Moving up vs a recently bad football program.

UTSA being favored in their division vs UAB or UTEP.
South Alabama being picked towards the top of the SBC.
ODU, APP ST and Georgia Southern being picked ahead of established programs.

Do these transitioning teams have a advantage as far as excitement maybe recruiting. I am thinking more general like Texas State vs North Texas not Idaho compared to UTSA.
The team is given a pass as far as record and it seems to be easier to build momentum fan excitement. South Alabama kinda has an advantage over UAB because they still have that new car smell.

UAB is hardly even a real program, of course there are new teams with fans and money picked over them.

The SBC is just wide open. That's what makes it fun.

Beginners' luck and the novelty of major college athletics (especially in large places that used to lack it) can carry teams/schools a long way but I think major college athletics is at a saturation point. Programs at even the top of the G5 with lots of history in some cases face an almost insurmountable battle when it comes to competing and the battle of perception. As an example, Northwestern basketball would be viewed in a very high light if they nabbed a 1 seed and made the Sweet 16 next after having never made the Dance while Western Kentucky, which has some solid resources and lots of history in multiple eras would be considered a major fluke if they did.

There's something to be said of the advertising aspect of it but like I said, the perception battle is very hard to beat even if very good for an extended period of time.

UTSA doing well was obvious to me: FB starved large city with no local NFL team, great tourist city (easy to get P5 teams to play in SA), Larry Coker HC, Great recruiting base to mine leftovers after UT/TAMU/Baylor/TTech/TCU pick, finally the AlamoDome is a great facility.

I had debates with numerous CUSA fans in the past that UTSA was a great add...even before they were added. Many thought UTSA would never amount to anything.

(06-15-2014 01:09 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Beginners' luck and the novelty of major college athletics (especially in large places that used to lack it) can carry teams/schools a long way but I think major college athletics is at a saturation point. Programs at even the top of the G5 with lots of history in some cases face an almost insurmountable battle when it comes to competing and the battle of perception. As an example, Northwestern basketball would be viewed in a very high light if they nabbed a 1 seed and made the Sweet 16 next after having never made the Dance while Western Kentucky, which has some solid resources and lots of history in multiple eras would be considered a major fluke if they did.

There's something to be said of the advertising aspect of it but like I said, the perception battle is very hard to beat even if very good for an extended period of time.

There's this perception that small schools are batting out of their league when they start winning.

Would anyone believe that Idaho once finished a season ranked #8? Or that we were a #3 seed in the tournament a year later? Or that we went to the tournament four times that decade?

Schools like Idaho are D1, but we're not allowed to maintain success in the eyes of everyday fans. We're supposed to default back to mediocrity and stay there.

UTSA has so much potential.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-15-2014 01:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  There's this perception that small schools are batting out of their league when they start winning.

Would anyone believe that Idaho once finished a season ranked #8? Or that we were a #3 seed in the tournament a year later? Or that we went to the tournament four times that decade?

Schools like Idaho are D1, but we're not allowed to maintain success in the eyes of everyday fans. We're supposed to default back to mediocrity and stay there.

But unlike other G5 schools except perhaps Tulane, there's no reason Idaho shouldn't be a major, as they got into the club "at the beginning of time" since they started playing with the original Pac-12 schools 100 years ago. Now they run the risk of being passed by Boise State permanently.

I guess Rice and UTSA are good examples of what I was thinking.

Rice has history and tons of advantages on UTSA.
The problem a bad recent history that hurts support and perception.

Say Rice was starting up instead would they be better or worse off.

(06-15-2014 01:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:09 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Beginners' luck and the novelty of major college athletics (especially in large places that used to lack it) can carry teams/schools a long way but I think major college athletics is at a saturation point. Programs at even the top of the G5 with lots of history in some cases face an almost insurmountable battle when it comes to competing and the battle of perception. As an example, Northwestern basketball would be viewed in a very high light if they nabbed a 1 seed and made the Sweet 16 next after having never made the Dance while Western Kentucky, which has some solid resources and lots of history in multiple eras would be considered a major fluke if they did.

There's something to be said of the advertising aspect of it but like I said, the perception battle is very hard to beat even if very good for an extended period of time.

There's this perception that small schools are batting out of their league when they start winning.

Would anyone believe that Idaho once finished a season ranked #8? Or that we were a #3 seed in the tournament a year later? Or that we went to the tournament four times that decade?

Schools like Idaho are D1, but we're not allowed to maintain success in the eyes of everyday fans. We're supposed to default back to mediocrity and stay there.

Were you ranked #8 in D-1A or D-1AA? What year?

(06-15-2014 01:58 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:09 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Beginners' luck and the novelty of major college athletics (especially in large places that used to lack it) can carry teams/schools a long way but I think major college athletics is at a saturation point. Programs at even the top of the G5 with lots of history in some cases face an almost insurmountable battle when it comes to competing and the battle of perception. As an example, Northwestern basketball would be viewed in a very high light if they nabbed a 1 seed and made the Sweet 16 next after having never made the Dance while Western Kentucky, which has some solid resources and lots of history in multiple eras would be considered a major fluke if they did.

There's something to be said of the advertising aspect of it but like I said, the perception battle is very hard to beat even if very good for an extended period of time.

