State fan reports Sun Belt will offer La. Tech & Texas State

Harry · February 27, 2012

The 2 new additions are La Tech and Texas St. It could be the other Texas school but this is what I've heard. Both Texas schools will be joining for sure if We lose FIU or UNT. Sorry Georgia St and App St but you didn't make the cut.

It might make sense for Benson to move on expansion prior to the Alliance, especially if they think the Alliance will grab some Sun Belt teams. In this environment there is strength in numbers.

Read more: http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=557537

MDH · February 27, 2012

Smart move by Benson if true.

Forces Tech's hand by joining now or being passed over for UTSA.

If Benson forces schools to sign exit fee clauses, it may force our hand or face burning our pocketbook a la Fresno St/Nevada.

Harry · February 27, 2012

The irony in all this is that Benson could very possibly be the one who dismantles the WAC, the conference he had such a hand in making.

La. Tech is saying that they will wait on the Belt to hear what the alliance may offer. It doesn't seem that they have that luxury anymore. There are a number of qualified programs who would love to be in the Belt. If they want to play hardball, so be it.

NorthTexan95 · February 27, 2012

Supposedly the Sun Belt told La Tech they needed to join by the end of April. That matches up with the goal of having the new alliance finalized by May 1st.

kalebschumann · February 27, 2012

It's not a bad strategy.

And it keeps UTSA out of the belt- which a lot of us seem to want for some reason.

I think this is about as good of play as you could make.

UNT90 · February 27, 2012

La Tech = Good

Tx St. = bad

But, we are quoting some guy on a message board, right?

VideoEagle · February 27, 2012

[quote name='UNT90' timestamp='1330351320' post='628615'

But, we are quoting some guy on a message board, right?

Rudy · February 27, 2012

I'd like to find a way to add App State. I know we don't want to be a Start up league, but aren't they at least a powerhouse in FCS, or am I thinking of someone else?

It will be funny to see how La Tech swallows their pride and tries to spin this.

GrandGreen · February 27, 2012

I wonder why anyone puts any credibility into this kind of supposition. La Tech will have little choice if they are not chosen for the alliance. Picking TSSM over UTSA and several other move ups makes little sense to me.

Daddy Dumpsalot · February 27, 2012

There are a number of qualified programs who would love to be in the Belt.

I think this needs to be qualified with "vs. not being in a conference period" and even some of those would prob rather go independent. There are no D1 schools outside of possibly the WAC that desire this conference.

kalebschumann · February 27, 2012

Why are people hating on picking up the "Start Ups"...

At this point in the game, what other choice do we have? We can complain all we want to about not getting teams before the Big East expansion or the Alliance Merger, but that does us no good.

The fact of the matter is this:

-The merger is likely to poach off 1-3 teams from the Belt. We need account for the attrition. It's simple math. And who is going to replace these teams? Our best option is to grab start ups. Places like UTSA and Texas St have the whole Texas thing working for them. Additionally, LaTech, UTSA, and TexasSt add the possibility of making a geographically logical West Division of the Sun Belt.

It makes logical sense to me.

TIgreen01 · February 27, 2012

Why are people hating on picking up the "Start Ups"...

At this point in the game, what other choice do we have? We can complain all we want to about not getting teams before the Big East expansion or the Alliance Merger, but that does us no good.

The fact of the matter is this:

-The merger is likely to poach off 1-3 teams from the Belt. We need account for the attrition. It's simple math. And who is going to replace these teams? Our best option is to grab start ups. Places like UTSA and Texas St have the whole Texas thing working for them. Additionally, LaTech, UTSA, and TexasSt add the possibility of making a geographically logical West Division of the Sun Belt.

It makes logical sense to me.

Here's why:

- If the BCS throws out automatic qualifiers, then SMU, Houston, Boise, SDSU return to CUSA & the MWC.

- The merger still likely happens, but their need to expand just vaporized

- If the Alliance does not expand, there will be no teams poached from the Sun Belt

- If there are no teams poached from the Sun Belt, why add FCS teams or startups??

I think LaTech is there for the taking regardless of how this all plays out. Benson's move gets the conference to 12 (and adds a championship game), kills the WAC and possibly UTSA...but does add one more Texas based FBS team. It's probably a shrewd move b/c if the Sun Belt waits until all of this sorts out, and the above scenario plays out (ie--no teams are taken from the Sun Belt or WAC), it'll have blood on it's hands if it takes any teams from the WAC in order to get to 12 teams. Act now, and you can pass it off as self defense. Wait, and we are homicidal maniacs.

rcade · February 27, 2012

I'd like to find a way to add App State. I know we don't want to be a Start up league, but aren't they at least a powerhouse in FCS, or am I thinking of someone else?

