(08-27-2018 04:23 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 04:03 PM)AZcats Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 02:52 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 07:29 PM)AZcats Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 03:23 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Times have change. The state of Texas wants to put more schools in the FBS, and have more schools in the P5 conferences than any other state. Look at the Big 12 expansion short list candidates? Rice, SMU and Houston. The state of Texas would have an unfair advantage over other states in the p5 talk. San Diego State in the talks for PAC 12 expansion candidates would make them equals with Texas for how many schools in a P5 conference. Florida could get UCF and USF in a P5 which would get them to equals.

Colorado refusing to let Metro State have football is old school, and would put the state behind the 8 ball.

Omaha, Milwaukee, Mankato State, Minn.-Duluth and some others should be D1 in football.

Why does the state of Texas care how many FBS schools they have? Why would they want more when some current schools struggle to fill seats?

How does the state of Colorado get put behind the 8 ball because Metro State does not have football? Of the 17 NCAA schools in Colorado, 10 have football - 6 in D2, 4 in D1.

The state of Texas doesn't care if anymore Texas schools join the FBS because those decisions are left up to the individual schools.

Exactly. I want to know why David thinks "The state of Texas wants to put more schools in the FBS".

There is a lot to be said for having schools at every level. It allows a wider range of your state's athletes to play sports. There are many fine football players who wouldn't make a FBS squad out of HS - but could play FCS, DII, DIII, NAIA etc.

Texas has a serious shortage of football teams below the D1 level. There's only 26 teams below that level.

For comparison, Minnesota has 34 and Ohio has 31.

The POLITICS in the state of Texas were trying to get Rice, SMU and Houston into the Big 12. The politics in the state of Illinois want another state school in the Big 10.

As it is. The schools at D1 are afraid that they would be left behind when and if the P5 splits away. They want to be ready to have football added just in case there is a split from the NCAA, they would be ready to join them. As for California schools? There are still a pool of talent not just in the US. The rise of college football in Mexico, Japan, South KoreA, China and Australia would be helpful.

(08-27-2018 05:24 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 04:23 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 04:03 PM)AZcats Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 02:52 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 07:29 PM)AZcats Wrote:  Why does the state of Texas care how many FBS schools they have? Why would they want more when some current schools struggle to fill seats?

How does the state of Colorado get put behind the 8 ball because Metro State does not have football? Of the 17 NCAA schools in Colorado, 10 have football - 6 in D2, 4 in D1.

The state of Texas doesn't care if anymore Texas schools join the FBS because those decisions are left up to the individual schools.

Exactly. I want to know why David thinks "The state of Texas wants to put more schools in the FBS".

There is a lot to be said for having schools at every level. It allows a wider range of your state's athletes to play sports. There are many fine football players who wouldn't make a FBS squad out of HS - but could play FCS, DII, DIII, NAIA etc.

Texas has a serious shortage of football teams below the D1 level. There's only 26 teams below that level.

For comparison, Minnesota has 34 and Ohio has 31.

Yes - Texas needs more DII, DIII, NAIA teams. Even maybe FCS teams

12 FBS
6 FCS
3 No Football (but DI in other sports).

(08-27-2018 05:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The POLITICS in the state of Texas were trying to get Rice, SMU and Houston into the Big 12.

Just curious where you find the stuff you post? Rice was never considered for Big 12 membership and SMU has no politicians to speak of.

UT and Texas Tech gave lip service to UH but the Big 12 TV partners won in the end and Texas Gov Hot Wheels couldn't do anything about it.

(08-27-2018 10:17 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 05:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The POLITICS in the state of Texas were trying to get Rice, SMU and Houston into the Big 12.

Just curious where you find the stuff you post? Rice was never considered for Big 12 membership and SMU has no politicians to speak of.

UT and Texas Tech gave lip service to UH but the Big 12 TV partners won in the end and Texas Gov Hot Wheels couldn't do anything about it.

It’s all in his mind......

For a brief moment UH was considered for the Big 12.

(08-27-2018 11:26 PM)utpotts Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 10:17 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 05:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The POLITICS in the state of Texas were trying to get Rice, SMU and Houston into the Big 12.

Just curious where you find the stuff you post? Rice was never considered for Big 12 membership and SMU has no politicians to speak of.

UT and Texas Tech gave lip service to UH but the Big 12 TV partners won in the end and Texas Gov Hot Wheels couldn't do anything about it.

It’s all in his mind......

And it’s a powerful mind. He truly believes what he’s typing.
DaveyboySt is not a troll.

(08-27-2018 05:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The POLITICS in the state of Texas were trying to get Rice, SMU and Houston into the Big 12. The politics in the state of Illinois want another state school in the Big 10.

Ann Richards only vouched for Baylor and Texas Tech to get into the Big 12. That's the extent of Texas politics interfering there.

