(12-18-2012 11:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Damn this dude has a hard on for UTSA. Unbelievable.

Well, I gave up trying to figure out why the Big East was picking everybody in the schoolyard before ECU, so I gotta do somethin.

(12-18-2012 11:39 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  You number is pretty close, they averaged between 29 and 30K.

Thanks BullsFan

(12-18-2012 11:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Damn this dude has a hard on for UTSA. Unbelievable.

I really don't . . . . . . but I'm am serious about UTSA being among the top choices when you compare objective criteria like attendance, community support, business support, media markets, coaching, potential success on the field, recruiting territory, athletic investment/institutional commitment to athletics, etc. . .

The fact that so many on this board would so readily dismiss UTSA or other potential condidates (the way ECU and Tulane was rejected out of hand) in favor of the popular choice like Fresno State is indicative of what has been wrong with the Big East for so long.

The Big East needs to continue to chart its own course, and I just don't believe that is necessarily by making a "safe" or "popular" choice . . .

(12-17-2012 07:47 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:45 PM)lollaperuna Wrote:  I don't think that is a misprint. The loss of the C7 has caused this board to knee jerk reaction thinking that we need to bolster basketball by adding the likes of UNLV and New Mexico. Both are toxic in football and would be foolish moves.

The article also confirms my feelings that a national all sport conference just isn't possible.

The BE had 8 allsports members for a long time... What's wrong with 8 in the west and 8 in the east making a 16 team allsports conference? Basically two mini conferences that share scheduling and a CCG? I thought it could work...

You need two 9 team div, perfect for scheduling Home & Away.

For "being ready to respond" they sure haven't announced anything about additions.

(12-19-2012 12:20 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Damn this dude has a hard on for UTSA. Unbelievable.

I really don't . . . . . . but I'm am serious about UTSA being among the top choices when you compare objective criteria like attendance, community support, business support, media markets, coaching, potential success on the field, recruiting territory, athletic investment/institutional commitment to athletics, etc. . .

The fact that so many on this board would so readily dismiss UTSA or other potential condidates (the way ECU and Tulane was rejected out of hand) in favor of the popular choice like Fresno State is indicative of what has been wrong with the Big East for so long.

The Big East needs to continue to chart its own course, and I just don't believe that is necessarily by making a "safe" or "popular" choice . . .

I don't think that you're trading differing opinions with any/many longtime Big East fans that may be stuck in old-line thinking (if any even exist).

You're arguing with fans that are trying to rationally discuss the merits of potentially adding UTSA immediately or letting them establish themselves with an ability to sustain FBS football. Nothing more, nothing less.

No one got up today and decided to "stick it to" UTSA on a message board.

(12-19-2012 12:37 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  You're arguing with fans that are trying to rationally discuss the merits of potentially adding UTSA immediately or letting them establish themselves with an ability to sustain FBS football. Nothing more, nothing less.

No one got up today and decided to "stick it to" UTSA on a message board.

No one outside San Antonio cares that much one way or another about UTSA (except I guess for some posters who said "Oh lord, not UTSA")

But if UTSA has serious potential, and you say "Eh, they'll still be there in 5 years"--and you take someone else instead, someone who doesn't have that potential--you're never getting rid of that school, because they don't have that power-conference potential. So more and more dreck accumulates at the bottom of the league.

The pro-UTSA folks are saying "MAybe UTSA instead of Fresno? Definitely UTSA instead of UNLV/New Mexico" The anti-UTSA folks are saying, essentially, "Ehh, maybe we'll take them when we have to replace UConn." But isn't it too late at that point?

(12-19-2012 12:20 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Damn this dude has a hard on for UTSA. Unbelievable.

I really don't . . . . . . but I'm am serious about UTSA being among the top choices when you compare objective criteria like attendance, community support, business support, media markets, coaching, potential success on the field, recruiting territory, athletic investment/institutional commitment to athletics, etc. . .

Attendance - new kid in town, still a lot to prove.
Community Support - as proven by attendance?
Business Support - KFC?
Media Market - legit.
Coaching - meh.
Potential Success on field - ????
Recruiting territory - Not covered by the ELEVEN other Texas FBS teams?
Athletic investment - Why because they managed to convince the city to let them use their otherwise EMPTY stadium? I bet they really had to try hard.

