U T S A Football Progress Report - Month 3

[MeanGreen61]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/UTSA_Fo..._-_Month_3.html

[NT80]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/UTSA_Fo..._-_Month_3.html

An interesting read about starting a program. It looks like UTSA does plan to play in the AlamoDome from the part about scheduling. I also liked the part about keeping the stud 8-year-old's name in a file for later. (ha).

[nana21]

An interesting read about starting a program. It looks like UTSA does plan to play in the AlamoDome from the part about scheduling. I also liked the part about keeping the stud 8-year-old's name in a file for later. (ha).

Hiring Coker does keep you in the news.

Rivals Frontpage:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news...o&type=lgns

[BIG DAWG]

What conference are they playing in when they get started??? I forget

also...did I read somewhere that they are wanting to stay FCS or old div II???

Thanks

EDIT

Nevermind...but for those that also might have forgotten, or might want to know for the first time...

Initially, UTSA would play in the Football Championship Subdivision, formerly known as Division I-AA.

A school official said the Roadrunners likely would play football as an independent the first two years and then make a decision — either to remain independent, join the FCS Southland Conference or possibly declare for the Football Bowl Subdivision, formerly Division I-A.

The timing of UTSA’s first year of FBS conference participation could be as early as the 2015-16 academic year, but it would depend on the timing of an invitation. Possible FBS conference destinations would be Conference USA, the Sun Belt or the Western Athletic Conference.

Edited July 12, 2009 by BIG DAWG

[NT80]

"The timing of UTSA’s first year of FBS conference participation could be as early as the 2015-16 academic year, but it would depend on the timing of an invitation. Possible FBS conference destinations would be Conference USA, the Sun Belt or the Western Athletic Conference."

I'm surprised they didn't include the Big 12 too. Anyway, by 2015 those conferences they list could be a different makeup than what they are now.

[Chrisattsu]

"The timing of UTSA’s first year of FBS conference participation could be as early as the 2015-16 academic year, but it would depend on the timing of an invitation. Possible FBS conference destinations would be Conference USA, the Sun Belt or the Western Athletic Conference."

I'm surprised they didn't include the Big 12 too. Anyway, by 2015 those conferences they list could be a different makeup than what they are now.

I know that the Bobcats are on the SLC schedule through the 2012 season. We are discussing the same conferences (SBC, WAC, CUSA) by 2013. However, I think we can all agree that Texas State will not end up in CUSA.

[UNTflyer]

UTSA is dreaming. And frankly, so is Texas State. From what I've been reading, the NCAA is not likely to lift the moratorium on new FBS teams unless some current teams drop down.

[NT03]

UTSA is dreaming. And frankly, so is Texas State. From what I've been reading, the NCAA is not likely to lift the moratorium on new FBS teams unless some current teams drop down.

UTSA is dreaming BIG yes but that's what you should want from your school , right ? If teams like FAU,South FL,Central FL didn't ever set high goals for themseleves then they would have never gotten to where they are already all today.

By the time UTSA is ready to join DI, conferences will probably all be re arranged so it's hard to say where they will be. But playing in the AlamoDome & having a baseball program would be appealing to a future conference

[stebo]

In the article, Coker says that they hope to be in the Southland conference by 2013. Like I said before - I believe that they are a decade away from being a serious contender for any Div I FBS conference. The SLC isn't going to help them get a program up and going and just let them leave - there will be stipulations on letting them join the conference for football. Maybe they will try to move up as a group?

Edited July 12, 2009 by stebo

[GreenBat]

In the article, Coker says that they hope to be in the Southland conference by 2013. Like I said before - I believe that they are a decade away from being a serious contender for any Div I FBS conference. The SLC isn't going to help them get a program up and going and just let them leave - there will be stipulations on letting them join the conference for football. Maybe they will try to move up as a group?

I believe UTSA is in the Southland conference for all sports and when they add football they will be in the Southland Conference.

[Chrisattsu]

I believe UTSA is in the Southland conference for all sports and when they add football they will be in the Southland Conference.

They are currently in the SLC for all sports. However, to this date, they have not requested to be on the SLC football schedule yet (currently lined up through 2012). They will be at Media days this year, so I will be interested to know what they have to say. Additionally, the SLC Commish stated that he is not going to act like a stepping stone in the way that they did for ULM.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Chrisattsu

[Chrisattsu]

UTSA is dreaming. And frankly, so is Texas State. From what I've been reading, the NCAA is not likely to lift the moratorium on new FBS teams unless some current teams drop down.

