New DI Membership Standards

[dbackjon]

UTSA doesn't have to pay for play, that's for the D-II moving to D-I. UTSA has to find a home, as does Texas St., Jacksonville St., Charlotte. Only UTSA was nuts enough to move w/o a conf. The others planed on waiting for an invite. Almost all the FCS to FBS move ups don't leave until someone wants them anyway.

UTSA hasn't moved to FBS. They have said they want to, but can't until the moratorium is lifted. They don't even have a team. They have to play FCS for two years, minimum, before they can move. Now, they will have to have a conference lined up to move to FBS.

[Fresno St. Alum]

I'm aware dback. UTSA has a nice city and stadium and will be one of the first ones plucked when ready to move in 2013-2015. Whoever joins the B10 won't be until 2012 at the earliest. P10 is looking to expand w/ Utah and Colorado. BE will need to replace who left or split. MWC is looking at Boise St., there will be holes to fill. WAC, would be wise to add a member in 2011, before they get raped.

[CatMom]

UTSA will get a call from the WAC or Sun Belt soon, after the Big 10 dominoes fall.

I want what some of what he's having

Are you seriously saying that a school who has no football program is going to, after two years of playing a few FCS, several DIIs, DIIIs and NAIAs, get an invite from the WAC?
No history can be a plus but the history of those 2 years may be surprisingly grim. And you have to take into account all of their other athletics and academics. This ain't UT, Fresno.

Their other athletics, BTW, are about to be sacrificed in the name of being FBS, for football

[Fresno St. Alum]

UTSA will get a call from the WAC or Sun Belt soon, after the Big 10 dominoes fall.

I want what some of what he's having

Are you seriously saying that a school who has no football program is going to, after two years of playing a few FCS, several DIIs, DIIIs and NAIAs, get an invite from the WAC?
No history can be a plus but the history of those 2 years may be surprisingly grim. And you have to take into account all of their other athletics and academics. This ain't UT, Fresno.

Their other athletics, BTW, are about to be sacrificed in the name of being FBS, for football

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.

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.

[kemajic]

UTSA will get a call from the WAC or Sun Belt soon, after the Big 10 dominoes fall.

As will Montana.

[dbackjon]

UTSA will get a call from the WAC or Sun Belt soon, after the Big 10 dominoes fall.

As will Montana.

I would think Montana would be a better fit for the WAC than UTSA

[Fresno St. Alum]

UTSA will get a call from the WAC or Sun Belt soon, after the Big 10 dominoes fall.

As will Montana.

You guys willing to come in? Montana, UC Davis, Cal Poly would all be on the WAC radar. None of you have shown interest in FBS. The 2 Texas schools have.

[Fresno St. Alum]

As will Montana.

I would think Montana would be a better fit for the WAC than UTSA

Pitt would be a better fit for the B10 over Rutgers or Syracuse but they don't add a new big market like NYC.

They don't always take the school that's in the footprint. Follow the $$$$$. I would take Montana over UTSA, (that's my preference maybe not the WACs) I would take both actually. I think the WAC should move to 12 to protect itself from a raid. As soon as those schools are able 2011 for all but UTSA who'd wait til 2013

[Seahawks]

I would think Montana would be a better fit for the WAC than UTSA

Pitt would be a better fit for the B10 over Rutgers or Syracuse but they don't add a new big market like NYC.

They don't always take the school that's in the footprint. Follow the $$$$$. I would take Montana over UTSA, (that's my preference maybe not the WACs) I would take both actually. I think the WAC should move to 12 to protect itself from a raid. As soon as those schools are able 2011 for all but UTSA who'd wait til 2013

Pitt a better fit in the Big 10 than Rutgers? How do you figure that? Take a look a the Big 10 members. Rutgers is a much closer fit.

[dbackjon]

I think the value that UTSA or Texas State would bring via media market is pretty small...

[mlbowl]

As will Montana.

You guys willing to come in? Montana, UC Davis, Cal Poly would all be on the WAC radar. No of you have shown interest in FBS. The 2 Texas schools have.

I don't see Montana moving without Montana St.

[CatMom]

Fresno, you're sexist and almost as bad as TT. I am allowed to express my opion and I don't need someone who spends an overt amount of time scouring sports sites telling me everything I say is wrong. It's a fucking opinion.

You ain't from around these parts and I think I have a slightly better grasp on the IH35 corridor than you. And as I told someone else...I am past PMS so find another excuse to put me down. I don't keep calling you an asshole as a reason you respond the way you do, do I? (even if I probably should)

[CatMom]

BTW - I know what I'm talking about but I don't have the time or the energy to sit and write a book. It's not my philosophy to tell everyone what will or will not happen or to put people totally down for opinions or points of view.

