I can't believe that I am going to say this...

Raid the WAC. Invite NMSU, LA Tech, and Utah State. We don't need UT-SA or TSU-SM.

No to Utah State....way to far.

Yes to LA Tech.

I think its a toss up between NMSU and UTSA...in the end I think the pros outweigh the cons, at least in the bigger picture.

I agree with you 100%. Isn't it amazing how UNT grads belittle UTSA? Lets see, we play a Big Ten team at home and draw a whopping 21,000. UTSA plays Bacone and draws over 30,000.

Go figure.

Bingo. I think it's the fear of UTSA passing us bye in the future that makes people want to put them down.

IU probably had over a 1,000 fans there so in reality we didn't even draw 20K for a second game in a brand new stadium vs a name university

San Antonio is 100 x the sports town that Denton is. People there want to fall in love with a football team , no matter who they are currently playing

Edited September 25, 2011 by NT03

Good article on The Runners (their nickname still makes me laugh, makes me think of someone having the runs...)

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/college_sports/utsa/article/Roadrunners-make-another-statement-with-a-crowd-2187532.php

Current:

With either TxSt or UTSA and La Tech:

Or another option, add La Tech and Happy Appy (their BOR just voted to pursue FBS membership):

i find it interesting that with the exception of ull, our entire conference is comprised of former 1aa programs, whom we now look down and wish to exclude. unt historic problem has been lack of a natural rival. utsa and tex. st. could be just that. n.m.s.u. brings nothing to the table, and is 600 miles from denton. la. tech is ok with me, but they don't want to be in same conference let alone same division as la monroe. besides, they basicaly both cover the same market [ refer to smu,tcu,unt].

i find it interesting that with the exception of ull, our entire conference is comprised of former 1aa programs, whom we now look down and wish to exclude. unt historic problem has been lack of a natural rival. utsa and tex. st. could be just that. n.m.s.u. brings nothing to the table, and is 600 miles from denton. la. tech is ok with me, but they don't want to be in same conference let alone same division as la monroe. besides, they basicaly both cover the same market [ refer to smu,tcu,unt].

What is best for the conference? Do you think other than the WAC that any conference is looking to FCS to fill spots?

Bringing up an FCS program will degrade the already poor perception of the SBC.

If we stay in the Belt for a pretty long time then I am in favor of adding LT, NMSU and Utah State. Again I don't have an issue with Tx State. I think that would be a decent rivalry.

The movie Moneyball reminds me of the Sunbelt. We are the conference under 50 feet of shit. The game is not fair so we have to play differently. All conferences are looking to expand their TV markets and make more money. The Sunbelt is more regionally allocated so lets not seek a team like Utah State. That is just a financial burden for our schools. We should expand regionally so LaTech, TSU, UTSA, NMSt should be our first options. This move will allow us to be more stable financially and by expanding now the Sunbelt can be poached and we can still be functioning. Who knows.. the TV networks may think the San Antonio market is worth a few more million.

Last year Texas St. averaged 12,805 in a 16,000 seat stadium...

Their student enrollment is 30,816...

Their first game attendance was 15,800 in the 16K stadium. Not bad but I don't know if they can sustain it since they know that they will have to find another conference for football or play as an independent. The stadium expands to 30,000 next fall. They have invested big bucks in stadium expansion and coaching staff and desperately need a conference.

UTSA has no FBS opponents this year. They were roundly beaten by McMurry. They will lose big-time to FBS programs before they can begin winning. Let's see how the support holds up while they are losing. If they can still draw 15-20,000 in another four years then I'd say yes they can make it and would be an asset for a conference.

I wonder how excited they will be when UTSA loses by 70 at home to any of the FBS teams they play next year.

I haven't finished this thread completely, so hope I don't duplicate posts. One thing the UTSA AD has done is effectively promote the UTSA football program as "San Antonio's team". They have also done a good job PR wise of educating the fans that this is a process, and they are on an aggressive schedule that will have big bumps in the road.

I think the attendance will settle in around 30K for the remainder of this year. How many SunBelt programs would be jacked about having that problem! Their basketball program attendance is poor; but I suspect the addition of football will also increase support for all their programs in the long run.

As for as the SunBelt goes, they might not be ready for primetime; but they have demonstrated (so far) that football will be supported. Funny thing you hear from most fans down here is that they still view the Belt as a bottom-feeder program, and that the WAC is FAR superior. So obviously many of the fans are drinking too much of the WAC koolaid right now! Question is, how does the administration view the WAC vs SB? That I just don't have a feel for yet.

