I don't know about that. Rumor has it, a big annoucement out of Lamar in early 07. Billy Tubbs returned to Lamar to bring back football. I'm sure he is ready to return to retirement.

Statements made by Billy Tubb.
1. Beaumont will not support I-AA football at Lamar.

a little history on Lamar. When Lamar played I-A football, the stadium was packed;+25,000 per game. Lamar dropped to I-AA, less than 2,000 at the games. Football was dropped.

2. In an interview( I can't find it on the net anymore) Tubbs mentioned Lamar and the WAC.

maybe it was just talk, i dont see how unless the WAC forms an eastern division around Tech. It was a few years ago and a lot has changedm so I dont hold Tubbs to it.

A note about UTSA. UTSA president said UTSA will exploring football and would play in the Alamo-dome. The old southwest conference would be revived with new and some old teams.

a lot of detail for just exploring football.

Texas State seems to be making some more noise about moving up to the Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A), so the question is, who gets the twelfth spot?

Centenary (The Summit League)
Central Oklahoma (Division II)
Houston Baptist (announced transition from Division II)
Oklahoma City (Division II)
Tarleton State (Division II)
Texas-Pan American (Independent)

Adding Centenary would allow Lamar to be in the Western Division with all of the other Texas schools.

Central Oklahoma would bring the Southland into a new state and the Oklahoma City market without warping the footprint, but would be a transitional member from Division II. UCO does play football.

Houston Baptist would give the league a direct presence in Houston, but is currently transitioning from Division II.

Oklahoma City would bring the Southland into the Oklahoma City market like UCO, but would also be a transitional member from Division II.

Tarleton State plays football, and is very close to current member Texas-Arlington. Tarleton would also have to transition from Division II.

Texas-Pan American is already a full member of Division I, and would be a natural rival for Texas A&M-Corpus Christi.

My pick would be Central Oklahoma if they want to move up. If not, Centenary, because Tarleton State is pretty much on UT-Arlington's doorstep. Centenary is already a full Division I member as well. Adding a non-football school may also signal to Lamar, UT-Arlington, and UT-San Antonio that they will be the league's next football schools.

Also, with regards to the WAC, a lack of movement from the Big East, Mountain West, and Conference USA could make something like this even more likely to happen:

Pacific Division-Hawaii, Fresno State, San Jose State, Boise State, Idaho, Nevada
Central Division-New Mexico State, Utah State, Louisiana Tech, 3 new schools

With Lamar, UTSA, UTA, Texas State, and Wichita State all having looked at moving up, starting, or getting back into football recently, the WAC could have an excellent chance to fill in its monstrous footprint.

UPDATE...
UTSA voted to add football. UTSA will go I-AA without joining the Southland. After 2-3 years, UTSA will move to I-A. The Southland is so pissed that they refuse to add the vote for football by UTSA to the webpage.

Lamar has added women's soccer, approved softball, and will add women's swimming. Lamar will announce football soon. Hurricane Rita delayed the annoucement that was suppose to happen in Jan. 07. Lamar too is looking to play I-AA independent like UTSA, then move up to I-A. Texas st-SM wants to move up to I-A. Southland may have 3 spots to fill for the 2012 season.

I'm sure as the moratorium is lifted, we'll see the echo effects announced. Houston Baptist, Centenary, and Texas-Pan American would probably join the Southland; Utah Valley State or Southern Illinois-Edwardsville would join the Summit League.

Will Boise State kick its campaign to get in the Mountain West into a higher gear if the WAC adds three newbies?

I think Tarleton st, Delta st, and Central Oklahoma is the next 3 in line for the slc. All 3 made the interviews from when TAMCC and UCA was invited in.

Houston Baptist will also move up.

Everything depends on what the PAC 10 move. PAC 10 raid MWC schools, Boise st joins MWC.
PAC 10 leave MWC alone, Boise st left out.

Date Set for LU Student Vote That Could Lead to Return of Football
Jennifer Heaththingy
January 3, 2008 - 8:02PM
Del.icio.us | Digg | Print Story | E-Mail Story | Font Size KFDM News has learned the Lamar University Student Government Association has set a date for students to vote on a fee that is expected to lead to the return of a football program to the campus.

The vote will take place on January 29 and 30.

Students will decide whether to pay an athletic fee of $8.75 per credit hour to help fund a football program

Lamar University has been without a football program since 1989. Many supporters, including LU President Dr. Jimmy Simmons and LU Athletic Director Billy Tubbs, say the return of football would do more for the university than most people realize.

They say it would bring in more students and fit in with the expansion that has led to new residence halls, new buildings and increased student pride.

