(12-18-2012 04:10 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  Just let them prove themselves over a semi-extended period of time before adding them.

The first season or two of FBS inclusion has a new "shine" that creates an excitement that may or may not be lasting.

Even though conferences have by-passed it recently, there should be some reasonable and logical order in which programs move up, sideways, or down the expansion ladder.

Why? This isn't a union shop with seniority rules. A program that has been playing football for 70 years and isn't big-time is very likely to continue to not be big-time. A new program that demonstrates surprising success has a chance to be the next South Florida or UCF. Of course there's a chance it doesn't work, and they turn into the next Buffalo or UAB. But does that mean you take an established program which functions, revenue-wise and competition-wise, at a MAC level instead?

Quote: Jumping from FCS to a conference with ECU, Boise, etc in 2 years has inherent risks for the program and the conference. Even a program as strong as Boise had to post several years of impressive results prior to moving to an appropriate conference.

No, they had to wait for an opening. If they had lucked into an MWC invite in 2005, they'd have been fine.

Quote:We've just been shown the perfect example of a way not to expand in a rush.

OK, but you're looking at a very limited menu of attractive choices. If you're just considering football and potential for big-time football success, and considering what they'd add to a TV contract, I take UTSA over, say, New Mexico or UNLV or Colorado State or San Jose State or Tulsa. (Tulsa is very competitive on the field, but not in terms of bringing revenue to the conference.)

(12-18-2012 04:32 PM)cardinal_thunder Wrote:  Say no to UTSA. They are just another ECU and Tulane. They will ruin this conference. Add a better Western team.

What does that Venn Diagram look like where ECU, UTSA and Tulane are the overlap?

(12-18-2012 04:07 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:41 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  UTSA? I don't even know what the acronym stands for. God help us.

Grow up. No different than UCLA, just happens to be a new program.

UCLA is one of the finest public universities in the nation. Huge endowment,over 100 national titles.

San Antonio is to the west of Houston, does that make them western? If so, that is a no-go

Go with the best of the MWC for now. If UTSA becomes a power in C-USA, they will still be available when Cincy & UConn leave.

(12-18-2012 05:01 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Go with the best of the MWC for now. If UTSA becomes a power in C-USA, they will still be available when Cincy & UConn leave.

Common sense comment.

Adding UTSA at this time is akin to adding ODU to the Big East basketball configuration now and I don't see that happening either.

(12-18-2012 03:58 PM)redpony Wrote:  Not promoting UTSA but they would be a much better 'revenue' fit than tulsa.

Minus Tulsa actually winning championships, opening a new state, and the 45th largest metro.

(12-18-2012 05:03 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:01 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Go with the best of the MWC for now. If UTSA becomes a power in C-USA, they will still be available when Cincy & UConn leave.

Common sense comment.

Adding UTSA at this time is akin to adding ODU to the Big East basketball configuration now and I don't see that happening either.

I actually believe Old Dominion is a possibility for an all sports add to go with a Fresno State, etc. . . . believing that after the next TV deal in 5-7 years, Old Dominion's football is ready to replace UConn when it leaves to the ACC . . . I also believe adding Old Dominion gives us a shot to get VCU in basketball . . .

In fact, I would be happy to take Old Dominion football now if they will commit to expand Foreman Field (current capacity: 19,800) to 30,000 by 2015 and 45,000 by 2020. . . unfortunately, I don't think they have the financial backers to make this happen . . .

(12-18-2012 05:04 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 03:58 PM)redpony Wrote:  Not promoting UTSA but they would be a much better 'revenue' fit than tulsa.

Minus Tulsa actually winning championships, opening a new state, and the 45th largest metro.

Overlooking of course that Tulsa wins championship, is the 45th largest metro area, has been playing football for a 100 years . . . and no one still goes to their games . . .

Whereas UT-San Antonio has played football for two years, averages 30,000 people a game, is located in a city of 2 million people, set an attendance record for first-year programs, and hired a football coach with a NCAA National Championship on his resume . . .

Old Dominion is an unranked, read tier 3, National University - I thought the strategy was align with powerful eastern universities?

Guys adding UTSA is a huge huge mistake. This does the conference no good having them invited. The conference needs a team like New Mexico or Nevada.

This thread seems to be an expirement of throwing **** at the wall and watching how long it takes to drip down said wall.

(12-18-2012 05:13 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:03 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:01 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Go with the best of the MWC for now. If UTSA becomes a power in C-USA, they will still be available when Cincy & UConn leave.

Common sense comment.

Adding UTSA at this time is akin to adding ODU to the Big East basketball configuration now and I don't see that happening either.

I actually believe Old Dominion is a possibility for an all sports add to go with a Fresno State, etc. . . . believing that after the next TV deal in 5-7 years, Old Dominion's football is ready to replace UConn when it leaves to the ACC . . . I also believe adding Old Dominion gives us a shot to get VCU in basketball . . .