There's this perception that small schools are batting out of their league when they start winning.

Would anyone believe that Idaho once finished a season ranked #8? Or that we were a #3 seed in the tournament a year later? Or that we went to the tournament four times that decade?

Schools like Idaho are D1, but we're not allowed to maintain success in the eyes of everyday fans. We're supposed to default back to mediocrity and stay there.

Were you ranked #8 in D-1A or D-1AA? What year?

Basketball. No d1aa. And 1981-82.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/1982.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-15-2014 01:29 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  UTSA has so much potential.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

But what if an NFL team comes to San Antonio? Suddenly, they play 3rd fiddle to the Spurs and that team.

The novelty can wear off quick, look at UAB (Birmingham has some of highest ratings for college football in the country). Houston has a ton of history but never gained a following even after playing among college football royalty and resorted back to playing in a small stadium on campus. Before that, UH struggled to draw anything at a dome because they were a commuter school in a pro sports market, sound familiar?

UTSA does have potential but there's also have a lot of work to do to ensure their foundation is right.

(06-15-2014 01:56 PM)MJG Wrote:  I guess Rice and UTSA are good examples of what I was thinking.

Rice has history and tons of advantages on UTSA.
The problem a bad recent history that hurts support and perception.

Say Rice was starting up instead would they be better or worse off.

Recent history? Rice hasn't mattered in over a half century. The potential and money is there but they need to give someone something to get excited about in something other than baseball.

(06-15-2014 02:10 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:56 PM)MJG Wrote:  I guess Rice and UTSA are good examples of what I was thinking.

Rice has history and tons of advantages on UTSA.
The problem a bad recent history that hurts support and perception.

Say Rice was starting up instead would they be better or worse off.

Recent history? Rice hasn't mattered in over a half century. The potential and money is there but they need to give someone something to get excited about in something other than baseball.

Moving up was painful for most in the past now not so much.
Having a history of losing is probably harder to overcome.
Any school can hire the right coach and make the commitment.
Georgia State and U MASS are the exception now .

UTSA, Texas State and South Alabama are all contenders in their conferences. Most of the others are middle of the pack.

(06-15-2014 02:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:29 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  UTSA has so much potential.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

But what if an NFL team comes to San Antonio? Suddenly, they play 3rd fiddle to the Spurs and that team.

The novelty can wear off quick, look at UAB (Birmingham has some of highest ratings for college football in the country). Houston has a ton of history but never gained a following even after playing among college football royalty and resorted back to playing in a small stadium on campus. Before that, UH struggled to draw anything at a dome because they were a commuter school in a pro sports market, sound familiar?

UTSA does have potential but there's also have a lot of work to do to ensure their foundation is right.

An NFL team won't come unless they expand by about 4 more teams...Dallas and Houston do not want the competition. If it comes they'll certainly get hurt.

Barring the longshot of an NFL team this UTSA team has a nice thing developing and as long as they keep winning they average 25k+

The Jacksonville Jaguars could easily wind up in San Antonio (or LA for that matter) and any aggregation from Jerry Jones or Bob McNair can be overcome by some financial compensation. San Antonio (along with some help from Austin and perhaps Kileen/Temple) could support an NFL team with a good stadium and that would be very detrimental to UTSA. Either way, what happens when the novelty wears off? Will people in a transient market like San Antonio still support UTSA 20 years from now playing random directional schools mostly thousands of miles away? Unless they win big yearly or start playing schools in the current Big XII, UTSA could be UAB in 20 years as opposed to UCLA.

Having Rice and North Texas helps UTSA .
Also an eight year series with Texas State.

The new rules on reclassifying make a world of difference. Most of the past schools to move to FBS did so as independents with nothing to play for, that put them at a big recruiting disadvantage.

(06-15-2014 02:10 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 01:56 PM)MJG Wrote:  I guess Rice and UTSA are good examples of what I was thinking.

Rice has history and tons of advantages on UTSA.
The problem a bad recent history that hurts support and perception.

Say Rice was starting up instead would they be better or worse off.

Recent history? Rice hasn't mattered in over a half century. The potential and money is there but they need to give someone something to get excited about in something other than baseball.

Brief Recent history lesson:
I'm excited about Rice winning a conference title, 15 of our last 19 games, our last two against the Big12 and splitting our last two against the B1G.

That said, we'll have to rattle Notre Dame or A&M this year if we're going to be able to claim that we once again "matter" on a national scale.

Good thread.

I think a lot of UABs initial success had to do with the time that they moved up back in 1999 when there wasn't as much competition at the CUSA level for recruits.

Today with South Alabama, Georgia State, Georgia Southern all moving up at the same time the talent pool is starting to get diluted.

And at the FCS level the talent is getting decimated. There is going to be like nothing left for the Southern Conference or OVC to pick over.

Of course the jury is still out on how strong these new schools are automatically going to be. Wait until the end of the decade once they get 6 or 7 FBS recruiting classes in.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The Georgia State and Georgia Southern situation is going to be interesting as to who has the better long term program.

Georgia Southern has the tradition but Georgia State is located directly in Atlanta. Both have 4 players in the NFL currently even though Georgia State is a young program. That new Georgia State stadium may tip the scales.

Of course it may very well be both end up strong in the #4 recruiting state with only 2 other FBS schools.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App