"I think it would bring a lot of notoriety to the school, and it would be good for it, cause we've been missing a football team for a long time," said Joshua Ware, an LU sophomore.

"If it doesn't pass the student referendum, football is not in this generation's eyesight," said LU Athletic Director Billy Tubbs.

Tubbs says the return of a football program is just what the Cardinals need to continue the expansion that has rejuvenated school spirit.

"We need to build pride, and this will help and enhance our overall athletic program, which enhances the whole student body," said Tubbs.

"It would bring students, players, cheerleaders, their friends," said Ware.

Tubbs agrees. He says it would bring in more students and improve student life. He says the growth would be evident everywhere.

"We not only need to start a football team, we need to start it in a way that that football team will thrive and be very successful," said Tubbs.

Success that will begin with the students' vote.

"Sure I think it'll pass," said Ware. "Everyone will vote for it. I don't think there'll be any no's."

A 'yes' vote from students would be an important first step in the return of football.

The university is also asking private donors to help pay for the program, and regents would also have to give their approval.

If you're a student and would like more information about the vote, talk with a student government representative.

http://www.kfdm.com/news/football_24118___article.html/student_students.html

I think you wrote this before the GW expansion stuff came out, but it is great info.

My view is that the Southland likes being a conference of 10-16K publics. I suspect that if there is a schism, the western schools will likely break away and the eastern schools will shrink their footprint, at least compaired to the current Southland. I don't know that they would stretch to add a small public like Tarleton (7K enrollment) in that scenario. (Tarleton is just past the far edge of DFW). It seems a little like adding another TAMU-CC ---although Tarleton does at least play football and maybe they could be a package deal with UCO; UCO's travel partner? Are these schools far enough apart to think about travel partners? Probably not.

UCO is a very nice candidate as a 16,000 student DII football playing school just outside OKlahoma City. They are noticably bigger than their LSC mates and had a interest in the past in upgrading; It follows that they probably still do.

Delta State in Mississippi could ligitimately be considered again this time, but I don't know how much they add either as a tiny university of 4000 students located in rural northern Mississippi. I would play those guys, but what do they bring to the conference?

The University of Central Missouri could make some sense. They are a large DII football program with a 10,000 seat stadium. They have an enrollment of over 10,000. Near Kansas City. The question with them is interest. They are in a pretty comfortable conference with a lot of nearby opponents. Unless the students push this or the leadership really takes a stand on getting into a better conference, they may be content to stay put.

I think Arkansas Tech makes a little sense. They have only 7,000 students but play football and are reasonably in the footprint. They'd be a good rival to C. Arky. They might show an interest if approached.

Northeastern State University with an enrollment of 6,000 is probably too small. They are at least well situated near the Oklahoma/Arkansas Border and do play football. No idea if they have FCS dreams, but as a school on the far end of a conference, they may be receptive as well.

TAMU-Commerce ---the former ETSU --- has lousy athletic support in the LSC, but might actually be a pretty decent candidate for membership in the FCS Southland. Unlike their lot in the LSC, They are well situated for the southland conference near OCU and SFA and have a 10K stadium with a student body of about 8,000. As another outlier in the LSC and probably one of the least successful outliers, there may be some potential interest. Right now though, I'd question the viability of their athletic program and the level of fan interest. Maybe that would change. Maybe not.

The University of the Incarnate Word would have some difficulty getting into the conference due to their somewhat distant location in San Antonio and DII level facilities, but they'd have a shot too. They could play football in Alamo Stadium and maybe that would get them in. They are a total unknown as a program growing into their athletic skin.

The Southland is a football-centric conference. They have expressed a lot of anguish over the fact that TAMU-CC did not add football upon being admitted. I have to think they are not very jazzed to add non-football members if they can get away with not doing it.

That said, small non-football schools like UMKC (Kansas City), Oral Roberts (Tulsa), Centenary (Shreveport), and Houston Baptist (Houston) could make some sense if the Southland feels they need more media exposure and larger markets. If the Sunbelt forces out non-football members New Orleans and UALR, they would probably resurface in one of the non-football conferences... but the Southland is also a possibility.

The southland may hurt a BB program, but they do provide exposure in football.

Absolutely there are.

Missouri S & T has a little FBS potential, but are nowhere near ready.

Kansas schools like Pittsburg State are not good candidates for FBS IMO, because a big part of their success is based on proximity to their conference mates leading to high traveling fan numbers. In a more regionally dispersed conference with no known rivals I think they would struggle. They are at the right level.