The ONLY thing they have going for them is that they are the only football team in the market. I dont think that overcomes forever being branded as "beneath" by the first two letters of their moniker. Or playing in a 20 year old no frills concrete box 20 miles from campus. Or just being in San Antonio in general. Terrible, terrible town. Unless your old and boring, in which case, its great.

And how many times have you guys been to riverwalk? Like really you walk around and everything is overpriced and most of the year its hot as balls. I lived in SA for 4 years and if I ever have to go back it will be too soon.

(12-19-2012 01:15 AM)makeshifty Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 12:20 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Damn this dude has a hard on for UTSA. Unbelievable.

I really don't . . . . . . but I'm am serious about UTSA being among the top choices when you compare objective criteria like attendance, community support, business support, media markets, coaching, potential success on the field, recruiting territory, athletic investment/institutional commitment to athletics, etc. . .

Attendance - new kid in town, still a lot to prove.
Community Support - as proven by attendance?
Business Support - KFC?
Media Market - legit.
Coaching - meh.
Potential Success on field - ????
Recruiting territory - Not covered by the ELEVEN other Texas FBS teams?
Athletic investment - Why because they managed to convince the city to let them use their otherwise EMPTY stadium? I bet they really had to try hard.

The ONLY thing they have going for them is that they are the only football team in the market. I dont think that overcomes forever being branded as "beneath" by the first two letters of their moniker. Or playing in a 20 year old no frills concrete box 20 miles from campus. Or just being in San Antonio in general. Terrible, terrible town. Unless your old and boring, in which case, its great.

And how many times have you guys been to riverwalk? Like really you walk around and everything is overpriced and most of the year its hot as balls. I lived in SA for 4 years and if I ever have to go back it will be too soon.

We're talking about UTSA as a conference partner, as an asset to a conference media contract. If San Antonio is the soul-sucking hellhole you describe (I've only been to the Riverwalk and the Alamo, and the Riverwalk was meh), isn't that exactly the kind of place where college football thrives as an escape? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there aren't a lot of college football powerhouses near Broadway and Hollywood and South Beach, right? (Yes, the U made it work back in the day, but UCLA and USC have never really connected with Hollywood.) College football powerhouses tend to be in places like Alabama and Oklahoma and midwestern cornfields 100 miles from nothing.

So I'm sorry your 4 years in San Antonio were boring and awful. But, it seems to me, those conditions are like a drought-ravaged countryside highly vulnerable to forest fire. That sort of place is incredibly prone to become obsessed with the local CFB team's ability to recruit quality linemen.

EDIT: That sounded really awful of me. So I'll rephrase: Wouldn't some football have made it better?

(12-19-2012 01:15 AM)makeshifty Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 12:20 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Damn this dude has a hard on for UTSA. Unbelievable.

I really don't . . . . . . but I'm am serious about UTSA being among the top choices when you compare objective criteria like attendance, community support, business support, media markets, coaching, potential success on the field, recruiting territory, athletic investment/institutional commitment to athletics, etc. . .

Attendance - new kid in town, still a lot to prove.
Community Support - as proven by attendance?
Business Support - KFC?
Media Market - legit.
Coaching - meh.
Potential Success on field - ????
Recruiting territory - Not covered by the ELEVEN other Texas FBS teams?
Athletic investment - Why because they managed to convince the city to let them use their otherwise EMPTY stadium? I bet they really had to try hard.

The ONLY thing they have going for them is that they are the only football team in the market. I dont think that overcomes forever being branded as "beneath" by the first two letters of their moniker. Or playing in a 20 year old no frills concrete box 20 miles from campus. Or just being in San Antonio in general. Terrible, terrible town. Unless your old and boring, in which case, its great.

