodome near downtown with little else to compete with. When it comes to basketball, their on-campus arena might as well be several cities over as the campus is off the beaten path. The arena itself is out-dated, compared to TXST and even UTA, their on campus population is low, and also unlike us, they don't have established neighborhoods nearby. I would expect attendance to go up slightly in CUSA, but I think with the current variables, they are near the ceiling of what they can do basketball wise (same with baseball).

I've always maintained that they're only in cusa because they "happen to be in san antonio." They've No History, No Facilities, No established Program of note . . if not for San Antonio (market), they'd still be in the Southland Conference . . . not sour grapes . .. just da facts . . .

It's not just San Antonio. They have a large student body, but more importantly... They have Hickey.

I have to agree with you regarding Hickey. She has done a terrific job promoting and building that program. They did a very good job promoting the UTSA football program as "San Antonio's" team, and the community has responded. And it didn't hurt to have a terrific facility (the Alamodome) sitting vacant during football season! Got a sweetheart of a deal with that.
On campus facilities are lacking; but being built. I agree with most here that the basketball arena is very lacking. I've been to several games over the past 2-3 years, and rarely see more than 500 to 1000 there. Just doesn't seem to generate the interest of the community as much as football, and the students don't seem to have the same interest either. Lastly, the campus isn't really off the beaten path so much anymore. There are several large communities and premium shopping/dining immediately adjacent to the campus now. No reason it can't continue to grow. But they will take their lumps (basketball wise) in CUSA until recruiting gets stronger.
Just my two cents as a sports fan and SA resident.

Yes, there were a lot of things that factored into play that got them in CUSA, but the main point was attendance. There is no other major season in the fall in S.A. Basketball suffers there because the Spurs draw a very, very loyal following amongst the locals.

The Convocation was a decent TAAC/A-Sun and SLC gym, in the '80's and '90's, but the design is not aging well. Get rid of the wall and Strahan leaps far ahead of it. As it stands now, I still like Strahan better.

As for the communities around campus, those a suburban-oriented and don't engender the same type of interactivity that a more traditional surrounding does, like TXST and UTA have. Generally speaking, the higher level of walking it can do, the more the surrounding area will support the school. There is stuff near the campus, but it is still very isolated. I would wager that even if UTSA were to get a facility like CPC, they'd still not draw as well as you and we do.

Anything could happen, any program at our level in DI is one player away from big things, but I just have a hard time seeing UTSA become anything of relevance in C-USA they are at the bottom of a max two-big league, and more likely one, with a lot better teams ahead of them with more going for them. More often than not, they won't even be the best Texas team in C-USA. They have great potential in football, but basketball and baseball are still mid-level SLC teams.

(09-05-2013 02:50 PM)Shof Wrote:  I have to agree with you regarding Hickey. She has done a terrific job promoting and building that program. They did a very good job promoting the UTSA football program as "San Antonio's" team, and the community has responded. And it didn't hurt to have a terrific facility (the Alamodome) sitting vacant during football season! Got a sweetheart of a deal with that.
On campus facilities are lacking; but being built. I agree with most here that the basketball arena is very lacking. I've been to several games over the past 2-3 years, and rarely see more than 500 to 1000 there. Just doesn't seem to generate the interest of the community as much as football, and the students don't seem to have the same interest either. Lastly, the campus isn't really off the beaten path so much anymore. There are several large communities and premium shopping/dining immediately adjacent to the campus now. No reason it can't continue to grow. But they will take their lumps (basketball wise) in CUSA until recruiting gets stronger.
Just my two cents as a sports fan and SA resident.

Her outreach to the city is nothing short of phenomenal. And honestly, it should be a blueprint for teams suffering low attendance in high population areas (and even teams that are not in high population areas). The phrase "rock star" comes to mind when I think of her.

Basketball attendance has been lacking mainly because... well, the city has the spurs. No need to latch onto a college team that isn't faring great (no sweet 16 appearances, not bringing in the "popular" opponents, etc) when you have the Tim Duncan machine just a few miles down the road.

For football, the town loves them some Cowboys, but they don't do training camp there. It loves them some Aggies and Longhorns, but I think the city as a whole felt those teams weren't "theirs" and UTSA has a chance to be theirs. That's why there's such a big disparity between the uptick in football attendance vs. basketball attendance.

Good insights, but I guarantee you if they built an OOC and everything else stayed the same, attendance would plummet. Location is playing a huge factor.

I'm glad we are in the SB, but can't understand why Georgia State got the invite.