In fact, I would be happy to take Old Dominion football now if they will commit to expand Foreman Field (current capacity: 19,800) to 30,000 by 2015 and 45,000 by 2020. . . unfortunately, I don't think they have the financial backers to make this happen . . .

ODU was a bad example on my part for a number of reasons; they have competed successfully at a fairly high level in BB for a number of years.

With all due respect, in my opinion you're jumping at clouds in this process. Just like the Roadrunners, let's let ODU prove themselves at the FBS level prior to them moving. I loved our time in CUSA, but I'm not looking to mirror their expansion until the expanded programs prove their worth.

Call it "belt and suspenders" conservatism if you wish, but jumping at the "flavor of the day" is risky.

If the all sports conference is to be successful, the university presidents should strive to be the best of the "left behinds", which shouldn't include start-ups at this time.

(12-18-2012 05:18 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:04 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 03:58 PM)redpony Wrote:  Not promoting UTSA but they would be a much better 'revenue' fit than tulsa.

Minus Tulsa actually winning championships, opening a new state, and the 45th largest metro.

Overlooking of course that Tulsa wins championship, is the 45th largest metro area, has been playing football for a 100 years . . . and no one still goes to their games . . .

Whereas UT-San Antonio has played football for two years, averages 30,000 people a game, is located in a city of 2 million people, set an attendance record for first-year programs, and hired a football coach with a NCAA National Championship on his resume . . .

We arent adding friggin ooootsa. Stop trolling.

(12-18-2012 05:21 PM)monty Wrote:  Old Dominion is an unranked, read tier 3, National University - I thought the strategy was align with powerful eastern universities?

Again, I know your poking fun, but so we're clear here, you're cherry picking statements out of context:

1. I think Old Dominion is a possibility now as a basketball add (Olympic sports) to go with a football-only western school . . . combined with the fact that because their arch rival is VCU, you might get both;

2. I don't think Old Dominion is a possibility for football now for a lot of reasons . . . not the least of which is they only have a 19,800-seat stadium. . . I do think they are a possibility down the road in 5-10 years if their football team continues to sustain success, they increase their attendance average, and they expand their stadium; and

3. the statement about powerful (your word, not mine) "eastern universities" was in reference to what happens when Boise State, SDSU, UConn, and Cincinnati have left . . . if Old Dominioin is not in the conference at that time, it is not a school I likely would add unless their football just really explodes by then because it does not bring academic standing (AAU, Carnegie Tier 1, etc.) and are not a large, public urban research institution.

(12-18-2012 05:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:18 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:04 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 03:58 PM)redpony Wrote:  Not promoting UTSA but they would be a much better 'revenue' fit than tulsa.

Minus Tulsa actually winning championships, opening a new state, and the 45th largest metro.

Overlooking of course that Tulsa wins championship, is the 45th largest metro area, has been playing football for a 100 years . . . and no one still goes to their games . . .

Whereas UT-San Antonio has played football for two years, averages 30,000 people a game, is located in a city of 2 million people, set an attendance record for first-year programs, and hired a football coach with a NCAA National Championship on his resume . . .

We arent adding friggin ooootsa. Stop trolling.

But we added Tulane? I'm sure you saw that coming . . .

How many of you against UTSA actually watched the video I posted.

(12-18-2012 05:41 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:18 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 05:04 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 03:58 PM)redpony Wrote:  Not promoting UTSA but they would be a much better 'revenue' fit than tulsa.

Minus Tulsa actually winning championships, opening a new state, and the 45th largest metro.

Overlooking of course that Tulsa wins championship, is the 45th largest metro area, has been playing football for a 100 years . . . and no one still goes to their games . . .

Whereas UT-San Antonio has played football for two years, averages 30,000 people a game, is located in a city of 2 million people, set an attendance record for first-year programs, and hired a football coach with a NCAA National Championship on his resume . . .

We arent adding friggin ooootsa. Stop trolling.

But we added Tulane? I'm sure you saw that coming . . .

Tulane is a top 100 university with multiple CUSA and SEC conference titles in many sports. Is it the best add of all time? Nope, but it is much much much better than that commuter school in SA.

(12-18-2012 05:42 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  How many of you against UTSA actually watched the video I posted.

I've been on campus dozens of times, been to the basketball "arena", and to one of their football games. Do I need to watch a video too?

(12-18-2012 05:26 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  With all due respect, in my opinion you're jumping at clouds in this process. Just like the Roadrunners, let's let ODU prove themselves at the FBS level prior to them moving. I loved our time in CUSA, but I'm not looking to mirror their expansion until the expanded programs prove their worth.

The BE shouldn't emulate C-USA because they don't have to. There are several teams with a lot of tradition, historical rankings, current quality from which to choose. C-USA didn't have those options available. I think CUSA chose wisely in taking some startups in lieu of more sunbelt teams (I think the sunbelt teams, as a group, even including those now in C-USA, have never finished a single season ranked in football, including their years before the sunbelt). But the BE should let those teams develop in C-USA and then call them up as needed.