They are. They beat Michigan a few years ago in one of the biggest upsets in college football history.

foutsrouts · February 27, 2012

Here's why:

- If the BCS throws out automatic qualifiers, then SMU, Houston, Boise, SDSU return to CUSA & the MWC.
- The merger still likely happens, but their need to expand just vaporized
- If the Alliance does not expand, there will be no teams poached from the Sun Belt
- If there are no teams poached from the Sun Belt, why add FCS teams or startups??

I think LaTech is there for the taking regardless of how this all plays out. Benson's move gets the conference to 12 (and adds a championship game), kills the WAC and possibly UTSA...but does add one more Texas based FBS team. It's probably a shrewd move b/c if the Sun Belt waits until all of this sorts out, and the above scenario plays out (ie--no teams are taken from the Sun Belt or WAC), it'll have blood on it's hands if it takes any teams from the WAC in order to get to 12 teams. Act now, and you can pass it off as self defense. Wait, and we are homicidal maniacs.

Does this mean that we might have the opportunity to blackball smu down the road? Now that would be fun!

El Paso Eagle · February 27, 2012

Here's why:

- If the BCS throws out automatic qualifiers, then SMU, Houston, Boise, SDSU return to CUSA & the MWC.
- The merger still likely happens, but their need to expand just vaporized
- If the Alliance does not expand, there will be no teams poached from the Sun Belt
- If there are no teams poached from the Sun Belt, why add FCS teams or startups??

I think LaTech is there for the taking regardless of how this all plays out. Benson's move gets the conference to 12 (and adds a championship game), kills the WAC and possibly UTSA...but does add one more Texas based FBS team. It's probably a shrewd move b/c if the Sun Belt waits until all of this sorts out, and the above scenario plays out (ie--no teams are taken from the Sun Belt or WAC), it'll have blood on it's hands if it takes any teams from the WAC in order to get to 12 teams. Act now, and you can pass it off as self defense. Wait, and we are homicidal maniacs.

IMO … If somehow the Big East expansion reverses and these teams have a chance to go back, I could see this maybe happening with the MWC teams, but I think SMU and U of H stay. I think the “Alliance” would be off and then both the MWC and CUSA would try to get to 12

Rudy · February 27, 2012

They are. They beat Michigan a few years ago in one of the biggest upsets in college football history.

Did we just agree on something?

Wanna go do karate in the garage?

keith · February 27, 2012

Here's why:

- If the BCS throws out automatic qualifiers, then SMU, Houston, Boise, SDSU return to CUSA & the MWC.
- The merger still likely happens, but their need to expand just vaporized
- If the Alliance does not expand, there will be no teams poached from the Sun Belt
- If there are no teams poached from the Sun Belt, why add FCS teams or startups??

I think LaTech is there for the taking regardless of how this all plays out. Benson's move gets the conference to 12 (and adds a championship game), kills the WAC and possibly UTSA...but does add one more Texas based FBS team. It's probably a shrewd move b/c if the Sun Belt waits until all of this sorts out, and the above scenario plays out (ie--no teams are taken from the Sun Belt or WAC), it'll have blood on it's hands if it takes any teams from the WAC in order to get to 12 teams. Act now, and you can pass it off as self defense. Wait, and we are homicidal maniacs.

That's a pretty big if to setup this scenario isn't it? I don't recall the offers or acceptance of offers being contingent on the continuation of the current AQ setup.

Is the BCS really considering this and have they picked a date for making a decision? Is that date before or after Houston, SMU, et. al. move to the Big East? If it's after, then hasn't the boat already sailed? I don't know if you can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. There would be too much to unwind.

Keith

NorthTexan95 · February 27, 2012

That's a pretty big if to setup this scenario isn't it? I don't recall the offers or acceptance of offers being contingent on the continuation of the current AQ setup.

Is the BCS really considering this and have they picked a date for making a decision? Is that date before or after Houston, SMU, et. al. move to the Big East? If it's after, then hasn't the boat already sailed? I don't know if you can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. There would be too much to unwind.

Keith

These are the exact questions I've been wondering about.

BCS has had some meetings ... there are plenty of rumors ... but nothing definate and I don't see them making a decision quickly. Meanwhile, the Alliance has a goal to have the new league finalized by May 1st of this year.

When does the move of Boise, SMU, Houston, etc become official and they are bound by the supposedly $20 million fee to leave the Big East? From rumors it appears they aren't locked in yet but who knows when that becomes binding - maybe not until 2013. (I'm assuming SMU, Houston, etc are not moving until 2013).

I also think that the Big East tv deal won't be any better than the Alliance so the only difference would be BCS money, which while significant, is not guarenteed if AQ status goes away or if the Alliance gets a seat at the AQ table.

So ... I think the big questions are when are these teams bound to the Big East and when will AQ status be decided. The Alliance could hold off on adding any teams until one of these questions is answered.

