UTSA distancing from realignment talk

Harry · January 13, 2013

"Just to be clear, I'm more excited about this group (in 2013) than I've ever been", C-USA commissioner Britton Banowsky said. "The enthusiasm we have is great. We've put ourselves in great shape going forward. We can still lose members, and that's OK, because we have a great core in place."

"It's a group with a whole lot of upside potential."

In fact, Banowsky said that C-USA has plans for a 14-team football conference this fall, two more than expected.

Middle Tennessee and Florida Atlantic, he said, are strong candidates to play in the conference a year ahead of their projected 2014 entry.

If Banowsky can close the deal before the end of the month, those two would join UTSA, UTEP, North Texas, Rice, Tulsa and Tulane, as well as Louisiana Tech, East Carolina, Marshall, Southern Mississippi, Alabama-Birmingham and Florida International in the largest C-USA field in history.

East Carolina and Tulane already have agreed to leave and join the Big East a year from now, so C-USA is tentatively scheduled to revert to a dozen members in 2014.

Plans call for the conference to increase to 14 again by 2015 with the addition of Old Dominion and Charlotte.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/UTSA-distancing-from-realignment-talk-4189872.php#ixzz2HryrdNJ4

wardly · January 13, 2013

Harry,if Tulsa leaves for Big East,and I think they will,who would you replace them with?

drex · January 13, 2013

I don't know about Harry's thoughts, but my vote is for Missouri State. They would need to upgrade in football, but all the other things are in place. They have a nice corner on the market in a metro area of about 200,000.

mgfan · January 13, 2013

No more fcs more ups!

shaft · January 13, 2013

"Just to be clear, I'm more excited about this group (in 2013) than I've ever been", C-USA commissioner Britton Banowsky said.

I agree, I like the 2013 CUSA with Tulane & ECU better than the 2014 CUSA with MTSU & FAU.

I really hope SDSU stays in the MWC and gives CUSA a shot a keeping Tulane & ECU.

wardly · January 13, 2013

Are you serious? This is a bit, right?

My guess is A-State.

Side Show Joe · January 13, 2013

C-USA doesn't need to expand. As long as we have 12, we should be fine. I'm good with an odd number of members. I think it would be better then further watering down C-USA. Ever time the new C-USA expands, it becomes more like the old Sun Belt. We need to sit tight. I think Tulsa may be the last chess piece on the board for the NBE, and we will finally have some stability. I'd hate to lose Tulsa, but UNT would still be in a good western division with Rice, UTEP, LA Tech, UTSA, and maybe Southern Miss

Edited January 13, 2013 by Side Show Joe

Mean Green 93-98 · January 13, 2013

C-USA doesn't need to expand. As long as we have 12, we should be fine. I'm good with an odd number of members. I think it would be better then further watering down C-USA. Ever time the new C-USA expands, it becomes more like the old Sun Belt. We need to sit tight. I think Tulsa may be the last chess piece on the board for the NBE, and we will finally have some stability. I'd hate to lose Tulsa, but UNT would still be in a good western division with Rice, UTEP, LA Tech, UTSA, and maybe Southern Miss

Thank you. I wish this would have been Banowsky's approach about 5 additions ago.

drex · January 13, 2013

I never kid about Missouri State.

Arkstfan · January 13, 2013

C-USA doesn't need to expand. As long as we have 12, we should be fine. I'm good with an odd number of members. I think it would be better then further watering down C-USA. Ever time the new C-USA expands, it becomes more like the old Sun Belt. We need to sit tight. I think Tulsa may be the last chess piece on the board for the NBE, and we will finally have some stability. I'd hate to lose Tulsa, but UNT would still be in a good western division with Rice, UTEP, LA Tech, UTSA, and maybe Southern Miss

"Further watering down" is an interesting turn of phrase considering CUSA has added 8 schools for football rated lower in the BCS or Sagarin than Arkansas State. Seven rated lower than Louisiana and six lower than Western Kentucky.

SilverEagle · January 13, 2013

"Further watering down" is an interesting turn of phrase considering CUSA has added 8 schools for football rated lower in the BCS or Sagarin than Arkansas State. Seven rated lower than Louisiana and six lower than Western Kentucky.

LaLa or Tech?

CurveItAround · January 13, 2013

"Further watering down" is an interesting turn of phrase considering CUSA has added 8 schools for football rated lower in the BCS or Sagarin than Arkansas State. Seven rated lower than Louisiana and six lower than Western Kentucky.

