UTSA Approves football...
http://www.utsa.edu/today/2008/12/football.cfm

With CUSA goals in mind down the road

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

La-Tech, Texas st, and North Texas all with CUSA goals in mind down the road.

I think the economic crisis might allow more viability to a breakaway Southland 4. The financial troubles might cause long term problems with a number of programs.

Consider the fact that the southland is really only a conference of note in football. Why would outliers UTA and TAMU-CC stay with the east teams? TAMU-CC is resented for not adding football and for rules violations. Additionally they are quite distant. UTA runs their program on a shoestring and are again distant outlier without the houston area schools. If all 4 schools continue with plans to upgrade in 2013-15, non-football UTA and TAMU-CC might feel very nervous about their long term future in the southland.

SHSU, UTSA, Lamar, and Texas State with UTA & TAMU-CC would have the 6 core to satisfy the 6/5 NCAA requirements for a tourney berth. I know people like to say that they won't get one, but the NCAA will roll over on this one with the threat of a lawsuit. Adding another core non-football school like UNO, UALR, UTPA, or ORU would give them the needed schools to satify the 7 part of the 7/6/5 rule. Once they have that bid, they frankly stack up well vs. the sunbelt or WAC in terms of travel costs and TV markets for schools like ULL, LA Tech, NMSU, Arky St. Heck they might even be able to raid a big public school or two from the MWC if their basketball is reasonable at that point.

Now obviously, a SWC breakaway in the next couple years could totally scuttle this.

Dude, why would football schools in SHSU, UTSA(2011), Lamar(2010), and Texas State would want to join non-football UTA, TAMU-CC, UNO, UALR, UTPA, or ORU?

UTSA is will name its football head coach soon. Word is it'll be former University of Miami National Championship coach Larry Coker....

This hiring leads no doubt on UTSA moving to FBS. Also I saw where Lamar President was describing plans to expand their stadium to 35-40k
and move to FBS. And we know Texas st has made it known too.

UTSA, Lamar, and Texas st are moving up for sure.

I found it...

UTSA To Hire Coker: Announcement Could Come Friday
SAN ANTONIO -- UTSA could have their first head football coach by as early as this Friday. Sources close to the process tell News 4 WOAI's Don Harris that it will be former Miami Coach Larry Coker.

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/UT ... s6gHw.cspx

Are you really asking this question?

For an NCAA autobid.

If CUSA doesn't split, they aren't going to be expanding. If they do split, it is still entirely likely they pass over all 3 southland schools. The Sunbelt may have an interest in one or two of the schools, but then again, they may not. If they stop accepting FCS upgrades and the conference keeps improving in the money sports, they may move into the WAC level in national perception. There are reasons to pass. The WAC really does not want to increase their footprint.

That leaves the Southland 3 (or 4 if SHSU doesn't back out) with few options. Building their own conference in that scenario is viable and is one of the most cost effective things they can do in terms of travel.

They cannot just start a conferenece with the idea of getting a BB bid 5-6 years down the road. They won't be able to lure any football members without a basketball autobid, so job 1 is getting an autobid for basketball which means satisfying the 7/6/5 rule.

UTA and TAMU-CC are outliers in the remaining Southland and as non-football schools and small budget schools could always be dumped by the southland east. They can't feel secure in what would remain of that conference. Additionally, UTSA was part of their non-football voting block for years. That gives you 5 schools that easily make sense. They share the shortest travel budgets. Who would be the 6th southland school to satisfy the 6/5 part of the 7/6/5 rule? SHSU is the most likely. Even if they aren't ready to move up to FBS, there is little reason to stay in the southland for anything beyond football. UCA is another posssibilty in a couple more years.

With those 6 Southland schools, ANY single CORE member of FBS would make the 7th member required to satisfy the 7/6/5 rule. (UTPA makes sense in terms of travel and is a core school on the outside of an unfriendly conference footprint in a conference that doesn't have an autobid, but the conference could go for a higher profile school with a stronger basketball program -attendance- like ORU or UALR.) Once they have an autobid, there is a legit chance to steal football playing outliers of the WAC or Sunbelt. Smaller footprint, larger TV totals = more money for the universities.

You're reaching, won't happen. That conference would kill football at those 4 schools.

What are their options? They are very possibly on a collision course with no conference home. No shot at BCS access, no bowl tie ins, no NCAA Tourney autobid money.... You are approaching this from a perspective that those universities after spending MILLIONS of dollars in preparation of moving up are just going to say, "well upgrading is too hard, let's just stay in the Southland indefinitely."

Not going to happen. There is too much face to be lost. These are big Texas schools, not Louisiana schools. If they say they are going to do it, their alumni will hold them to it. They have to try to make this happen to keep support for them keeping their jobs.

These schools will jump as independents if need be. (A package of big market UTSA & UTA, and strong BB school Lamar might appeal to the summit for non-football. A footprint from Detroit to Texas with many of the major cities in between could make the Summit the BB CUSA of the future. Could they go to 14 at the expense of the Southland? Even short term that might be a strong play by the Summit, allowing split division play to cut travle costs and adding major markets.) The breakaway schools might try to force the Southland to keep them in for non-football, but would that work? Is it desireable? The southland retards their basketball programs. If they would do that, would the Eastern Southland balk at that? Would the eastern schools resist it to prevent a lack of control over conference direction?