This post is so uninformed about UT-San Antonio and San Antonio that you are clearly just anti-UTSA without any legitimate basis. . . but here we go:

"Attendance - new kid in town, still a lot to prove;" - this argument has ZERO credibilty . . . it is equally likely that UTSA grows to 40,00-plus in 3 years after being admitted to the Big East

"Community Support - as proven by attendance?" - As proven every day by the attendance, media coverage, business support, apparel sales, and ever other objective criteria.

"Business Support - KFC?" - It was actually Muy Brands, one of the largest franchisees in the nation with more than 230 restaurants. But it also includes Clear Channel, USAA, Valero, Tesoro, Frost Bank, the medical center, and the military bases in the city.

"Media Market" - legit (your words not mine, but of course, I concur).

"Coaching - meh." - Name another Big East school with a head coach who has won a National Championship (and competed in another)

"Potential Success on field - ????" - 8-4 in their second season. . . Six wins over Div. I football . . . I might add the players were recruited to play in the Southland Conference in FCS not the WAC, which came as a surprise . . . every recruiting class gets dramatically better . . .

"Recruiting territory - Not covered by the ELEVEN other Texas FBS teams?" - The region south of San Antonio is the most historically under recruited region in Texas. Texas A&M - Kingsville has built a NCAA Div. II powerhouse (leads the nation in attendance) by finding players in this area that the Big XII never watched play . . . when UTSA starts recruiting for Conference USA or the Big East, they will torch every school except Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, and Houston . . . and snag more than their share of 4-star, 3-star, and 2-star recruits. . .

"Athletic investment - Why because they managed to convince the city to let them use their otherwise EMPTY stadium? I bet they really had to try hard." - The Alamo Dome is one of the finest collegiate stadiums in the country. UTSA was prepared to spend over a $100 million to build an on-campus stadium but responded to the community/student opinions to keep playing downtown on the Riverwalk. The city came to them; not the other way around.

"The ONLY thing they have going for them is that they are the only football team in the market." - YES . . . and a GREAT reason to choose them.

"I dont think that overcomes forever being branded as "beneath" by the first two letters of their moniker." - You mean like California State University - Fresno is always going to be second to UCLA and the University of California - Berkley?

"Or playing in a 20 year old no frills concrete box 20 miles from campus." - See above, and just an uninformed description of the Alamo Bowl, which hosts one of the best mid-tier bowls and has GREAT national recognition.

"Or just being in San Antonio in general. Terrible, terrible town. Unless your old and boring, in which case, its great." - San Antonio is an international tourist destination, the Riverwalk is world-reknown and a great place to visit, and San Antonio already hosts one of the most popular and successful bowl games . . . this statement speaks volumes about what you know about SATX.

(12-19-2012 01:37 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  "I dont think that overcomes forever being branded as "beneath" by the first two letters of their moniker." - You mean like California State University - Fresno is always going to be second to California State University - Berkley?

It's actually way worse than that. Berkeley is the flagship of the UC (University of California) system. UCLA is part of that system, but the UC campuses are more equal than most state "U of State-Flagship/U of State-City" systems. Something the UT-A&M peer relationship.

Fresno STate is Cal State Fresno, part of the California State University system, a full tier below.

UT-Austin = UC-Berkeley
Texas A&M ~ UCLA
UTSA = UC-San Diego (not SDSU)
Texas State-San Marcos = FResno State

(12-19-2012 01:34 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 01:15 AM)makeshifty Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 12:20 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Damn this dude has a hard on for UTSA. Unbelievable.

I really don't . . . . . . but I'm am serious about UTSA being among the top choices when you compare objective criteria like attendance, community support, business support, media markets, coaching, potential success on the field, recruiting territory, athletic investment/institutional commitment to athletics, etc. . .

Attendance - new kid in town, still a lot to prove.
Community Support - as proven by attendance?
Business Support - KFC?
Media Market - legit.
Coaching - meh.
Potential Success on field - ????
Recruiting territory - Not covered by the ELEVEN other Texas FBS teams?
Athletic investment - Why because they managed to convince the city to let them use their otherwise EMPTY stadium? I bet they really had to try hard.

The ONLY thing they have going for them is that they are the only football team in the market. I dont think that overcomes forever being branded as "beneath" by the first two letters of their moniker. Or playing in a 20 year old no frills concrete box 20 miles from campus. Or just being in San Antonio in general. Terrible, terrible town. Unless your old and boring, in which case, its great.

