ColoradoEagle

No one is basing conference realignment on what football teams have done the past year or two. UTSA is getting mentioned, because most people in the media are guessing and they're looking at UTSA saying, "they could own San Antonio!" So they're logical in those writers' minds. Hell, outside of going 7-5 last year, their records for the two years before that are 4-8 and 3-9. Once you peel back the curtain (which will be done by conferences as part of this process), you find an underfunded athletics program with nearly non-existent facilities, and absolutely no basketball program. I feel like after reading several boards, nobody has a bigger crush on UTSA than UNT fans.

I don't know who's getting an invite to what. I don't think FAU or UTSA are at the top of any actual list, but I'm sure they're part of the 10-12 mentioned. For all I know, the original MWC schools ditch that conference along with Boise and UAB to make the AAC a 16 team conference. What I've been trying to point out is that we're not as low on the totem pole and UTSA/FAU are not as high as some people here seem to think.

He doesn't list the "top 7", he gives more information on the schools he mentioned. You are truly beat down by years of being a Mean Green fan, keith. 🤣

At this point, I would assume that we're nowhere near the 'final' makeup of any conference, especially the Big 12. PAC 12, ACC, and Big 10 all have room to grow to match the SEC, and there's no reason to think they won't pounce if they see an opportunity. There was already a rumor that the PAC 12 was very close to adding TCU and UH. It's not hard to imagine the Big 12 carcass being picked clean now that ESPN has given the go ahead for 16 team conferences.

Re-read the quote: "For now, if the AAC can't get its top choices listed above, there is an additional group of 10-12 teams that would be considered, sources said. Among those teams under consideration are FAU and UTSA of Conference USA." He later adds UNT. You could literally rewrite it (accurately) to be "...there is an additional group of 10-12 teams that would be considered, sources said. Among those teams under consideration are FAU, UTSA, and UNT of Conference USA."

To put a visual on this, and do some guessing, here's what you have: Pie in the Sky, You had me at Hello (4 schools) Air Force Boise State Colorado State San Diego State Damn, She Said No. Plan B (1 school) UAB Need more to drive this boat (1-3 schools) (no particular order, guesses for the other 9 in italics) North Texas UTSA FAU FIU La Tech Southern Miss Rice Charlotte UTEP Georgia State Appalachian State Louisiana

That's not what the article is saying. AAC's ideal, pie in the sky situation is that they lure four MWC schools, and ideally Boise State is among those. That's not going to happen. Boise State already did this research and determined it was a lateral, if not bad financial move. This was released earlier this year when UH, Cincy, and UCF were still a part of the AAC. So if the MWC is not an option, then the article states they want UAB and one to three from a list of 10-12. In that list of 10-12 is North Texas, FAU, and UTSA, in no particular order. Beyond the first five, the article just said "among those teams" and threw out the closest state schools to Houston and Orlando.

Again, it’s a different scale. AAC isn’t exactly the PAC12. The point is that the DFW DMA is roughly 3x the size of San Antonio, plenty capable of supporting both schools should either of them start posting top 25 rankings. I actually know quite a few more UCLA than USC fans in LA, anecdotally.

This is like saying “Why have UCLA when we already have USC?” Obviously on a different scale.

That would be true for any school moving up, though.

It’s surface level only. People see them as new and shiny and the only FBS school in San Antonio, and assume that means the sky is the limit. You have to dig a bit deeper to see they play basketball in basically a high school gym, have no attendance in that sport, have made very little investment in facilities over all, and don’t have their own football stadium. Even with the Alamo Dome and being the only game in town, they barely outdraw us. I assume the vetting process will see past the fluff.

No, just clarification of the article. Now if you’re saying we should be offended to be second to SDSU, for example, that’s crazy talk.

UAB is more desirable today because the city has really gotten behind the program in a tangible way ($$), they have reliably above average basketball performance, football has been above average since returning, and their academics are above anyone in CUSA/SBC not named Rice. Also, they have an impeccable location (central to three different conferences, decent media market, etc). Where I start rolling my eyes is when people bring up either of the F_U's, UTSA, Coastal Carolina, Georgia Southern, La Tech, etc.

