Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Thought this deserved own thread - from FargoBison's post here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12060&p=264153#p264153" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



UTSA - might want to hold off on those FBS plans, unless you already have a Sunbelt or WAC invite in the bag...

If this flies, it should put the kibosh on future moveups. The usual moveup MO is to go indy for a while before getting an invite. Of course, I believe that USF had an invite but had to endure a year or two of indy status before C-USA membership became official. Regardless, there are very few FBS conferences who will take a D-II or FCS moveup without seeing if they can hack it at the FBS level first.

FBS conf. can't take a member from D-II you must spend 2 years as FCS. It won't stop anything except some school, say NDSU who would have no home if they were to move. Jacksonville St., waiting for Sun Belt hole, Texas St. waiting for a Sun Belt hole or WAC. UTSA waiting for CUSA, WAC, Sun Belt. Georgia St. Sun Belt, Charlotte CUSA or Sun Belt.

UALR is already worried about the Sun Belt going to all fb playing members and have talked to the Summit. Denver has been looking at the WCC.

Examples

expansion on the low end

B10(12) adds Rutgers
BE (8/16) adds Memphis
CUSA (12) adds N.Texas, M.Tenn St.
P10(12) adds Utah, Colorado
B12 (12) adds Air Force
MWC (9) adds Boise St., Houston
WAC (9) adds UTSA
WCC (10) adds Seattle, Denver
Sun Belt (12) adds Georgia St., Charlotte, Texas St.

Bigger expansion

B10(14) Rutgers, Syracuse, Notre Dame
BE(9/16) Memphis, UCF, E.Carolina
P10(12) Utah, Colorado
B12 (12) Air Force
MWC (10) Boise St., Houston
CUSA (12) M.Tenn.St., N.Texas, Charlotte, FAU
WAC (10) Texas St., UTSA
MAC (14) W.Kentucky, Temple
WCC (10) Seattle, Denver
Sun Belt (12) Jacksonville St., Georgia St., Sam Houston St., Lamar, Georgia So.

Oh and if I posted a BE split forming 12 teams for fb and 10 for the basketball side along with the MWC going to 12. there would be more.

All this rule would mean is the FBS will end up with a Great West Conference type deal.

From what I've heard the WAC isn't looking at TXST and we aren't really enamored of them (ok the fans). The travel would be atrocious and unless we have a travel partner, our athletic budget (presumed to be about $24 mill by 2012) would be depleted by football. That budget pales in comparison to many FBS schools. We don't make money off of football and the travel for 16 sports would kill.
C-USA would be a better fit, from that aspect, but we aren't plastering the media with intentions, future opponents or any interest from conferences that may have come across to the AD or President Trauth (though there have been some, they aren't saying)

And I admire your UTSA homerism. TXST doesn't make your low end....

CatMom wrote:From what I've heard the WAC isn't looking at TXST and we aren't really enamored of them (ok the fans). The travel would be atrocious and unless we have a travel partner, our athletic budget (presumed to be about $24 mill by 2012) would be depleted by football. That budget pales in comparison to many FBS schools. We don't make money off of football and the travel for 16 sports would kill.
C-USA would be a better fit, from that aspect, but we aren't plastering the media with intentions, future opponents or any interest from conferences that may have come across to the AD or President Trauth (though there have been some, they aren't saying)

And I admire your UTSA homerism. TXST doesn't make your low end....

Why should we? UTSA has no history, bigger stadium, and the SA market. They are a much more attractive team in those terms.

slycat wrote:

CatMom wrote:From what I've heard the WAC isn't looking at TXST and we aren't really enamored of them (ok the fans). The travel would be atrocious and unless we have a travel partner, our athletic budget (presumed to be about $24 mill by 2012) would be depleted by football. That budget pales in comparison to many FBS schools. We don't make money off of football and the travel for 16 sports would kill.
C-USA would be a better fit, from that aspect, but we aren't plastering the media with intentions, future opponents or any interest from conferences that may have come across to the AD or President Trauth (though there have been some, they aren't saying)

And I admire your UTSA homerism. TXST doesn't make your low end....

Why should we? UTSA has no history, bigger stadium, and the SA market. They are a much more attractive team in those terms.

They're not going to have a really great history by that time either
10k, if that, looks horrible in a 50k facility
SA market ain't all that and has consistently been bad for big time teams, especially football. They have NBA and pretty much nothing else. Yes, it is bigger than what we have, which is next to nothing, but I feel we, also, would pull some of it. We still have a lot of recruits from that area. Just because UTSA is going to be there doesn't mean we'll lose every good FB player that will come out of that city.

CatMom wrote:

slycat wrote:
Why should we? UTSA has no history, bigger stadium, and the SA market. They are a much more attractive team in those terms.

They're not going to have a really great history by that time either
10k, if that, looks horrible in a 50k facility
SA market ain't all that and has consistently been bad for big time teams, especially football. They have NBA and pretty much nothing else. Yes, it is bigger than what we have, which is next to nothing, but I feel we, also, would pull some of it. We still have a lot of recruits from that area. Just because UTSA is going to be there doesn't mean we'll lose every good FB player that will come out of that city.