And how many times have you guys been to riverwalk? Like really you walk around and everything is overpriced and most of the year its hot as balls. I lived in SA for 4 years and if I ever have to go back it will be too soon.

We're talking about UTSA as a conference partner, as an asset to a conference media contract. If San Antonio is the soul-sucking hellhole you describe (I've only been to the Riverwalk and the Alamo, and the Riverwalk was meh), isn't that exactly the kind of place where college football thrives as an escape? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there aren't a lot of college football powerhouses near Broadway and Hollywood and South Beach, right? (Yes, the U made it work back in the day, but UCLA and USC have never really connected with Hollywood.) College football powerhouses tend to be in places like Alabama and Oklahoma and midwestern cornfields 100 miles from nothing.

So I'm sorry your 4 years in San Antonio were boring and awful. But, it seems to me, those conditions are like a drought-ravaged countryside highly vulnerable to forest fire. That sort of place is incredibly prone to become obsessed with the local CFB team's ability to recruit quality linemen.

EDIT: That sounded really awful of me. So I'll rephrase: Wouldn't some football have made it better?

If you didn't care for the Riverwalk, next time just skip it and go to Gruene Hall in New Braunfels. I'd imagine that would be a unique experience for a St Johns fan (in a good way) if it's not full of tourists. It was a pretty unique experience for me just walking through the place.

(12-19-2012 01:37 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  This post is so uninformed about UT-San Antonio and San Antonio that you are clearly just anti-UTSA without any legitimate basis. . . but here we go:

"Attendance - new kid in town, still a lot to prove;" - this argument has ZERO credibilty . . . it is equally likely that UTSA grows to 40,00-plus in 3 years after being admitted to the Big East


"Community Support - as proven by attendance?" - As proven every day by the attendance, media coverage, business support, apparel sales, and ever other objective criteria.

"Business Support - KFC?" - It was actually Muy Brands, one of the largest franchisees in the nation with more than 230 restaurants. But it also includes Clear Channel, USAA, Valero, Tesoro, Frost Bank, the medical center, and the military bases in the city.

"Media Market" - legit (your words not mine, but of course, I concur).

"Coaching - meh." - Name another Big East school with a head coach who has won a National Championship (and competed in another)

"Potential Success on field - ????" - 8-4 in their second season. . . Six wins over Div. I football . . . I might add the players were recruited to play in the Southland Conference in FCS not the WAC, which came as a surprise . . . every recruiting class gets dramatically better . . .

"Recruiting territory - Not covered by the ELEVEN other Texas FBS teams?" - The region south of San Antonio is the most historically under recruited region in Texas. Texas A&M - Kingsville has built a NCAA Div. II powerhouse (leads the nation in attendance) by finding players in this area that the Big XII never watched play . . .

"Athletic investment - Why because they managed to convince the city to let them use their otherwise EMPTY stadium? I bet they really had to try hard." - The Alamo Dome is one of the finest collegiate stadiums in the country. UTSA was prepared to spend over a $100 million to build an on-campus stadium but responded to the community/student opinions to keep playing downtown on the Riverwalk.

"The ONLY thing they have going for them is that they are the only football team in the market." - YES . . . and a GREAT reason to choose them.

"I dont think that overcomes forever being branded as "beneath" by the first two letters of their moniker." - You mean like California State University - Fresno is always going to be second to California State University - Berkley?

"Or playing in a 20 year old no frills concrete box 20 miles from campus." - See above, and just an uninformed description of the Alamo Bowl, which hosts one of the best mid-tier bowls and has GREAT national recognition.

"Or just being in San Antonio in general. Terrible, terrible town. Unless your old and boring, in which case, its great." - San Antonio is an international tourist destination, the Riverwalk is world-reknown and a great place to visit, and San Antonio already hosts one of the most popular and successful bowl games . . . this statement speaks volumes about what you know about SATX.

Ill take your word for the community and business support but how does it compare to anyone else?