I grew up around West Texas A&M. They should be an FCS school, but Amarillo (nearby city) is too small to have any FBS dreams.

Northwest Missouri State. Missouri has a lot of schools with the potential to move up, but most of them are at least 10 years away from tapping it.


Hardin-Simmons, Angelo State, Abilene Christian, etc. all used to play football at a higher level if I recall --- or maybe I am just practicing good old day syndrome and remembering the LSC when WT joined and pre -LSC days through rose colored glasses.

Anyway, I have a thread up on the site about how the LSC might move to the FCS level. It is honestly, quite improbable. I think the vast majority of the Texas Schools and a couple Oklahoma schools could break away and then upgrade. But the reality is the LSC schools are too small market and too far away from the southland to be potential targets for that conference, IMO.

Langston is probably not interesting to FCS conferences.

TAMU-CC - would be a very sensible co-conspirator to the breakaway southland 4. The Southland doesn't like the fact that they never added football, have been busted for cheating, and they are an outlier. If any school were going to get kicked out of the southland, that would be it.

Houston Baptist - a school I like a lot, but I don't run the conferences.

Texas A&M-Kingsville on the distant border of both the southland and the LSC. Things could happen for them in certain scenarios, but currently it makes more sense to stay put, rather than risk being shunned by both LSC and Southland over travel costs.

In almost all cases it make little sense for a public school to even consider FBS unless they have an enrollment of 15-20K minimum. Getting into a better conference usually requires a good DMA too. A lot of the missouri schools may be at the 15K+ level in 10-15 years. That I can tell, Lamar is upgrading to FBS because they feel it has to be done to help prevent enrollment erosion. That may legitimately be a valid plan for their region, but would be a horrible plan in most other parts of the country.

I'll try and deal with some of the others schools later. I'd recommend you read the realignment by 2025 thread as that pushed a lot of us to use the knowledge we had on various schools. Also the attendance breakdown threads you might find interesting. Attendance is a big key for conference admission and suggests potential TV viewership and the financial health of the athletic program.

Amarillo is slightly smaller than Lubbock and bigger than many FBS cities....

The problem with that is that Amarillo is by far the largest city in the region and WT is comparatively small.

You might make the very legit comparison of WT to Texas Tech. Amarillo to Lubbock. Tech is IN Lubbock, WT is 10 Miles outside Amarillo City limits, but other than that semi big difference it is a respectable compairison.

WT only has an enrollment of about 7K. That is tiny. That is small even for an FCS level public. Their students pay an Intercollegiate Athletic Fee of $10 per semester and their athletic budget is $2.3M annually.

If the students at WT pushed to double their athletic fee to the state maximum of $20 per hour, they could add $10 X 7000 students X 30 Hours a semester ...or $2.1M to their athletic budget. You just cannot run a FBS program on a $4.4M budget, especially if your CLOSEST game in your potential conference home against SFA. I think they would have the smallest budget in the southland.

WT needs to get the good football schools in the LSC to move up with them.

Tech, for contrast has an enrollment of 28K. Their athletic budget is 44M annually. The size of their student base (and obviously alumni base) makes them by far the #1 school in all of West Texas. In other words they are TV relevant in about 10 western Texas DMAs. WT would be relevant in the Amarillo DMA only due to the size of enrollment and alumni base. Combine that with added travel costs and that means no FBS conference is going to want them.

You won't find anyone on this board who loves WT more than I do. (As much? Maybe...More? No way.) It kills me that WT plays at the DII level, but I understand it. Geographically they are in the only healthy conference for them to be in. I think they should be an FCS school, but that won't happen unless the better schools in the LSC move up together.

Your original arguement said Amarillo was the reason. My point is its not. WT itself may not be ready, however Amarillo 10 miles away could support them at a higher level. BTW, La-monroe is FBS and only 7k students.

The University of Tulsa is a private school. It has under 5k students but it has a $1 billion endowment.

From Tulsa's own website, 4th line on the page. They are a private nondenominational university:

http://www.utulsa.edu/admission/facts/

The panhandle is a great region and they do support WT pretty well, but what you are pushing for just does not seem viable.

I have no doubt WT could be a FCS power, but the reality is the Amarilla DMA is tiny and WT is not TV relevant beyond that DMA. The implication of that is that no FBS or FCS conference is going to pursue WT for TV. Too Small. The entire Amarillo DMA is less than 200K TV households and that includes surrounding communities like Canyon, Dumas, Borger and the lot.

