Did Anyone See This Tsu Poll

Censored by Laurie · December 31, 2010

Imagine every other year in the fall having the chance to make a short trip down to God's country to see the Mean Green play? Sweet!

We don't agree on much...but this, this is spot on.

YouCanUseaMint · December 31, 2010

Ok, I already asserted that the attendance could be manipulated. Not sure why you are repeating exactly what I said. The only question that I have is how you are going to have 5 home FBS games in the two transition years. Those years are 2011 and 2012, making you a member of the FBS in 2013, correct? Or are the transition years 2012 and 2013, making you a member of FBS in 2014?

So I guess the WAC is planning on having just about every team (there will only be 7 football playing members of the WAC in year 1 or 2 depending on the transition window) San Jose, Idaho, USU, NMSU, La Tech, UTSA, and TS@SM. You would need the conference to send just about every team to both San Marcos AND San Antonio for two consecutive years (without getting return games until you are certified). I know that the WAC is in survival mode - but it is precisely this type of predicament that has pushed 3 additional schools away from the WAC. The WAC has now lost all of its primary bowl tie ins, sans Boise... .which will probably disband (who wants to go to Boise in December, anyway?)... and will now lose their auto-bid to NCAA championship sports. If you think that the WAC will get a waiver, ask the MWC how those requests go. You might be able to pull this off - but I have no idea how you are going to fill the home game requirements over your two year transition. Good luck with that...

FCS indy 2011, join WAC 2012, but will not be bowl eligible until 2014

I'd imagine the other teams in the WAC knew they would have to help us meet our 5 home game requirement, as they voted to extend an invite. I posted a link to show you a few home-and-home agreements that have been put in place in the short amount of time we have accepted membership to the WAC. I wasn't saying our problem is solved with Navy and Wyoming, I was just trying to show that it will be possible to get teams to come to San Marcos. And yes, we are banking on the continuity rule change, and I also agree we wouldn't get a waiver should it not be changed. Though the MWC was a group of schools who branched off to make their own conference. The WAC has a 50 year history.. a little different, IMO. And no, don't bring up the SWC. Again, situation is different.

stebo · December 31, 2010

FCS indy 2011, join WAC 2012, but will not be bowl eligible until 2014

I'd imagine the other teams in the WAC knew they would have to help us meet our 5 home game requirement, as they voted to extend an invite. I posted a link to show you a few home-and-home agreements that have been put in place in the short amount of time we have accepted membership to the WAC. I wasn't saying our problem is solved with Navy and Wyoming, I was just trying to show that it will be possible to get teams to come to San Marcos. And yes, we are banking on the continuity rule change, and I also agree we wouldn't get a waiver should it not be changed. Though the MWC was a group of schools who branched off to make their own conference. The WAC has a 50 year history.. a little different, IMO. And no, don't bring up the SWC. Again, situation is different.

The schools that broke off from the WAC - were the WAC schools before it went to 16. They were the schools that had been together for decades. The only school that remained was Hawaii. If you look at the line-up of the WAC from 30 years ago and the new MWC, you would see that they are pretty much the same teams. So the MWC was essentially the same group of schools (that had been together for decades) with a new name. The new WAC does not resemble the old WAC, or any version of the 4 WAC make-overs - it is essentially the Big West plus some Southland schools. But you do realize that you will not actually be in a conference, right? Because the conference will not be recognized by any entity. That is why Karl is talking about going with the "at large" philosophy regarding bowl games (good luck with that). Again - I am rooting for TS@SM - but the Runners are a pain in the rear and I hope that they fail. While you will be joining the WAC scheduling alliance in 2012, you will not be an FBS member until 2014 - and that is dependent on just about every member of the WAC in 2012 and 2013 coming to both San Marcos and San Antonio (for both years). You have one FBS game scheduled, they will need to provide the other 9. My point wasn't that you wouldn't be able to schedule home games, of course you will... But most schedules are already set for those years so it will be difficult to get any more home games on short notice. Hopefully the WAC scheduling alliance can provide those other home games for you.