True but UTSA has already lined up FBS teams to play them at home. Their attendance will be good 2013 and beyond.

Catmom, I don't know about PMS but I do know about conference movement. History has jack shit to do with why a conference wants you. The WAC would want UTSA because they have a big stadium affiliated w/ the Alamo Bowl. They are in a city that would be the #2 market for all of the WAC. They provide a travel partner & fill the space between La Tech and the rest of the WAC. We took Idaho. When you need a body and UTSA is there and they want in FBS, its a match. If the WAC doesn't lose anyone they'll be the first one looked at by the Sun Belt. Even your Texas St. school could get a look from the WAC if they lose more than 1. No one else west of the Miss. is ready to move. You ever hear of S.Florida, UAB, FIU, FAU, S.Alabama? All spent/spending a short time in FCS before moving. Harvard has a great history, so are they gonna replace Rutgers in the BE?

I'm not stupid I know what I'm talking about. go to collegesportsinfo.com and see what people who discuss movement are talking about.

dback, this should be 1 thread, same argument on 2 threads.

CatMom wrote:From what I've heard the WAC isn't looking at TXST and we aren't really enamored of them (ok the fans). The travel would be atrocious and unless we have a travel partner, our athletic budget (presumed to be about $24 mill by 2012) would be depleted by football. That budget pales in comparison to many FBS schools. We don't make money off of football and the travel for 16 sports would kill.
C-USA would be a better fit, from that aspect, but we aren't plastering the media with intentions, future opponents or any interest from conferences that may have come across to the AD or President Trauth (though there have been some, they aren't saying)

And I admire your UTSA homerism. TXST doesn't make your low end....

Did Texas St. say they want to be FBS? YES. Does that include 16 sports? Yes, More travel? Yes. If you don't want to travel stay in the SLC. CUSA, no fuckin way Texas St. gets in. It involves trips to Fla & WV. All far. Even the Sun Belt you gotta go to Fla., Kentucky & Colorado. WAC offers a better deal than the Belt, thus La. Tech puts up with the travel.

slycat wrote:

CatMom wrote: They're not going to have a really great history by that time either
10k, if that, looks horrible in a 50k facility
SA market ain't all that and has consistently been bad for big time teams, especially football. They have NBA and pretty much nothing else. Yes, it is bigger than what we have, which is next to nothing, but I feel we, also, would pull some of it. We still have a lot of recruits from that area. Just because UTSA is going to be there doesn't mean we'll lose every good FB player that will come out of that city.

True but UTSA has already lined up FBS teams to play them at home. Their attendance will be good 2013 and beyond.

Actually sly you guys do. I forgot to add a 2nd team to the MWC. That opened up another spot in the Sun Belt, where I have you guys getting in over Jacksonville St. I edited it. However if for some reason Denver doesn't leave for the WCC or Summit you'd be left out again.

Also I don't love UTSA more than Texas St. I just see how and why conferences add members. They'd probably go that route. If things go slow at the 4 upstart schools then Texas St. could jump over them because they aren't ready when the WAC, Sun Belt need to move. The WAC could go after ULL or Arkansas St. but I think they're better off w/ UTSA either way it helps you up and comers because spots will open.

Will the FBS schools still travel to SA if they aren't FBS?

dbackjon wrote:Will the FBS schools still travel to SA if they aren't FBS?

Normally no, but going to the Alamo Dome maybe.

Don't get me wrong the WAC would love for Montana, UC Davis, Portland St. or Cal Poly to be FBS ready & willing but they don't seem to be.

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

slycat wrote:
True but UTSA has already lined up FBS teams to play them at home. Their attendance will be good 2013 and beyond.

Actually sly you guys do. I forgot to add a 2nd team to the MWC. That opened up another spot in the Sun Belt, where I have you guys getting in over Jacksonville St. I edited it. However if for some reason Denver doesn't leave for the WCC or Summit you'd be left out again.

Also I don't love UTSA more than Texas St. I just see how and why conferences add members. They'd probably go that route. If things go slow at the 4 upstart schools then Texas St. could jump over them because they aren't ready when the WAC, Sun Belt need to move. The WAC could go after ULL or Arkansas St. but I think they're better off w/ UTSA either way it helps you up and comers because spots will open.

All I know is the next few years will be very interesting as far as realignment is concerned. As you've stated FSA the options for Texas St are Sunbelt, WAC, or new conference if a HUGE realignment takes place. CUSA would be great but ain't going to happen.

As a WAC person I would love to have Texas St., UTSA, UC Davis and get to 12 or Lamar, Sac St., Cal Poly, Portland St., Montana. Whoever. I don't wanna see the WAC die even if the MWC goes to 12 and Fresno gets in.