I also see that a lot of folks on here (and elsewhere) don't understand the difference of approach to moving up between TXST and UTSA. I'm tired of trying to explain it without going into details so, I'll put this out....TXST is doing a lot behind the scenes and will not go blindly. We will move up if/when a conference offers. UTSA has put all their eggs in one basket, a remedy for possible big time FAIL. If no one offers them in 2-3 years, where does that leave them?

Everyone is speculating and I'm, apparently, not allowed to.

[Fresno St. Alum]

Fresno, you're sexist and almost as bad as TT. I am allowed to express my opion and I don't need someone who spends an overt amount of time scouring sports sites telling me everything I say is wrong. It's a fucking opinion.

You ain't from around these parts and I think I have a slightly better grasp on the IH35 corridor than you. And as I told someone else...I am past PMS so find another excuse to put me down. I don't keep calling you an asshole as a reason you respond the way you do, do I? (even if I probably should)

I believe you scoffed at my opinion and you couldn't take my backlash, you're predictable. I knew you'd compare me to TT. I'm nothing like him. Hitler saw nothing wrong with his point of view, does it make it right? You aren't Hilter but the point remains. Who cares if you know about the I35, it has nothing to do with why the WAC and/or Sun Belt would take UTSA over Texas St. as long is UTSA has put in the 2 years in FCS. UTSA isn't putting its eggs in one basket because they'll have to sit and wait in the SLC just like Texas St. until their name is called. They can't be FBS indy under the new rule. Don't let a silly thing like facts get in the way of your argument. Like I said before and you seemed to ignore this. FIU, FAU, UAB, S.Florida, S.Alabama all spent a short time in FCS and jumped to FBS and were snatched up by conferences. Marshall has a history but yet the BE took S.Florida who didn't, why. Location, new money the BE can bring to the BE that Marshall couldn't. History means nothing.

[Fresno St. Alum]

I think the value that UTSA or Texas State would bring via media market is pretty small...

Not compared to Moscow, Idaho or Las Cruses, NM, etc.. remember, it what's the WAC, Sun Belt hope they bring. Maybe no one in SA will watch UTSA but I promise you those 2 conferences won't view them like that. Also desperation on the WACs part if they lose a member or 2 to the MWC. You take the best leftovers you can get.

[Fresno St. Alum]

Pitt would be a better fit for the B10 over Rutgers or Syracuse but they don't add a new big market like NYC.

They don't always take the school that's in the footprint. Follow the $$$$$. I would take Montana over UTSA, (that's my preference maybe not the WACs) I would take both actually. I think the WAC should move to 12 to protect itself from a raid. As soon as those schools are able 2011 for all but UTSA who'd wait til 2013

Pitt a better fit in the Big 10 than Rutgers? How do you figure that? Take a look a the Big 10 members. Rutgers is a much closer fit.

Go back to expansions before new markets and giant TV contracts came about. Pitt, Missouri, Iowa St. are in the footprint and Pitt was a big rival for Penn St.,Rutgers was nothing close to that and they are way out of the footprint. Now that new big market is the key hello Rutgers and NYC. No doubt Rutgers will do fine in the B10 $$$ wise anyone would. If Rugters was located in Morgantown WV they'd have 0 chance of being in the B10

[Seahawks]

Go back to expansions before new markets and giant TV contracts came about. Pitt, Missouri, Iowa St. are in the footprint and Pitt was a big rival for Penn St.,Rutgers was nothing close to that and they are way out of the footprint. Now that new big market is the key hello Rutgers and NYC. No doubt Rutgers will do fine in the B10 $$$ wise anyone would. If Rugters was located in Morgantown WV they'd have 0 chance of being in the B10

We are talking about 2010. You are comparing Rutgers to 20 years ago. They are a totally different football force now. Much more like a Big 10 school than Pitt.

[Fresno St. Alum]

Go back to expansions before new markets and giant TV contracts came about. Pitt, Missouri, Iowa St. are in the footprint and Pitt was a big rival for Penn St.,Rutgers was nothing close to that and they are way out of the footprint. Now that new big market is the key hello Rutgers and NYC. No doubt Rutgers will do fine in the B10 $$$ wise anyone would. If Rugters was located in Morgantown WV they'd have 0 chance of being in the B10

We are talking about 2010. You are comparing Rutgers to 20 years ago. They are a totally different football force now. Much more like a Big 10 school than Pitt.

Yes indeed, I'm saying now conferences are willing to go out of their footprint to get a team that 20 years ago wouldn't be on the radar. BC in the ACC, La. Tech in the WAC, Rutgers to the B10.

2010 list is...Rutgers, Syracuse, Missouri, Pitt (no chance) and Notre Dame (sort of if they get worried they'll be left out of the BCS)

[Seahawks]

We are talking about 2010. You are comparing Rutgers to 20 years ago. They are a totally different football force now. Much more like a Big 10 school than Pitt.