ADLER · January 1, 2011

I would push for immediate admission of UTSA and Texas State to the Sun Belt if all our away games at Texas State could be played there during Wurstfest and all our games in San Antonio could be played the Saturday after Thanksgiving.

If the two schools are ever admitted to the Sun Belt, I believe that those two weekends should always have to be reserved for them to play home games against regional conference teams that will travel to those events.

I'd take those two schools as OOC games right now if we could be guaranteed those two weekends.

YouCanUseaMint · January 1, 2011

The schools that broke off from the WAC - were the WAC schools before it went to 16. They were the schools that had been together for decades. The only school that remained was Hawaii. If you look at the line-up of the WAC from 30 years ago and the new MWC, you would see that they are pretty much the same teams. So the MWC was essentially the same group of schools (that had been together for decades) with a new name. The new WAC does not resemble the old WAC, or any version of the 4 WAC make-overs - it is essentially the Big West plus some Southland schools. But you do realize that you will not actually be in a conference, right? Because the conference will not be recognized by any entity. That is why Karl is talking about going with the "at large" philosophy regarding bowl games (good luck with that). Again - I am rooting for TS@SM - but the Runners are a pain in the rear and I hope that they fail. While you will be joining the WAC scheduling alliance in 2012, you will not be an FBS member until 2014 - and that is dependent on just about every member of the WAC in 2012 and 2013 coming to both San Marcos and San Antonio (for both years). You have one FBS game scheduled, they will need to provide the other 9. My point wasn't that you wouldn't be able to schedule home games, of course you will... But most schedules are already set for those years so it will be difficult to get any more home games on short notice. Hopefully the WAC scheduling alliance can provide those other home games for you.

A few things:

You say we won't be a conference. So you're assuming the proposed continuity rule change won't be implemented and no FBS teams jump on board before June 2011? In that case, hopefully we can work out those 9 other FBS games.

I also don't understand what is necessarily wrong with the at large philosophy for now. There are what - 35 bowl games as it is? For as many bowl games in the area, TXST or UTSA should not have a problem receiving and at large bid. How many bowl eligible teams didn't go to a bowl this season? Two from the MAC I believe.

Aquila_Viridis · January 1, 2011

Most of Texas State's programs will have to catch up to their baseball program. But with their great location, enrollment and recent commitment to athletics that is exactly what they would do if they were to enter the Belt. We then would have a very close conference road trip that would be the envy of the rest of the conference. Imagine every other year in the fall having the chance to make a short trip down to God's country to see the Mean Green play? Sweet!

Rick

I don't agree with helping to elevate any more programs in our general vicinity. There are too many D1 programs competing for talent already. We should build rivalries with existing instate D1 programs. This idea of building up these other programs as competition is a terrible terrible idea. We need to get out of this crap conference. If these programs trying to emerge want to go to WAC let them; it is doomed and I will be happy to see them fail.

YouCanUseaMint · January 1, 2011

I don't agree with helping to elevate any more programs in our general vicinity. There are too many D1 programs competing for talent already. We should build rivalries with existing instate D1 programs. This idea of building up these other programs as competition is a terrible terrible idea. We need to get out of this crap conference. If these programs trying to emerge want to go to WAC let them; it is doomed and I will be happy to see them fail.

Even if you're going to stick it out on your own in a conference like TCU, you still need a rival. They play their annual Battle for the Iron Skillet game every year and did you see what it did to SMU attendance? That could be you.

TheTastyGreek · January 1, 2011

Even if you're going to stick it out on your own in a conference like TCU, you still need a rival. They play their annual Battle for the Iron Skillet game every year and did you see what it did to SMU attendance? That could be you.

I did see 15 or 20 Texas State people at our basketball game last month... That's an additional $140-$240 bucks we made right there, people. Cash paper. FOLDING money.

Now we just need to schedule about 350,000 to 525,000 more Texas State basketball games, and we'll have that stadium paid off in no time!

Texas Stranger · January 1, 2011

I did see 15 or 20 Texas State people at our basketball game last month... That's an additional $140-$240 bucks we made right there, people. Cash paper. FOLDING money.

