WAC Expansion: UTSA/Texas St to give formal presentations

[T-Dog]

Note that UTSA wouldn't be FBS until 2014.

And the WAC would only be a 9 team conference if all 3 schools joined.

So that means 8 conference games...plus 3 OOC games. Not sure what years would be 12 game years or if the Hawaii effect would come into play for WAC schools, but...

2014: might need to drop 1 or 2 (drop UVA = home game, drop 2014 KSU away game)
2015: LA Tech is in the WAC, so only need to drop 0 to 1 game (drop CSU, play rescheduled KSU game at KSU)
2016-2018: no need to drop any

FBS teams play 12 game schedules with the option of 13 if you travel to Hawai'i (12th game option for FCS schools). And that's for conference schools as well. SJSU, SoCal, UNLV, Idaho and Nevada scheduled a 13th game this year. LaTech chose not to schedule a 13th game and Charleston Southern only had 10 games.

[AZGrizFan]

So according to the commish, Montana, UTSA and Texas St are making presentations. No mention of Montana State. So the silver chain supposedly linking the two is broken. Or is it? Montana wants to go off on its own, leaving twin brother behind. Well, I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later. Will MSU take over as top dog in the Big Sky? Somehow I don't think so.

The only thing "twin" about Montana and Montana State is they both have the word Montana in their name.

[nwFL Griz]

Nothing is expected to be finalized right away. But it's an assumption that all 3 football schools with be invited...since the WAC needs them.

I wonder if UTSA will have to back out of some of their commitments to play. Nice little slate they built...

2013
Sept. 7 - Oklahoma State
Sept. 14 - at Arizona
Sept. 28 - Houston
Nov. 2 - at Virginia

2014
Aug. 30 - at Houston
Sept. 6 - Arizona
Sept. 13 - at Oklahoma State
Sept. 27 - at Kansas State
Nov. 8 - Virginia

2015
Sept. 5 - at Arizona
Sept. 12 - Kansas State
Sept. 19 - at Oklahoma State
Sept. 26 - at Louisiana Tech
Oct. 3 - Colorado State

2016
Sept. 17 - Arizona State
Sept. 24 - Louisiana Tech
Oct. 1 - at Colorado State

2017
Sept. 9 - at Baylor
Sept. 30 - at Colorado State

2018
Sept. 1 - at Arizona State
Sept. 8 - Baylor
Sept. 15 - at Kansas State

No need to cancel any games. The LaTech games become conference games, so no contract issues there. Also allows the flexibility to shift a game to a later year. Try to shift the one of the 2014 games to 2016 or later, that's really the only move that needs to be done.

[AZGrizFan]

I wonder if UTSA will have to back out of some of their commitments to play. Nice little slate they built...

2013
Sept. 7 - Oklahoma State
Sept. 14 - at Arizona
Sept. 28 - Houston
Nov. 2 - at Virginia

2014
Aug. 30 - at Houston
Sept. 6 - Arizona
Sept. 13 - at Oklahoma State
Sept. 27 - at Kansas State
Nov. 8 - Virginia

2015
Sept. 5 - at Arizona
Sept. 12 - Kansas State
Sept. 19 - at Oklahoma State
Sept. 26 - at Louisiana Tech
Oct. 3 - Colorado State

2016
Sept. 17 - Arizona State
Sept. 24 - Louisiana Tech
Oct. 1 - at Colorado State

2017
Sept. 9 - at Baylor
Sept. 30 - at Colorado State

2018
Sept. 1 - at Arizona State
Sept. 8 - Baylor
Sept. 15 - at Kansas State

No need to cancel any games. The LaTech games become conference games, so no contract issues there. Also allows the flexibility to shift a game to a later year. Try to shift the one of the 2014 games to 2016 or later, that's really the only move that needs to be done.

Plus, it depends on what year the Hawaii game is IN Hawaii for them.

[Catattack]

Just finished up with Western Athletic Conference commissioner Karl Benson at the DFW Hilton -- a glamorous life, this sportswriting -- after speaking with UTSA athletic director Lynn Hickey and Texas State counterpart Larry Teis following their morning meeting.

I'll be hammering out my story here pretty shortly, but a few details first:

* As expected, nothing especially significant happened, nor is anything significant expected when Benson and the WAC's six athletic directors meet again tomorrow. It was simply another, albeit brief, chance to make their cases for membership.