Consider the case of UCA. I think the powers that be there might want to eventually move into FBS. Having friends at Lamar, Texas State, and UTSA would likely help them in 10 years. What if they vote with the breakaway schools to curry future support? What about SFA? They may not want to upgrade now, but they may want to protect their chances in the future.

The southland 4 can count on non-football schools TAMUCC and UTA voting with them. (As distant, small budget, non-football conference outliers in the FCS Southland east, their future membership claims are not secure in that conference. What is TAMU-CC's position after a breakaway?) One more vote for the FBS confederation makes them a conference majority, 7/5. Hell if they get one more vote the 7 schools could bail on the Southland taking the Southland's BB bid with them and that WOULD kill the FCS side of the conference.

The southland could easily transition (I am obviously not speaking of what the NCAA would have them do, only the conference mindset.) to become an FBS conference with schools like McNeese who have no FBS dreams looking for new FCS homes.

The ability of McNeese to dictate the direction of the conference could be in question if the upgrading schools are allowed to stay in. The future of the conference could be in question asnd that may very well lead to schools being encouraged to leave. The idea of a west/east split here is one of the better financial options for all southland member schools. The real question for the FBS 3/4 is, IMO, can UTSA do better? Lamar and Texas State should be selling UTSA now with the idea that UTSA trade potential future standing for the short term security of immediate and firm solidarity with Lamar and Texas State.

Things will come to a head for the southland. If there were just one or two variables floating out there this would be a lot less volatile. There are just too many potential problems that could occur --- a situation only made more difficult to predict by what might happen at higher level conferences like the BE, CUSA, Sunbelt, and WAC.

This would also be a reach but more logical. If no C-USA split happens and Texas St., UTSA, Georgia So., Lamar, Jacksonville St., Georgia St, & Charlotte go FBS they could start an all sports conference. All but Charlotte would be forced out of their current conference for not following the football by-laws anyway. The problem is they would have to wait 5 years for a auto-bid in basketball.

The starting of the conference could bring in Appalachian St. & Sam Houston St.

Sun Belt has 13 schools and if Denver leaves like they are supposed to I think the Belt would stay at 12. UNO goes down to D-II then a spot could open for UTSA.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
'08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS

Well I don't agree with "MORE logical" , but it is a good point.

I think it is pretty easy to see that all 3 upgrading schools might have problems getting into a conference where travel would be economically viable and the payouts would make the league logical for them.

I think it is also easy to see that if you remove UTSA, Texas State, and Lamar, (and possibly SHSU) --- UTA and TAMUCC are left very isolated. Travel budgets are large for the MAJORITY of the remaining conference members to travel to two schools who offer little to their "football first and last" concept conference.

Logically it is pretty easy to see the breakaway 3 and the 2 nonfootball schools staying together for cheap travel. (What conference could offer cheaper travel?) You only need 6 core members who have played together for the last 5 years to satisfy the 6/5 rule. SHSU would give them 6. From there, ANY core member added gives you the 7 you need to satisfy the NCAA rule. (UTPA is convient and the GW doesn't have a berth. ORU is close and gives viewership accross Oklahoma, Arkansas, and North Texas. They have a well supported BB program which, along with Lamar's, would help the conference develop BB credibility needed to develop other strong programs. Their culture is more Texas/Oklahoma than the Summit region and this conference with it's FBS future is higher profile.)

(I am one of those people who don't buy the NCAA's claim that they won't be granting new tourney bids anytime soon. Satisfying the criteria is hard enough. If a collection of teams do it and sue the NCAA, IMO they'll get their bid in short order. I mean geez...it is what? a 1/127th share of the tourney revenue? The NCAA doesn't want a lawsuit that might overturn the whole deal. I'll grant it is an assumption on my part, but I think a lot of people who have followed the NCAA reactions to lawsuits would agree with me that it is not a big stretch.)

Once you have a tourney autobid, you are technically on even ground with conferences like the sunbelt and MAC and maybe only a 1/2 step behind the WAC. Really, travel costs, fan support, TV markets, regional concentration of fans/alumni, and other factors outweight esteem factors for the most part in competing with those conferences.

I think an FBS foursome of UTSA,Texas State, SHSU, and Lamar could be very interesting to football outliers in the WAC (NMSU and LA Tech) and Sunbelt (UNT, ULL, ULM, and maybe even Arky State). Any 8 out of those lot could create a conference with pretty good TV numbers and a reasonable footprint. Now it is possible that some or possible even all of those schools might pass? Sure. In that scenario, schools that have announced intentions of FBS play like Georgia So., Jacksonville St., & Charlotte could be candidates. Schools like Georgia State, The Citadel, JMU, App State and a few others with sufficient stadia that could step up, might. If the Sunbelt is stuck at 12, those schools would not have better homes at the FBS level.

I think it is all about options. Starting a breakaway gives a ton of options and is quite doable, so I have a hard time beleiving the people involved have not considered this or consider it as much of a "reach" as many here seem to think.

does the wac once again try to venture east and pick up all three of these teams.

wac east
la tech
texas st
utsa
lamar
new mexico st
utah st

wac west
nevada
boise st
idaho
san jose st
fresno st
hawaii

that would help stabilize things in the wac in case boise state and other defect to mwc.

I wonder if the WAC would want to get to 12? If they did I think you'd see them get Sun Belt members 1st over SLC members, the whole ladder climbing thing. UNT said no to the WAC but they would say yes for sure if there were other Texas schools. UTSA is an exception to the ladder because of their stadium and market.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
'08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS

since north texas already said no, I figured the southland 3 could slide in as a unit.