Now we just need to schedule about 350,000 to 525,000 more Texas State basketball games, and we'll have that stadium paid off in no time!

Which had the better turnout of TSUSM fans ? The game in Denton or San Marcos ?

YouCanUseaMint · January 1, 2011

Which had the better turnout of TSUSM fans ? The game in Denton or San Marcos ?

Our baseball team draws more fans that our basketball team. What's your point? We have one of the worst teams in the country..

But that still doesn't address UNT's need for a rival it plays on a consistent basis.

EDIT: Shoot, I bet our strutters draw more than our MBB (see avatar and you'll understand why)

Edited January 1, 2011 by YouCanUseaMint

MeanGreen61 · January 1, 2011

Our baseball team draws more fans that our basketball team. What's your point? We have one of the worst teams in the country..

But that still doesn't address UNT's need for a rival it plays on a consistent basis.

EDIT: Shoot, I bet our strutters draw more than our MBB (see avatar and you'll understand why)

So you have a dream of Tx State being a true rival for UNT ? Won't happen. It's very hard to generate any passion for games vs the Bobcats since UNT has owned you in football and basketball. FB: 29-7-3. BB: 59-28 with 12 straight wins. No offense but your rival should be UTSA.

Edited January 1, 2011 by MeanGreen61

YouCanUseaMint · January 2, 2011

So you have a dream of Tx State being a true rival for UNT ? Won't happen. It's very hard to generate any passion for games vs the Bobcats since UNT has owned you in football and basketball. FB: 29-7-3. BB: 59-28 with 12 straight wins. No offense but your rival should be UTSA.

When have I advocated Texas State become UNT's rival? I believe we have the longest series with UNT, but like many of yall have said, that was ages ago.

We have a rival:

small_I-35%20Rivalry%20Series.jpg

What about yall?

stebo · January 2, 2011

How can you have a rivalry with a team that doesn't exist yet?

VideoEagle · January 2, 2011

A few things:

You say we won't be a conference. So you're assuming the proposed continuity rule change won't be implemented and no FBS teams jump on board before June 2011? In that case, hopefully we can work out those 9 other FBS games.

I also don't understand what is necessarily wrong with the at large philosophy for now. There are what - 35 bowl games as it is? For as many bowl games in the area, TXST or UTSA should not have a problem receiving and at large bid. How many bowl eligible teams didn't go to a bowl this season? Two from the MAC I believe.

Regardless of if the continuity rule is changed AND it is interpreted in a way never before done which is what is required for the WAC to keep any auto-bids into playoffs, the WAC will NOT be recognized as a football conference because the WAC will not have the required number of teams. The WAC can sponsor FCS teams to become FBS teams only until next July. No current FBS team will join because the conference is a total mess. It is only through a loop hole in the rules that TxSt and UTSA will be allow to move up - they accepted an invitation from a recognized FBS conference that will no longer BE an FBS conference when you a full FBS members.

You will be part of a scheduling alliance of independent non-Notre Dame football schools, not part of a football conference. That is according to both the NCAA and the BCS.

Edited January 2, 2011 by VideoEagle

YouCanUseaMint · January 2, 2011

Regardless of if the continuity rule is changed AND it is interpreted in a way never before done which is what is required for the WAC to keep any auto-bids into playoffs, the WAC will NOT be recognized as a football conference because the WAC will not have the required number of teams. The WAC can sponsor FCS teams to become FBS teams only until next July. No current FBS team will join because the conference is a total mess. It is only through a loop hole in the rules that TxSt and UTSA will be allow to move up - they accepted an invitation from a recognized FBS conference that will no longer BE an FBS conference when you a full FBS members.

You will be part of a scheduling alliance of independent non-Notre Dame football schools, not part of a football conference. That is according to both the NCAA and the BCS.

If you go back to what the poster I was replying to said, he said we wouldn't be in a conference (didn't specify football). If the continuity rule is changed and interpreted in favor of Texas State, then yes, we will be in a recognized conference. Will it be recognized as an FBS conference per se? Only if we start getting FBS teams on board.. but even that is still an assumption. So the answer to my first question was yes.