* In addition to UTSA and Texas State, Denver and Seattle made presentations -- both are interested in joining as non-football schools -- and Montana had an informal meeting. Montana, regularly among the best FCS football programs in the country, is conducting a feasability study for the jump to FBS. Any discussions about membership won't take place until that study is finished, Benson said.

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/u ... big-d.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[slycat]

Campus visits next on WAC's agenda for UTSA and Texas State
By Dan McCarney - Express-News
Web Posted: 09/28/2010 2:40 CDT
Share Comments(0) Print Email RSS Related
WAC sports
GRAPEVINE — Western Athletic Conference commissioner Karl Benson said campus visits could be made within the next 30-60 days as the league continues discussions about adding UTSA and Texas State to its depleted ranks.
The latest round came Tuesday at a hotel near Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, where UTSA athletic director Lynn Hickey and Texas State athletic director Larry Teis made short presentations to Benson and the WAC membership committee, comprising the league's six remaining athletic directors.

Both said the meeting went well.

“We went through a lot of stuff in 45 minutes,” Hickey said. “They asked a lot of questions, but nothing we couldn't answer. It's just fun to have this opportunity. It means a great deal.”

Said Teis: “I feel good about it. I made my case for Texas State, how important we are, so we'll see what happens from here. You look at everything we've done, and are continuing to do, we're a good fit.”

Benson said invitations could come at the end of any campus visits, provided there's enough support from the WAC's members. Benson said 75 percent approval is required to add new schools.

Benson and the WAC membership committee will meet again today to mull Tuesday's presentations before flying home, but he continued to sound positive about both schools.

“The sense of the group is that both UTSA and Texas State have very comprehensive plans to move to (the NCAA's Football Bowl Subdivision),” he said.

“I think the WAC athletic directors were very impressed with the funding models, impressed with what's already built at Texas State, and what UTSA is planning to build.

“I don't think there's any question that both schools could be very successful at the FBS level, and that both would contribute to the WAC and our plan to rebuild and re-establish and solidify.”

[frinq]

Is there any precedent for a school new to football like UTSA (they haven't played yet) jumping into a FBS conference? They make no bones about playing two years as an independent then jumping into FBS. At the very least, recruiting's going to be a challenge. Texans think big!

[CatMom]

Is there any precedent for a school new to football like UTSA (they haven't played yet) jumping into a FBS conference? They make no bones about playing two years as an independent then jumping into FBS. At the very least, recruiting's going to be a challenge. Texans think big!

They can not be an FBS Independent. They will have to have a formal invite before they can 'move up', which seems eminent, but they will not be considered FBS until 2013/14, at the least.
They're in SA...we will have similar recruiting areas and a lot of our really good players are from the greater SA area but I think we'll be ok. Wright is doing a great job recruiting and I think the strides we have made makes us, currently, a bit more enticing than the commuter school 45 miles down the road.
That said, there are a zillion football players in TX. We have 83 of 87 players, on our roster, from TX.

[mainejeff]

There are reports that Hawaii will be going Indy for football and the Big West for the rest of its sports.

Boy, the WAC is looking better and better!........

[Dane96]

Is there any precedent for a school new to football like UTSA (they haven't played yet) jumping into a FBS conference? They make no bones about playing two years as an independent then jumping into FBS. At the very least, recruiting's going to be a challenge. Texans think big!

They can not be an FBS Independent. They will have to have a formal invite before they can 'move up', which seems eminent, but they will not be considered FBS until 2013/14, at the least.
They're in SA...we will have similar recruiting areas and a lot of our really good players are from the greater SA area but I think we'll be ok. Wright is doing a great job recruiting and I think the strides we have made makes us, currently, a bit more enticing than the commuter school 45 miles down the road.
That said, there are a zillion football players in TX. We have 83 of 87 players, on our roster, from TX.

This is an improper statement: UTSA could go indy. The moratorium are ONLY for teams moving from DII or DIII up to DI. There is no moritorium on current DI teams looking to start football. UTSA is a current DI member.

[dbackjon]

They can not be an FBS Independent. They will have to have a formal invite before they can 'move up', which seems eminent, but they will not be considered FBS until 2013/14, at the least.
They're in SA...we will have similar recruiting areas and a lot of our really good players are from the greater SA area but I think we'll be ok. Wright is doing a great job recruiting and I think the strides we have made makes us, currently, a bit more enticing than the commuter school 45 miles down the road.
That said, there are a zillion football players in TX. We have 83 of 87 players, on our roster, from TX.