Yes indeed, I'm saying now conferences are willing to go out of their footprint to get a team that 20 years ago wouldn't be on the radar. BC in the ACC, La. Tech in the WAC, Rutgers to the B10.

I guess we agree. Upstream Red Team.

[dbackjon]

Fresno, you're sexist and almost as bad as TT. I am allowed to express my opion and I don't need someone who spends an overt amount of time scouring sports sites telling me everything I say is wrong. It's a fucking opinion.

You ain't from around these parts and I think I have a slightly better grasp on the IH35 corridor than you. And as I told someone else...I am past PMS so find another excuse to put me down. I don't keep calling you an asshole as a reason you respond the way you do, do I? (even if I probably should)

I believe you scoffed at my opinion and you couldn't take my backlash, you're predictable. I knew you'd compare me to TT. I'm nothing like him. Hitler saw nothing wrong with his point of view, does it make it right? You aren't Hilter but the point remains. Who cares if you know about the I35, it has nothing to do with why the WAC and/or Sun Belt would take UTSA over Texas St. as long is UTSA has put in the 2 years in FCS. UTSA isn't putting its eggs in one basket because they'll have to sit and wait in the SLC just like Texas St. until their name is called. They can't be FBS indy under the new rule. Don't let a silly thing like facts get in the way of your argument. Like I said before and you seemed to ignore this. FIU, FAU, UAB, S.Florida, S.Alabama all spent a short time in FCS and jumped to FBS and were snatched up by conferences. Marshall has a history but yet the BE took S.Florida who didn't, why. Location, new money the BE can bring to the BE that Marshall couldn't. History means nothing.

South Alabama deosn't even have a team yet, and is already in the SunBelt. not applicable.

FIU/FAU came up at the right time - a conference (Sunbelt) desperate for members. UAB and USF were so long ago nothing is really appicable to today's situation.

[dbackjon]

I think the value that UTSA or Texas State would bring via media market is pretty small...

Not compared to Moscow, Idaho or Las Cruses, NM, etc.. remember, it what's the WAC, Sun Belt hope they bring. Maybe no one in SA will watch UTSA but I promise you those 2 conferences won't view them like that. Also desperation on the WACs part if they lose a member or 2 to the MWC. You take the best leftovers you can get.

So is it better to be the biggest fish in your smaller market, or a minnow in an ocean of burnt orange?

[Fresno St. Alum]

for some reason, the minnow. Why? blind hope that some of that Texas fb will rub off on UTSA and the WACs wallets. I'd also think you'd see a 2nd bowl in the Alamo Dome if they got in the WAC like NO & Sugar bowl.

Most Most Most important is that the WAC doesn't have the choices that the others do and they will take who they can get. If UTSA isn't ready and the Montana/UCD CP don't want in than hello Texas St. or ULL or Arkansas St. (I really think they'd want in Texas over Ark or another La.

Like I said I like Montana better but maybe the WAC doesn't. Most important is Montana has never said they want FBS UTSA & Texas St. do.

Why wouldn't USF & UAB apply to today? 13 years ago is too long for you? USF to the BE was just a few years ago. FIU & FAU right time, just like Georgia St., UTSA, Charlotte are trying to time it with the next round.

[SDHornet]

I think the value that UTSA or Texas State would bring via media market is pretty small...

Not compared to Moscow, Idaho or Las Cruses, NM, etc.. remember, it what's the WAC, Sun Belt hope they bring. Maybe no one in SA will watch UTSA but I promise you those 2 conferences won't view them like that. Also desperation on the WACs part if they lose a member or 2 to the MWC. You take the best leftovers you can get.

Which is what I am hoping Sac State would take advantage of if they want to make a push for a move.

[Fresno St. Alum]

Not compared to Moscow, Idaho or Las Cruses, NM, etc.. remember, it what's the WAC, Sun Belt hope they bring. Maybe no one in SA will watch UTSA but I promise you those 2 conferences won't view them like that. Also desperation on the WACs part if they lose a member or 2 to the MWC. You take the best leftovers you can get.

Which is what I am hoping Sac State would take advantage of if they want to make a push for a move.

You know SD if you're they only one that say here when the WAC calls your name they'll take you to get back to 9. The WAC could lose no one and do nothing, they could lose up to 3 and need 3. They could want to move to 10 or 12 before or after any of this so they don't disappear like the SWC

[SDHornet]

Which is what I am hoping Sac State would take advantage of if they want to make a push for a move.

You know SD if you're they only one that say here when the WAC calls your name they'll take you to get back to 9. The WAC could lose no one and do nothing, they could lose up to 3 and need 3. They could want to move to 10 or 12 before or after any of this so they don't disappear like the SWC

I agree. No telling what the WAC might do or be forced to do so I think there are a lot of options/scenarios on the table.