How can you have a rivalry with a team that doesn't exist yet?

You do know a rivalry can exist without football, right? UTSA's addition of football will no doubt strengthen the rivalry

stebo · January 2, 2011

If you go back to what the poster I was replying to said, he said we wouldn't be in a conference (didn't specify football). If the continuity rule is changed and interpreted in favor of Texas State, then yes, we will be in a recognized conference. Will it be recognized as an FBS conference per se? Only if we start getting FBS teams on board.. but even that is still an assumption. So the answer to my first question was yes.

You do know a rivalry can exist without football, right? UTSA's addition of football will no doubt strengthen the rivalry

And if you go back and read what we said - our statements are being made on the facts and rules (as well as the history of the NCAA and how they have always defined/interpreted those rules). There are several rules that may or may not change - but the NCAA has been trying to stop Div I from expanding and changing the rules to make it easier (in any sport) will contradict everything that the NCAA has been trying to accomplish over the last decade. Yes, it might happen - but it is just as likely to not happen.

I hope that you understand that your school just gave up your conference home for another Great West. If I was your AD, I would be looking for a way OUT of the invite and back into the Southland - as quickly as possible. Basically, you will be a group of schools that schedule one another but do not qualify for any playoffs or auto-bids. That is for Div I - non football matters. On the football side, let's say the new rules do pass... you would need a bona-fide FBS school to move to the WAC because you will no longer be a bona-fide conference (with only 7 members). Since you will not be a bona-fide conference, you will not be able to sponsor any additional schools to move up to FBS and get to the minimum of 8 schools. That means you will not be recognized by any entity - including the BCS. Each school will be treated as FBS Indies and get the token half unit amount. And all of these scenarios are based on the best possible situation, meaning that all the rules you would need would pass AND they would need to be interpreted the way that you want. Even with all of that, you will still not have access.

As for bowl games - yes, you could get lucky and end up in a bowl game down here. Most likely it would be in some far off place that has trouble fillig the slot - like Detroit, the day after Christmas. But you will have to pay for that invite and guarantee a certain amount of tickets. The TV deal will go away. I am going to guess that Karl is hoping for Lamar to move up. And finally, UTSA and TS@SM might have a rivalry but the fans sure don't know it. Check your basketball attendance from the last few years. Do the "Runners" even have a fan message board? I have seen about 3 or 4 fans making a lot of noise and I think that is the extent of their fan base.

I want to repeat (for like the 50th time) - I am hoping that you guys make it, but it is not going to be easy and you are not going to have the luxury of a real conference to help you out. If you pay your dues and put a good product on the field - I am sure that the Belt will consider an application for membership. What you are entering is an arrangement very much like the Big West. Our fan base watched as our program was almost dismantled because of the problems associated with it. The Belt saved our program and allowed us to rebuild what had been destroyed. You have a healthy athletic department as of today - but a couple years in the new WAC will fix that for you.

YouCanUseaMint · January 2, 2011

And if you go back and read what we said - our statements are being made on the facts and rules (as well as the history of the NCAA and how they have always defined/interpreted those rules). There are several rules that may or may not change - but the NCAA has been trying to stop Div I from expanding and changing the rules to make it easier (in any sport) will contradict everything that the NCAA has been trying to accomplish over the last decade. Yes, it might happen - but it is just as likely to not happen.

We agree here. Note: I wasn't saying I think we will get a waiver on the FBS conference requirement. I was simply asking the poster who stated we wouldn't be recognized as an entity (FBS or not) if he was making a few assumptions. And yes, he was.

I hope that you understand that your school just gave up your conference home for another Great West. If I was your AD, I would be looking for a way OUT of the invite and back into the Southland - as quickly as possible. Basically, you will be a group of schools that schedule one another but do not qualify for any playoffs or auto-bids. That is for Div I - non football matters. On the football side, let's say the new rules do pass... you would need a bona-fide FBS school to move to the WAC because you will no longer be a bona-fide conference (with only 7 members). Since you will not be a bona-fide conference, you will not be able to sponsor any additional schools to move up to FBS and get to the minimum of 8 schools. That means you will not be recognized by any entity - including the BCS. Each school will be treated as FBS Indies and get the token half unit amount. And all of these scenarios are based on the best possible situation, meaning that all the rules you would need would pass AND they would need to be interpreted the way that you want. Even with all of that, you will still not have access.