This is an improper statement: UTSA could go indy. The moratorium are ONLY for teams moving from DII or DIII up to DI. There is no moritorium on current DI teams looking to start football. UTSA is a current DI member.

no. A team must have a conference invite to move to FBS as well

[89Hen]

This is an improper statement: UTSA could go indy. The moratorium are ONLY for teams moving from DII or DIII up to DI. There is no moritorium on current DI teams looking to start football. UTSA is a current DI member.

no. A team must have a conference invite to move to FBS as well

NO, Dane is correct. The moratorium is for teams moving UP, not teams starting football. UTSA is in the same boat as South Alabama. Georgia State could have gone directly to I-A next year but chose to start at I-AA since they already had a home in the CAA. If you don't have football, you're not subject to the moratorium.

Q. Is it permissible for a Division I institution that currently does not sponsor a varsity football program to add a varsity football program during the moratorium?

A. Yes. An institution that currently does not sponsor a varsity football program may add the sport of football at the varsity level during the moratorium. However, the institution would be considered "unclassified" until the expiration of the moratorium, at which time the institution's football program would be classified in the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS).

The moratorium ends this year so teams such as UTSA, USA, GSU... can all have football this year as I-AA and move up next year. Technically USA is a I-AA this year. (screw the FCS nomenclature)

[dbackjon]

no. A team must have a conference invite to move to FBS as well

NO, Dane is correct. The moratorium is for teams moving UP, not teams starting football. UTSA is in the same boat as South Alabama. Georgia State could have gone directly to I-A next year but chose to start at I-AA since they already had a home in the CAA. If you don't have football, you're not subject to the moratorium.

Q. Is it permissible for a Division I institution that currently does not sponsor a varsity football program to add a varsity football program during the moratorium?

A. Yes. An institution that currently does not sponsor a varsity football program may add the sport of football at the varsity level during the moratorium. However, the institution would be considered "unclassified" until the expiration of the moratorium, at which time the institution's football program would be classified in the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS).

The moratorium ends this year so teams such as UTSA, USA, GSU... can all have football this year as I-AA and move up next year. Technically USA is a I-AA this year. (screw the FCS nomenclature)

NO - you are wrong. A football team, as your answer states, can start a program, in FCS. To move from FCS to FBS, they MUST have an FBS conference invite.

South Alabama, as a member of the SunBelt, has that. IF UTSA was invited by the WAC, they would be fine as well. They still have to start in FCS, though.

[89Hen]

NO, Dane is correct. The moratorium is for teams moving UP, not teams starting football. UTSA is in the same boat as South Alabama. Georgia State could have gone directly to I-A next year but chose to start at I-AA since they already had a home in the CAA. If you don't have football, you're not subject to the moratorium.



The moratorium ends this year so teams such as UTSA, USA, GSU... can all have football this year as I-AA and move up next year. Technically USA is a I-AA this year. (screw the FCS nomenclature)

NO - you are wrong. A football team, as your answer states, can start a program, in FCS. To move from FCS to FBS, they MUST have an FBS conference invite.

South Alabama, as a member of the SunBelt, has that. IF UTSA was invited by the WAC, they would be fine as well. They still have to start in FCS, though.

NO - YOU are wrong. The moratorium ENDS THIS YEAR. UTSA can move to I-A next year without spending a minute in I-AA. USA had to spend a year in I-AA because that's what the rule states.

[dbackjon]

NO - you are wrong. A football team, as your answer states, can start a program, in FCS. To move from FCS to FBS, they MUST have an FBS conference invite.

South Alabama, as a member of the SunBelt, has that. IF UTSA was invited by the WAC, they would be fine as well. They still have to start in FCS, though.

NO - YOU are wrong. The moratorium ENDS THIS YEAR. UTSA can move to I-A next year without spending a minute in I-AA. USA had to spend a year in I-AA because that's what the rule states.

You missed the new rule the NCAA passed this year on moving from FCS to FBS. They ARE Requiring a conference invite as part of the reclassification process, once the moratorium ends.

And you CAN NOT start directly in FBS - that rule has not changed. New programs MUST start in FCS.

[Dane96]

NO - YOU are wrong. The moratorium ENDS THIS YEAR. UTSA can move to I-A next year without spending a minute in I-AA. USA had to spend a year in I-AA because that's what the rule states.