(08-28-2018 08:27 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 05:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The POLITICS in the state of Texas were trying to get Rice, SMU and Houston into the Big 12. The politics in the state of Illinois want another state school in the Big 10.

Ann Richards only vouched for Baylor and Texas Tech to get into the Big 12. That's the extent of Texas politics interfering there.

Why did some politicians came out vouching for Houston, SMU and Rice to join the Big 12 with their chaotic expansing try out 2 years ago?

(08-28-2018 08:27 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 05:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The POLITICS in the state of Texas were trying to get Rice, SMU and Houston into the Big 12. The politics in the state of Illinois want another state school in the Big 10.

Ann Richards only vouched for Baylor and Texas Tech to get into the Big 12. That's the extent of Texas politics interfering there.

Wrong.

Ann Richards had no power. Texas Lt Gov Bob Bullock had the power and made sure Baylor was included. Ann Richards had nothing to do with Tech's inclusion to the Big 12.

(08-28-2018 08:33 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 08:27 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 05:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The POLITICS in the state of Texas were trying to get Rice, SMU and Houston into the Big 12. The politics in the state of Illinois want another state school in the Big 10.

Ann Richards only vouched for Baylor and Texas Tech to get into the Big 12. That's the extent of Texas politics interfering there.

Why did some politicians came out vouching for Houston, SMU and Rice to join the Big 12 with their chaotic expansing try out 2 years ago?

Tx Gov Hot Wheels supported "UH inclusion because of UH chairman Tilman Fertitta demands" but had no power over the Big 12 or TV networks. Hot wheels gave UH lip service and most educated folks in realignment conversations understand this.

Hot Wheels can't tell schools in Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas and West Virginia who the Big 12 has to accept.

Rice has never been in conversation in regards to P5 membership. Please stop with this nonsense.

David,

I think you may have mixed up two of the CSU schools. I think Sacramento State is the one just above the 30k mark and SFSU is just below it. But I kinda like it your way a little better so I'll run with it.

If we launch teams at all the 30k+ schools, CA would get 7 new teams. 14 FBS schools in CA would be so much fun. It would be twice what we have now and somehow still under the national average if you go by teams per capita. They would even break down into logical divisions should we put them all in the same conference:

Research Universities Division

Stanford
USC
UCLA
UC Berkeley
UC San Diego
UC Davis
UC Irvine

CSU Division

San Diego State
Fresno State
SJSU
SFSU
Long Beach State
Cal State Northridge
Cal State Fullerton

Maybe SJSU and SFSU would make decent rivals? Better than what the Spartans have now, right?

Or, if the CA schools didn't want to completely isolate themselves in a west coast version of the Southwest Conference, maybe the research schools above would instead be the Golden State Division of a conference with the following other schools:

Non-CA Divison:

Arizona
ASU
Utah
Colorado
Oregon
Washington
UBC (we've already jumped off the deep end so why not, you know?)

Which could leave the CSU schools to join forces with:

Western States Division:

Wazzu
Oregon State
Boise State
Nevada
UNLV
Hawaii
BYU

I do think that could have been a pretty cool alternate history. Too bad we're more likely to see another CA program shut down than see even one of the potential additions actually launch FBS football. Going down your listed categories, CA has big enough schools in sufficient quantities to populate FCS and D2 conferences too. Oh well. Too bad it didn't happen.

So I just realized that in this alternate reality those 14 CA teams could have very natural inter-divisional/conference rivalries.

Stanford vs SJSU, The Silicon Valley Classic (currently the Bill Walsh Legacy Game)
Cal vs SFSU, The Battle of the Bay Bridge
UCLA vs Cal State Northridge, The Sepulveda Pass Shootout
UC San Diego vs SDSU, The Mission City Classic
UC Irvine vs Cal State Fullerton, The Orange County Classic
UC Davis vs Fresno State, the Central Valley Showdown
USC vs Long Beach State, Gridiron Gridlock

Northern California Athletic Conference in the old days had a weird mixed bag of schools.

Chico State
Fresno State
Hayward State now East Bay State
Humboldt State
Nevada-Reno
Pacific California
Sacramento State
St. Mary's
San Francisco State
Sonoma State
Southern Oregon
UC-Davis

There is a lot of history with these schools in football. Some great football schools had their teams cut. CSU-L.A. was ranked #4 on the AP polls in the 1960s when they beat out Fresno State who was ranked #9 on the same poll.CSU-L.A. won the conference title. Some people do think some of the leadership at the time mismanaged theathletics departments when they dropped football. The head coach at Long Beach State at the time, who was a former head coach, had donors lined up to build LBSU's on campus stadium that would seat like 20,000 plus for them to stay in FBS, but the school President and the AD killed the idea, and dropped football. LBSU had the chance to saved football back then, and they could be the MWC number 12 team instead of San Jose State. LBSU do hae better teams than San Jose State like baseball and men's basketball. You really got to wonder where some of these schools be today if they kept football?