Based on the facilities that we are building, I can say that we are heading to the SBC or the WAC not CUSA. They new baseball is at 2500 people. This is on par with what is in use around the SBC. This is middle of the pack for the WAC. Strahan Coliseum currently holds around 8000 people that puts us on par with the facilities in your conference. The football stadium expansion that is coming is expected to bump us between the 30,000-40,000 range once it is complete (whenever that is). This looks to be about the average size stadium in SBC.

I would love to see the moratorium lifted so we have an opportunity to move to FBS. You may be right about the NCAA extending the moratorium, and if our administration knows it this could be why they are pushing hard and fast to get everything in place. Dangling the FBS carrot was the only way to get our alumni and donors back, and convince the students to increase the athletic budget. If we are going to be stuck in FCS, we may as well have the best financed athletic programs and best facilities.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Chrisattsu

[Arkstfan]

UTSA is dreaming. And frankly, so is Texas State. From what I've been reading, the NCAA is not likely to lift the moratorium on new FBS teams unless some current teams drop down.

The moratorium will have to be lifted. It cannot remain in place permanently without running afoul of anti-trust law. It is unlikely it will be extended or another imposed for a few years due to anti-trust issues.

That however does not mean that the criteria for joining FBS football will remain the same.

I've not heard diddly but wouldn't be surprised to see a few changes. If they were asking me, the changes would be:

1. A four year transition process instead of two.

2. Must meet attendance requirements in years 2, 3, and 4 (15,000 average).

3. Cannot use neutral site games to meet attendance in transition.

4. Must meet schedule requirements in years 3 and 4 (play 5 home games against FBS and a total of 8 on a 12 game schedule)

5. Cannot use an FCS opponent or transitional opponent to meet the five FBS home game requirement.

6. Must meet sport sponsorship requirement in year 1 (16 sports)

7 Must meet scholarship requirements in year 3 and 4 (200 scholarships awarded across all sports and 79.5 avg in football).

[NT80]

The moratorium will have to be lifted. It cannot remain in place permanently without running afoul of anti-trust law. It is unlikely it will be extended or another imposed for a few years due to anti-trust issues.

That however does not mean that the criteria for joining FBS football will remain the same.

I've not heard diddly but wouldn't be surprised to see a few changes. If they were asking me, the changes would be:

1. A four year transition process instead of two.

2. Must meet attendance requirements in years 2, 3, and 4 (15,000 average).

3. Cannot use neutral site games to meet attendance in transition.

4. Must meet schedule requirements in years 3 and 4 (play 5 home games against FBS and a total of 8 on a 12 game schedule)

5. Cannot use an FCS opponent or transitional opponent to meet the five FBS home game requirement.

6. Must meet sport sponsorship requirement in year 1 (16 sports)

7 Must meet scholarship requirements in year 3 and 4 (200 scholarships awarded across all sports and 79.5 avg in football).

Are there actually FBS schools considering dropping down or out of football? I know some have mentioned Tulane and maybe a couple MAC schools. Any rumors?

[UNTflyer]

Are there actually FBS schools considering dropping down or out of football? I know some have mentioned Tulane and maybe a couple MAC schools. Any rumors?

Not just a couple MAC schools... but the entire MAC. Although he didn't say so explicityly in this interview, message board speculation says Steinbrecher will direct the MAC to FCS in 5 years.

[UNT90]

But playing in the AlamoDome would be appealing to a future conference

Nope. No conference is going to be interested in a stadium that isn't yours, is not on campus, and is 1/7 full for your home games.

It's nice they are optimistic, but they are light years from where we are, much less joining the WAC or CUSA.

[NT03]

It's nice they are optimistic, but they are light years from where we are, much less joining the WAC or CUSA.

Where exaclty are we in the NCAA atheletic word ??

[UNT90]

Where exaclty are we in the NCAA atheletic word ??

Better to look at it as where we are not: starting a program from scratch in the heart of Longhorn country, playing independant D1AA football in 4 years, having to play off campus at a stadium that will make a 15,000 crowd look like 5,000, having zero football history, being in the armpit that is San Antonio.

That's what we are not.