You missed the new rule the NCAA passed this year on moving from FCS to FBS. They ARE Requiring a conference invite as part of the reclassification process, once the moratorium ends.

And you CAN NOT start directly in FBS - that rule has not changed. New programs MUST start in FCS.

Oh boy...do we really have to go through this; the new rule is a PROPOSED rule. Has not been confirmed yet, something that may or may not happen at the Jan 2011 meeting.

UTSA can go INDY as of now. Furthermore, bet your ass that the NCAA lawyers will be begging the NCAA not to vote yea to the proposed ruole as this is likely an anti-trust exemption. As usual, the NCAA has tried to cure a problem with a knee jerk rule...and they likely would create a bigger problem.

And there is no rule stating you have to start at FCS. It happens that way by default; when you start a program you can play games against all levels...but not a primarily FBS schedule. In short, you are in the "purgatory zone" as you "classify".

[SMBobcat]

You missed the new rule the NCAA passed this year on moving from FCS to FBS. They ARE Requiring a conference invite as part of the reclassification process, once the moratorium ends.

And you CAN NOT start directly in FBS - that rule has not changed. New programs MUST start in FCS.

Oh boy...do we really have to go through this; the new rule is a PROPOSED rule. Has not been confirmed yet.

Finally, since UTSA has already started the football process...they are grandfathered in.

UTSA can go INDY.

UTSA had hoped that they could get a waiver, because they had started the process. But even Lynn Hickey UTSA's AD admitted, that they were not automatically grand fathered in. But, the when the SLC made the rule that you had to play all sports that you sponsor in the SLC, that made it all but a moot point, because they didn't want to take all sports indy, it would not be good for the rest of the sports. Once again Lynn Hickey even admitted as much....

And once again, Lynn Hickey even admitted in the piece about possiblly getting a WAC invite, that she doesn't want to become an FBS program till 2013....

[Dane96]

People...we are mixing differnt rulings.

THE SLC made a rule that would not allow the Roadrunners to use the FCS conference as a stepping stone. THAT IS A HARD FACT RULE.

THE NCAA rule...is a proposed piece of legislation. They have not made any decision or taken a vote on it. That will occur only during the Jan 2011 meeting...if at all.

So...as of now, UTSA is on track to either:

Go Indy in Football
Go Indy with their entire sports program
Go FCS full blown.

Until Jan 2011...they have no other choices that need to be considered as a mandate from the NCAA.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/coll ... lArticle=y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No. 1: The route might not even exist depending on a pending piece of NCAA legislation that would prohibit schools from joining the FBS without a conference invitation. (The measure will be voted on in January at the NCAA Convention.)

[89Hen]

You missed the new rule the NCAA passed this year on moving from FCS to FBS. They ARE Requiring a conference invite as part of the reclassification process, once the moratorium ends.

And you CAN NOT start directly in FBS - that rule has not changed. New programs MUST start in FCS.

NOT true, NCAA has NOT passed that and it's only during this moratorium that a team has to spend all of ONE year in I-AA... ie South Alabama this year.

[Dane96]

89....it sucks being right all the time.

I kid Dback...i kid.

But seriously, everyone is confusing multiple concepts...only one of which is a rule...and that of a conference.

[Herky]

According to Montana's O'Day, TXST and UTSA presented as non-football members along with Seattle and Denver..

O'Day said he watched four schools give presentations to league officials as basketball-only members: Texas-San Antonio, Texas State-San Marcos, Seattle University and the University of Denver.

http://missoulian.com/college/griz/arti" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 002e0.html

[Dane96]

Huh?

I thought it was pretty clear that two schools were football based...two were basketball based.

[JSU02]

None of the 4 currently have FBS football, so they present to the WAC as "basketball" members. I'm sure the UTSA and TxSt presentations had slides saying, oh btw, here are our plans to upgrade our football to FBS once we get the invite.

[Herky]

None of the 4 currently have FBS football, so they present to the WAC as "basketball" members. I'm sure the UTSA and TxSt presentations had slides saying, oh btw, here are our plans to upgrade our football to FBS once we get the invite.

Completely disagree.

O'Day presented as a football addition, TXST and UTSA did not. So, how is it that Montana presented as a football member then?

[SMBobcat]

Texas State and UTSA are NOT going to move to the WAC as basketball only schools.