Add in the fact they would be on the perimeter of any conference they could look to join. Travelling out to Amarillo is not convient or cheap for (let's say) the WAC, the MWC, or even the FCS southland. Why would the WAC take WT over say UC DAVIS or Sac State? Those give a much larger media market and are very cheap travel destinations. The MWC would raid the WAC or CUSA if they needed teams. Why would the southland need to offer a slot to WT instead of OCU and/or Arky Tech? The travel budget would be much larger for WT ---perhaps unbearably so. The teams in the Southland would likely chose a larger and/or closer member to minimize their travel costs.

Figure in the size of enrollment and what that means to their athletic budget and I just don't see it, unless they get a despirate bottom feeder FBS conference offerring a ULM deal. I can't see any way they would have an athletic buget over about 4.5-5M at the time they upgrade and I don't see that covering travel even in the FCS Southland. WT has a long history of poor financial support from donors and alumni. I am not picking on the alumni or the community. They do attend the games regularly. I have just never seen big money being fronted to athletics at WTwith any regularity. While I can see the community getting whipped up to do a project ---like if the stadium had to be replaced or something --- everything I know about the community out there makes me think they are not going to make up the kinds of consistent annual athletic budget shortfalls WT might have at the "ULM" FBS level. I think "live within your means" is more the idea in the community and among the leadership.

I could see them in an FCS LSC of 8-9 teams (say ACU,ASU, UCO, TAMU -Kingsville, MSU, NSU, W, Tarelton, & maybe even UIW) where maybe they could fish for a corporate sponsor to make a money deal with some FBS schools like SMU, NMSU, Tulsa, and UNT to host a comparatively big money money football game each year. Admittedly a long shot and it would likely need to be combined with a 2 to 1 series deal. Add that to some in-conference play with their LSC mates and maybe some of the closer Southland schools. Maybe in 10 years play 6-8 big time opponents in basketball games in Amarillo proper. That's as grandiose of a plan as I could see without a moment of divine intervention ala the ULM situation. The budget and TV market just isn't there.

Keep in mind what the school can bear. Years ago, WT decided to downgrade to DII from the MVC because they could not afford the travel. They were on the fringes of that conference just like they'd be in in the Southland. Now granted, WT has a much stronger athletic perception after years of whipping up on weaker competition and their athletic department leadership today may really want to move back up to FCS or FBS, but the impression I have is that the school will only go as far as they feel they can go that allows them to maintain a healthy program without breaking the school's budget.

What gains do they get out of moving up to FCS? What gains do they get out of moving to FBS? The gains are not as clear cut as for some other schools. The LSC is a perfect conference for them in terms of footprint. They have better rivals in that conference than they would in other conferences at higher levels. On the flip side, DII schools don't get to play FBS schools in football and rarely get DI basketball matchups. WT fans would LOVE to even travel to play Tech in football or host SMU or TCU in basketball. Those are things that upgrading could make possible. The reality is those potential gains have never been weighed to offset the potential loss of a friendly footprint, smaller budget, and good rivals at the DII level.

As a DII school, they ARE playing at a level below what they can legitimately bear and that IS cheating their university out of the added exposure a higher level of competition might yeild. In a conference with reasonable travel, a $4-8M athletic budgets is sufficient at the FCS level. The LSC could be that. But that won't cut it on the fringes of an expansive and distant FBS conference or even FCS conference. There are rumors out that the rules that come out of the NCAA moritorium will try to define division affilitation by athletic budget. If that is the case, then it is almost without question that WT would not be allowed to move to the FBS level anyway.

I wrote a lot about enrollments and athletic budgets and the differences between private university budgets and public university budgets in this thread that really gets to the heart of the matter. A 7K Private can legitmately look at FBS. A 7K public will only have an FCS budget and to consider FBS status has to really hope for a bottom level conference with a friendly footprint that is totally despirate for a member. Without an acceptable footprint (and perhaps even conference welfare), WT's budget is just not sufficent for FBS.

(Playa...La. Monroe has what I believe is the smallest budget in FBS at 9M. Thay have IMO taken a huge gamble to try to use FBS football to spur their university growth. While I hope it works out for them, it could come back to bite the university on the butt. Unless football quickly helps the university's enrollment grow---adding new students fees and ticket sales to their athletic budget--- they may have problems staying at the FBS level. A budget that size won't get a team into the MAC, and probably wouldn't get you into the Sunbelt today. WT would likely have a smaller budget. This is less than budgets of the kind of schools the WAC elite are trying to scrape off the foot of their conference. Frankly, if the NCAA does change the NCAA rule requirements to be budget based as rumored, unless they are grandfathered, ULM may be downgraded...)

http://collegesportsinfo/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2168