Fresno St. Alum wrote:As a WAC person I would love to have Texas St., UTSA, UC Davis and get to 12 or Lamar, Sac St., Cal Poly, Portland St., Montana. Whoever. I don't wanna see the WAC die even if the MWC goes to 12 and Fresno gets in.

I don’t think the WAC would die. Worst case scenario is it turns into a GWC type of conference…but at that point, is the extra scholarships and budget expenses worth being FBS becomes the question.

SDHornet wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:As a WAC person I would love to have Texas St., UTSA, UC Davis and get to 12 or Lamar, Sac St., Cal Poly, Portland St., Montana. Whoever. I don't wanna see the WAC die even if the MWC goes to 12 and Fresno gets in.

I don’t think the WAC would die. Worst case scenario is it turns into a GWC type of conference…but at that point, is the extra scholarships and budget expenses worth being FBS becomes the question.

dooms day is a BE split and the footballers going to 12, P10 at 12, B10 at 12, and MWC going 12 hoping for a BCS bid. BCS could say hey, you need at least 12 and a title game if you want to be a part of it. The WAC would probably lose 4 in that case. I have notebooks with all the possible break downs going all the way down to the summit, a-sun adding in the D-IIs that would get invites and are willing to move to those bball conf.

Montana will probably go Division II. The fans have no stomach for losing and the University robs the Athletic Department into bankrupcy. The economy is doing a head fake right now, it's a phoney mirage of a recovery. We haven't seen the worse yet. When all the money printing and spending finally catches up with us inflation and unemployment will soar and the dollar will collapse leaving all but the strongest programs struggling with inflated expenses and declining attendance. Hundreds of schools will drop football as a super depression ensues.

I'll muck this up a bit more, but it does come from some pretty solid inside info.

B10 adds 3: Mizzou & Pitt for sure. Syracuse is very possible. Rutgers & ND are out.
P10 adds 3: Utah, Colorado & San Diego State (I know but he swears by it). New P10 Network seems likley.
B12 adds BYU

I offer this as solid info from a solid source. Since this is a FCS board if you don't buy it please don't debate it. But this would really stir up the MWC and really change the west.

Interesting take jod. SDSU would be the last school I'd expect the Pac-10 to take from the MWC. I would think with UCLA and USC dominating SoCal's college football scene, they wouldn't need/want another SoCal school.

jd of de wrote:I'll muck this up a bit more, but it does come from some pretty solid inside info.

B10 adds 3: Mizzou & Pitt for sure. Syracuse is very possible. Rutgers & ND are out.
P10 adds 3: Utah, Colorado & San Diego State (I know but he swears by it). New P10 Network seems likley.
B12 adds BYU

I offer this as solid info from a solid source. Since this is a FCS board if you don't buy it please don't debate it. But this would really stir up the MWC and really change the west.

I'm not hating on you but your source can't know because the B10 doesn't know yet and P10 hasn't even started the process until their new commish comes in.

Fresno St. Alum wrote:Examples

expansion on the low end

B10(12) adds Rutgers
BE (8/16) adds Memphis
CUSA (12) adds N.Texas, M.Tenn St.
P10(12) adds Utah, Colorado
B12 (12) adds Air Force
MWC (9) adds Boise St., Houston
WAC (9) adds UTSA
WCC (10) adds Seattle, Denver
Sun Belt (12) adds Georgia St., Charlotte, Texas St.

Bigger expansion

B10(14) Rutgers, Syracuse, Notre Dame
BE(9/16) Memphis, UCF, E.Carolina
P10(12) Utah, Colorado
B12 (12) Air Force
MWC (10) Boise St., Houston
CUSA (12) M.Tenn.St., N.Texas, Charlotte, FAU
WAC (10) Texas St., UTSA
MAC (14) W.Kentucky, Temple
WCC (10) Seattle, Denver
Sun Belt (12) Jacksonville St., Georgia St., Sam Houston St., Lamar, Georgia So.

Oh and if I posted a BE split forming 12 teams for fb and 10 for the basketball side along with the MWC going to 12. there would be more.

Notre Dame is going to be D1 Independent Forever. They make so much $$$ with the TV contract with NBC, They would never, ever want to give that up and share with another 9 or 11 teams in a conference.

ronbo wrote:Montana will probably go Division II. The fans have no stomach for losing and the University robs the Athletic Department into bankrupcy. The economy is doing a head fake right now, it's a phoney mirage of a recovery. We haven't seen the worse yet. When all the money printing and spending finally catches up with us inflation and unemployment will soar and the dollar will collapse leaving all but the strongest programs struggling with inflated expenses and declining attendance. Hundreds of schools will drop football as a super depression ensues.

No...no...aaaannnnd no.

JConnolly wrote:
Notre Dame is going to be D1 Independent Forever. They make so much $$$ with the TV contract with NBC, They would never, ever want to give that up and share with another 9 or 11 teams in a conference.

That is incorrect. NORTHWESTERN makes more money from the Big 10 TV contract than Notre Dame does from it's NBC contract. Notre Dame probably will stay independent, but they could make MORE money by joining the Big 10.