Larry Coker FFS. Lets hire Jack Pardee back then will be good again surely!

Their success so far is nothing worth mentioning in the slightest. There is no indication that they will ever be better than 8th best FBS team in the state.

As far as the recruiting goes. Theres a big gulf between a Div. 2 powerhouse and UT. Kingsville doing well means nothing.

As a UH fan I think you should know that playing in aged off campus dome is never going to be big time.

I dont know about Fresno, they call themselves Fresno State. They arent to my knowledge the place where Berkeley kids get sent when they dont get accepted.

People like to visit the riverwalk for some inexplicable reason. But "international tourist destination". My god man do you work for the city? New York is an international tourist destination. Oh wait, you mean the rich Mexicans from Monterrey that fly over to shop at Sak's. I guess that counts.

And yeah the Alamo Bowl i bet is great. Go to a bowl game, get drunk, fall in a river, stumble back to your hotel. Going downtown as a student and having to drive your ass back to suburbia is not the same. I seriously doubt that a poll of students only would vote to keep playing at the dome, unless of course they were the ones paying for the new stadium, then i'd believe it.

Are we still talking about Texas-San Antonio?

(12-19-2012 01:49 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  That sounded really awful of me. So I'll rephrase: Wouldn't some football have made it better?

I suppose so. But if I have to get in the car anyway, Austin's only an hour away. And 6th St. beats Riverwalk all day every day.

I'm not even sure why we're talking about this. Almost no one outside texas has even heard of UTSA. And they're an instant blackball for UH and SMU. Not gonna happen.

(12-19-2012 02:02 AM)makeshifty Wrote:  . . But "international tourist destination". My god man do you work for the city? New York is an international tourist destination. Oh wait, you mean the rich Mexicans from Monterrey that fly over to shop at Sak's. I guess that counts. . .

The city is visited by approximately 26 million tourists per year according to the San Antonio Convention and Visitors Bureau. . . in addition to the Alamo, Riverwalk, Fiesta Texas, Sea World, and the missions . . . it is the No. 1 tourist destination in Texas . . .

You seem to have had a pretty poor experience (I assume as a UTSA student), but you're in the large majority of people I know who both live, work, and visit San Antonio . . .

And I assure you that UH and SMU will not blackball UTSA . . . they are the first choice for UH/SMU if the add has to be a "western" partner for Boise State/SDSU . . .

(12-19-2012 02:28 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  And I assure you that UH and SMU will not blackball UTSA . . . they are the first choice for UH/SMU if the add has to be a "western" partner for Boise State/SDSU . . .

Ok now i know your a troll. Why would they elevate UTSA? Not only are they direct competition for recruits in TX, but for recruits who want to go to urban/suburban schools too? And acknowledge them as peers in any way? Just... no. I'm gonna assume you mean BYU and Air Force arent in play with this statement. But even then, Tulsa, UNLV, UNM and Fresno, and even UTEP would be ahead.

Or maybe your right and USF really really wanted UCF to be in the Big East for the last 7 years.

(12-19-2012 02:28 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  (I assume as a UTSA student)

Oh and lest anyone assume otherwise: No. But I can understand why you might think so. I have never actually met a person who volunteered that they went to UTSA undergrad by choice.

(12-19-2012 02:41 AM)makeshifty Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 02:28 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  And I assure you that UH and SMU will not blackball UTSA . . . they are the first choice for UH/SMU if the add has to be a "western" partner for Boise State/SDSU . . .

Ok now i know your a troll. Why would they elevate UTSA? .....

Or maybe your right and USF really really wanted UCF to be in the Big East for the last 7 years.

Same reason that USF approved UCF--because they had to. Doesn't mean people shouldn't have looked at the situation, and said, yeah, UCF's a good choice.

I am amazed at the ability to talk about UTSA for 36 pages. Do they have potential, yes. Are they getting invited, no.

(12-18-2012 12:42 AM)Fireman451 Wrote:  I am amazed at the ability to talk about UTSA for 36 pages. Do they have potential, yes. Are they getting invited, no.

Good. The "NAC" (or whatever we call it), cannot afford to add schools lacking name recognition.