Shof

P.S. Congrats on the big win saturday!!!

Steve you are 100% right...as I have been saying for years ( check old posts) UTSA has the "potential" to make a fast rise up the college football ladder...very similiar to South Florida.

Yes they lost to Bacon's Rebellion, however they are the only game in town (see Spurs)...SA has always has a chip on its shoulder and feels like the forgotten step child of major texas cities. SA will support UTSA for many years to come, mix in a few wins and that program could take off.

My buddys wife is in the UTSA admin, they have a vision and plans for their own stadium on the northwest side of town.

Instead of cutting them down like we get cut down by Tu, A&M,SMU, TCU, etc.....we should embrace them and create a true texas rival.

I say we schedule them to a 2 for 1 and "hang a half a hundred on em"

GO MEAN GREEN!

Yes they lost to Bacon's Rebellion, however they are the only game in town (see Spurs)...SA has always has a chip on its shoulder and feels like the forgotten step child of major texas cities. SA will support UTSA for many years to come, mix in a few wins and that program could take off.

I don't buy all of the UTSA fandom going on in this thread, but especially disagree with the idea that SA has adopted them as "their team". Attendance fell off dramatically from game 1 to 2 & 3. 30,000 is still more than respectable for the level of conference they're going into, but it's no East Carolina (an area that has truly bought into "their team").

Don't discount the "newness" factor. Until they actually start winning at a national level, attendance will drop off. Here are the highest attendance figures for USF their first five seasons. Notice a pattern?

Sep. 6, 1997 - Kentucky Wesleyan - W 80-3 - 49,212

Oct. 3, 1998 - Citadel - W 45-6 - 32,598

Nov. 6, 1999 - New Haven - W 41-27 - 27,307

Sep. 2, 2000 - Jacksonville State - W 40-0 - 30,043

Oct. 13, 2001 - Connecticut - W 40-21 - 26,802

Sep. 7, 2002 - Northern Illinois - W 37-6 - 23,559

USF's goes up after that as they started to enter national relevancy and entered CUSA in 2003. Home games with Cincinatti, Louisville, and TCU are a bit more attractive than home games with Idaho, New Mexico State, and San Jose State.

I don't buy all of the UTSA fandom going on in this thread, but especially disagree with the idea that SA has adopted them as "their team". Attendance fell off dramatically from game 1 to 2 & 3. 30,000 is still more than respectable for the level of conference they're going into, but it's no East Carolina (an area that has truly bought into "their team").

Don't discount the "newness" factor. Until they actually start winning at a national level, attendance will drop off. Here are the highest attendance figures for USF their first five seasons. Notice a pattern?

Sep. 6, 1997 - Kentucky Wesleyan - W 80-3 - 49,212

Oct. 3, 1998 - Citadel - W 45-6 - 32,598

Nov. 6, 1999 - New Haven - W 41-27 - 27,307

Sep. 2, 2000 - Jacksonville State - W 40-0 - 30,043

Oct. 13, 2001 - Connecticut - W 40-21 - 26,802

Sep. 7, 2002 - Northern Illinois - W 37-6 - 23,559

USF's goes up after that as they started to enter national relevancy and entered CUSA in 2003. Home games with Cincinatti, Louisville, and TCU are a bit more attractive than home games with Idaho, New Mexico State, and San Jose State.

I see the pattern you are referring to. And it's still better than our Belt programs. As for my statement regarding San Antonio embracing the team as "their own", I didn't say it has happened yet; rather that is how the AD is trying to promote the program. There is no other D-1 program in SA; so it has a chance to succeed attendance wise, which in turn will provide publicity and funding to continue building the program.

I absolutely agree that the initial game attendance was a novelty. Heck, it was promoted with the hope they could break the attendance record for a first game. Still, over 30,000 came back for game 2 (a bad loss IMO); and after getting wholloped on the road, 33,000 came back again for game 4. I expect them to maintain 25,000+ the rest of this season. And that is against a crappy schedule for the most part. Point is, while many here in SA root for either the Longhorns or Aggies; many would like to have their own team to pull for too; and now they do.

Finally, I do expect them to fall on hard times (performance wise) as they quickly transition to FBS. But I think they will get better faster than most of us (myself included) expected. Personally (and this is my opinion only) I'd much rather see UTSA, and even Tx State part of the Belt before NMSU, and especially Utah State. And I do understand what NMSU and USU bring basketball wise. Just not sure that is worth the entry! Many of us have been there.....seen that!