I disagree regarding your statement about the Great West. The direction of future expansion is clearly changing, but it won't be a crap-shoot of schools from every corner of the US simply placed together for scheduling purposes. Again, we will retain our auto-bids should the proposed legislation voiding the continuity requirement pass. In 2012, we will not have 7 members, but 8. I really don't want to keep bringing this up, so let's sit back and resurrect this point once the NCAA decides at their meeting in San Antonio in a few weeks. If we remain at 7 football playing members in July 2012, we will lose status status as an official FBS conference, but Benson says the only "negative there is losing seats on NCAA governance councils." He also claims our recognition isn't in jeopardy by the BCS.

As for bowl games - yes, you could get lucky and end up in a bowl game down here. Most likely it would be in some far off place that has trouble fillig the slot - like Detroit, the day after Christmas. But you will have to pay for that invite and guarantee a certain amount of tickets. The TV deal will go away. I am going to guess that Karl is hoping for Lamar to move up. And finally, UTSA and TS@SM might have a rivalry but the fans sure don't know it. Check your basketball attendance from the last few years. Do the "Runners" even have a fan message board? I have seen about 3 or 4 fans making a lot of noise and I think that is the extent of their fan base.

If Bowl games can contract with Independent programs, then why wouldn't they be allowed to contract with a conference lacking official FBS title? If you say that's the rule, then please provide proof because I couldn't find anything in my search. It's my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) that each school invited to a Bowl has to purchase an allotment of tickets and is responsible for selling them accordingly. In certain situations however, schools who don't have $400,000 or so need bailouts from the conference (see FIU). Is your point from the statement above that our league might not be able to afford to bail us out? Like I said before, a rivalry does exist with UTSA; it isn't anything like the red river rivalry, but it's there. And again, look for it to strengthen a great deal once we start our football series. Yes, the runners have a few a start-up boards trying to make it (here's the most common) and a branch of spurstalk's board.

I want to repeat (for like the 50th time) - I am hoping that you guys make it, but it is not going to be easy and you are not going to have the luxury of a real conference to help you out. If you pay your dues and put a good product on the field - I am sure that the Belt will consider an application for membership. What you are entering is an arrangement very much like the Big West. Our fan base watched as our program was almost dismantled because of the problems associated with it. The Belt saved our program and allowed us to rebuild what had been destroyed. You have a healthy athletic department as of today - but a couple years in the new WAC will fix that for you.

I appreciate the support from a handful of North Texas folks. But again, I disagree whether you are talking about the Great West or Big West. The WAC is a real conference (it has the 8 members required to be a conference); geography is leading to divisional play, which would help the east teams like LaTech, TXST, UTSA, and NMSU. I would like to say, however, that this discussion is very informational (for myself and others I am sure) and I appreciate the serious responses. :thumbsup:

YouCanUseaMint · January 2, 2011

On another note, I did some digging to find concrete writing regarding continuity discussion:

31.3.4.4.1 Multi-Sport Conference. To be considered eligible for automatic qualification in a particular sport, a multi-sport conference must include six core institutions that satisfy continuity-of-membership. For the purposes of this legislation, core refers to an institution that has been an active member of Division I the eight preceding years. Further, the continuity-of-membership requirement shall be met only if a minimum of six core institutions have conducted conference competition together in Division I the preceding two years in the applicable sport. There shall be no exceptions to the two-year period. Any new member added to a conference that satisfies the continuity of membership requirements shall be immediately eligible to represent the conference as the automatic qualifier. (Revised: 4/27/00, 10/00, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 8/5/04)

31.3.4.4.3 Grace Period. A conference shall remain eligible for automatic qualification for two years following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s membership to fall below six institutions, or below six members with continuity of membership, provided the conference maintains at least five Division I members. (Adopted: 8/5/04)

I didn't know a grace period was allowed, FWIW.

rcade · January 2, 2011

Ok we had one bad season this last year, but still managed to topple a top 10 SFA. We fired our coach and are in the process of hiring one who can coach FBS ball. Yes our basketball sucks, but we have really good baseball, facilities to compete in, and a budget that shows are making a commitment. And like I said MG61, yall have nothing to be jealous of. Personally, I can't wait for our two schools to sign a deal to revive our football series.