If ESPN really turns the screws, there may no longer be a CUSA.

I would be for Tulsa and North Texas moving to the MWC if only to see the meltdown on ponyfans.

I'm not really sure that the MWC is in a strong position here. Assuming they are trying to shore up basketball to attract Gonzaga, their options are pretty limited if they're trying to stay anywhere even close to their footprint. SMU and Tulsa are not going to leave the AAC for the MWC. UTEP has been terrible post-Floyd. UTSA plays in a high school gym and is almost always terrible. UNT is doing better, but just won our first NCAA game ever. Texas State was doing pretty good under Kaspar, but there's no way of knowing whether or not Johnson continues down that road. None of these options help attract Gonzaga away from the WCC. I think their only hope is to wait and see if AAC is on the losing end of realignment, and only then they might be able to convince SMU and Tulsa to jump.

We’ve had the same number of wins the past five years as Houston (31). More wins than FIU, ODU, and UTSA. The only potential target that is far and away better recently is App State. Regarding the spending, that is what elevated those schools and ensured they kept moving up. ECU, Memphis, and South Florida didn’t make the same commitment and got left behind (for now?).

I don't think this is necessarily true. Memphis and Tulane were mostly terrible immediately leading up to AAC and SMU was middling. Having two 8 win seasons isn't really any different from us having two 9 win seasons. Tulsa was surprisingly competitive. I know the kneejerk fan reaction is to see who's currently ranked the highest in football and say it's them, but I just don't see it. Troy was regularly stomping our ass before we left the SBC, for example. In today's landscape, I think you're looking for four things: 1) overall athletic commitment (dollars), 2) facilities, 3) recent success, and 4) geography. Bonus points for media market. At the end of the day, the schools willing to spend the most money will be the ones to continue moving up, and the ones who are not will be left behind. This is the one constant in all realignments. It's no coincidence that the three highest spending schools (Houston, UCF, and Cincinnati) are the three that were called up to the Big 12.

We're basically tied for #2 in revenue, have the best facilities, highest paid football coach, and fourth highest paid basketball coach of CUSA/SBC. For the first time in the history of our athletics, we bring the most commitment, even if the football results have yet to catch up to the investment.

Did you mean FIU (USF)? I'd agree on all of those. FIU plays football in a soccer stadium, and not a very good one. Basketball is in a high school level gym. No IPF. The one thing they have on us is much higher rated academics. People keep throwing UTSA out as "The San Antonio media market!" They're in a metro of 2.5m where they're the only football in town and they barely outdraw us. In the end, they do outdraw us, but it's negligible and is far outweighed by their negatives (no football stadium, young program, basketball is a glorified high school gym, no IPF, etc). They're slightly below us academically. FAU is another school with lackluster facilities. Football stadium is fine, basketball is a HS level gym, and again no IPF. They're no better or worse than us academically.

I would guess that Wren and Aresco having a good relationship will help us out.

The only place that we're lacking compared to other schools is top 25 success in football. We definitely don't have that, and it will be a major positive point for the 3 schools who do. That said, we're essentially tied for #2 in revenue, have better facilities (ODU would top us if they had an IPF) than any other candidate, in the top end of academics, and easily the best location/media market. I read the same articles, and realize that the fans writing them are heavily weighting recent football success. They could be right. However, I don't think AAC loses a huge state school in Texas and replaces them with UTSA or a school outside of this state. There are just too many negatives and question marks to UTSA's long term success. It makes more sense to bring in a school that already has an established rivalry with an existing member, and brings in quantifiable numbers to back that up, combined with everything we already have going for us listed above.

The aesthetic of Ford Stadium is nice. Every other category (concessions, seating, comfort, technology, etc) goes to Apogee. It's just simply a better place to watch a game.

We can agree to disagree. SBC had some good hires in Billy Napier and Jamey Chadwell, though I would be shocked to see either still coaching there next year. Drinkwitz was one and done. Outside of some flash in the pan rankings, the realities I noted above still exist for schools in that conference. I don't see CUSA as far and away better, but it is a better conference all around.