NorthTexan95 · February 27, 2012

Is the BCS really considering a playoff? The 'plus 1' model has been talked about by various conference presidents and eliminating auto-qualifiers is talked about in almost the same breath. That said, who knows if they are "really" considering it or just posturing.

I've heard lots of talk about AQ status going away. I've also heard rumors about at least a +1 if not more. Supposedly, the Big 10 has changed course and is now in favor of some kind of playoff. They were always one of the big blockers of having a playoff.

Cr1028 · February 27, 2012

Did we just agree on something?

Wanna go do karate in the garage?

YEP! :goodjob: John Stamos.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Cr1028

TIgreen01 · February 27, 2012

These are the exact questions I've been wondering about.

BCS has had some meetings ... there are plenty of rumors ... but nothing definate and I don't see them making a decision quickly. Meanwhile, the Alliance has a goal to have the new league finalized by May 1st of this year.

When does the move of Boise, SMU, Houston, etc become official and they are bound by the supposedly $20 million fee to leave the Big East? From rumors it appears they aren't locked in yet but who knows when that becomes binding - maybe not until 2013. (I'm assuming SMU, Houston, etc are not moving until 2013).

I also think that the Big East tv deal won't be any better than the Alliance so the only difference would be BCS money, which while significant, is not guarenteed if AQ status goes away or if the Alliance gets a seat at the AQ table.

So ... I think the big questions are when are these teams bound to the Big East and when will AQ status be decided. The Alliance could hold off on adding any teams until one of these questions is answered.

Good post...almost exactly my thoughts on the subject. My first post was just pointing out the scenario based on all the various rumors...but, like Keith7 and you, I really have no idea how likely it is to happen. It's just fishy that SMU/UH/etc are waiting as long as possible to officially join. Maybe it's really not fishy and it just takes this long to get all the legal ducks in a row---but you'd have thought that stuff would be mostly taken care of before SMU/UH/etc publicly left their current conferences.

forevereagle · February 27, 2012

These are the exact questions I've been wondering about.

BCS has had some meetings ... there are plenty of rumors ... but nothing definate and I don't see them making a decision quickly. Meanwhile, the Alliance has a goal to have the new league finalized by May 1st of this year.

When does the move of Boise, SMU, Houston, etc become official and they are bound by the supposedly $20 million fee to leave the Big East? From rumors it appears they aren't locked in yet but who knows when that becomes binding - maybe not until 2013. (I'm assuming SMU, Houston, etc are not moving until 2013).

I also think that the Big East tv deal won't be any better than the Alliance so the only difference would be BCS money, which while significant, is not guarenteed if AQ status goes away or if the Alliance gets a seat at the AQ table.

So ... I think the big questions are when are these teams bound to the Big East and when will AQ status be decided. The Alliance could hold off on adding any teams until one of these questions is answered.

If I recall, TCU paid the $5 million exit fee even though they hand't played a game in the BE, but didn't have the waiting period. I would assume that since a similar commitment has been made, the new teams would be subject to the exit fee.

shaft · February 28, 2012

I find it hard to believe LA Tech would join the SBC before they know the outcome of the CUSA/MWC merger.

No school wants to pull a TCU and pay and admission and exit fee to a conference before they every play a game in it.

I also find it hard to think TxSt would beat out UTSA. Neither is proven product, but UTSA has a huge market upside.

rcade · February 28, 2012

Wanna go do karate in the garage?

Electric football.

GrayEagle · February 28, 2012

I find it hard to believe LA Tech would join the SBC before they know the outcome of the CUSA/MWC merger.
No school wants to pull a TCU and pay and admission and exit fee to a conference before they every play a game in it.

I also find it hard to think TxSt would beat out UTSA. Neither is proven product, but UTSA has a huge market upside.

TCU wouldn't have left the BE unless they had a better offer; hence no exit fee. The entrance fee is security. But, yeah, Boise State pulled a boner and led San Diego State to do the same without fully thinking of the consequences. They're the ones who may end up paying something for nothing. I believe that the three CUSA will stick by their guns. At least they will help with the TV contract.

Texas State has fielded football teams for seventy years that I've known about. Franchione, although he doesn't have a national championship in his resume, has been highly successful at four other FBS schools. They have made a financial commitment with their home stadium. Their revenue has kicked in at the $22 million level whereas UTSA's has not (even though the students at both have agreed to maximum levels). UTSA hasn't played a FBS team yet and won't be a member for two more years so Texas State can enter the SBC a year before UTSA would be eligible. UTSA did a marvelous job with ticket sales last year even if they were laced with (rumored) freebies. But, are they fluff or are they substance? We won't know for a few years. Texas State is older and larger and more of a known commodity. San Antonio is a good market but a market alone won't gain access without some track record. UTSA simply doesn't have it yet. I believe that they will in time but as commissioner Banowsky says, "They need to mature".

Edited February 28, 2012 by GrayEagle