I'm looking forward to some UNT/Texas State games also.

Aquila_Viridis · January 2, 2011

Even if you're going to stick it out on your own in a conference like TCU, you still need a rival. They play their annual Battle for the Iron Skillet game every year and did you see what it did to SMU attendance? That could be you.

The only potential rivalry of significance instate is Houston. The fact they are opening the new stadium is a good sign. It should be annual, battle of the two public institutions that represent the two significant metro areas. The private schools can have their fun. TCU certainly is an inspiration, shows what can be accomplished with an unwavering commitment to the program, but SMU and TCU do not represent the region. Likewise, TSU not to be confused with Texas Southern does not represent anything other than San Marcos. Are you comparing San Marcos to the nation's fourth largest metro area? You could have a more appropriate rivalry with UTA which makes about as much sense as UTSA since they don't have a football team either. Division 1 public university football at SM and UTSA with UT right here is about as ridiculous a waste of state money as the giant Waller ISD stadium I saw sticking up out of the middle of nowhere on my way down 290 today. Be happy with FCS. Oh by the way even PVAM has a sign out there with a picture of a big stadium on 290.

Aquila_Viridis · January 2, 2011

Oh and in the general theme of 'me too' 'me too' 'me too', I saw a score come up on ESPN the other day of mens basketball UT Tyler against TSU. Good grief, Charlie Brown.

YouCanUseaMint · January 2, 2011

Are you comparing San Marcos to the nation's fourth largest metro area? You could have a more appropriate rivalry with UTA which makes about as much sense as UTSA since they don't have a football team either. Division 1 public university football at SM and UTSA with UT right here is about as ridiculous a waste of state money as the giant Waller ISD stadium I saw sticking up out of the middle of nowhere on my way down 290 today. Be happy with FCS.

What are you referencing with your first point? When did I say DFW > Austin/RR/SM?

"UTSA with UT right here" and "Division 1 public university at SM?" Real mature. And mind telling me what's a waste of money at these two schools? The students are paying for the move to FBS, not the state. Get over yourself.

Aquila_Viridis · January 3, 2011

What are you referencing with your first point? When did I say DFW > Austin/RR/SM?

"UTSA with UT right here" and "Division 1 public university at SM?" Real mature. And mind telling me what's a waste of money at these two schools? The students are paying for the move to FBS, not the state. Get over yourself.

I think you misunderstood. What I meant by that part is, you are in an overloaded market. The Longhorns are already here in central Texas; there is no need for anymore FBS football programs at state institutions in this area, and the available talent will not support it given the other FBS programs in the state and neighboring states and even other states, already competing for the talent. But even so, if our legislature will cancel Texas Tech and split all their resources evenly between UNT and TSU then you will have all my support.

YouCanUseaMint · January 3, 2011

I think you misunderstood. What I meant by that part is, you are in an overloaded market. The Longhorns are already here in central Texas; there is no need for anymore FBS football programs at state institutions in this area, and the available talent will not support it given the other FBS programs in the state and neighboring states and even other states, already competing for the talent. But even so, if our legislature will cancel Texas Tech and split all their resources evenly between UNT and TSU then you will have all my support.

Remember, there are 2.5 million people within a 50 mile radius of San Marcos. And I think there is enough talent to go around. Other states recruit heavily out of Texas, yet our home universities do just fine in finding talent. If anything, TXST will open up more scholarships to kids who might not want to play college ball up in Wyoming. Plus Rice and SMU often don't recruit the same kind of kids as the state schools, so I wouldn't count those.