Maybe we should use more than the last two years to form an opinion? If so, ArkSt's and UL's football 'history' are not nearly as vaunted as you like to continually suggest. Time will tell.

Edited January 13, 2013 by CurveItAround

mgfan · January 13, 2013

I have a feeling utep will end up in the mwc. if that happens and the Big East takes Tulsa who do we reload with? Texas State pretty close to an FCS move up or another sunbelt team? or sit tight?

Edited January 13, 2013 by mgfan

Side Show Joe · January 13, 2013

"Further watering down" is an interesting turn of phrase considering CUSA has added 8 schools for football rated lower in the BCS or Sagarin than Arkansas State. Seven rated lower than Louisiana and six lower than Western Kentucky.

The term "further watering down" refers to the loss of C-USA teams and replacing them with programs that won't excite our fan base. Tulane, ECU, and now maybe Tulsa were all teams most of our fans looked forward to being in a conference with. It isn't a knock on the Sun Belt, but many graduates and fans, really don't care for most of the teams in the Sun Belt. Many people that follow college football in Texas don't know who Arkansas State is, and even fewer care. We have a large alumni base in the Dallas/Fort Worth region. I could care less where Sagarin rates teams. I care that UNT can conference with programs our alumni and fan base perceive to be higher up on the food chain.

Arkstfan · January 14, 2013

Maybe we should use more than the last two years to form an opinion? If so, ArkSt's and UL's football 'history' are not nearly as vaunted as you like to continually suggest. Time will tell.

Five years:

7 of 8 rated below Arkansas State and Louisiana (Tech narrowly beats ASU by about the same margin as ASU over ULL)

Four lower than WKU.

Arkstfan · January 14, 2013

The term "further watering down" refers to the loss of C-USA teams and replacing them with programs that won't excite our fan base. Tulane, ECU, and now maybe Tulsa were all teams most of our fans looked forward to being in a conference with. It isn't a knock on the Sun Belt, but many graduates and fans, really don't care for most of the teams in the Sun Belt. Many people that follow college football in Texas don't know who Arkansas State is, and even fewer care. We have a large alumni base in the Dallas/Fort Worth region. I could care less where Sagarin rates teams. I care that UNT can conference with programs our alumni and fan base perceive to be higher up on the food chain.

I can understand not liking the expansion choices since of the 8 only two are in your region and one of those is UTSA. At the last Sun Belt spring meeting before the CUSA raid UNT was told if the school were to make the motion to accept one or both of UTSA and Texas State that it would receive unanimous support and during old business, UNT elected to make no motion.

PlummMeanGreen · January 14, 2013

I can understand not liking the expansion choices since of the 8 only two are in your region and one of those is UTSA. At the last Sun Belt spring meeting before the CUSA raid UNT was told if the school were to make the motion to accept one or both of UTSA and Texas State that it would receive unanimous support and during old business, UNT elected to make no motion.

I believe it was actually at last year's SBC basketball tourney that one of the SBC Conference powers that be wives was going around telling all within earshot that: "North Texas is gone...they are definitely going to CUSA." A friend of mine at that tourney was within earshot of those remarks, so why should UNT make any motion knowing it was not going to be around in the very near future?

GMG!

Side Show Joe · January 14, 2013

I can understand not liking the expansion choices since of the 8 only two are in your region and one of those is UTSA. At the last Sun Belt spring meeting before the CUSA raid UNT was told if the school were to make the motion to accept one or both of UTSA and Texas State that it would receive unanimous support and during old business, UNT elected to make no motion.

I'm sure UNT had no interest in adding Texas State or UTSA to the Sun Belt. Why would we? Texas has enough FBS programs already. UNT has wanted in a conference with established regional rivals. The Sun Belt was never going to be able to lure Rice, UTEP, or Tulsa away from C-USA. I am warming up to UTSA. I like San Antonio.

Arkstfan · January 14, 2013

I believe it was actually at last year's SBC basketball tourney that one of the SBC Conference powers that be wives was going around telling all within earshot that: "North Texas is gone...they are definitely going to CUSA." A friend of mine at that tourney was within earshot of those remarks, so why should UNT make any motion knowing it was not going to be around in the very near future?

GMG!

Wrong year. UNT announced May 3, Spring meetings are the week before the Memorial Day Holiday.

Arkstfan · January 14, 2013

I'm sure UNT had no interest in adding Texas State or UTSA to the Sun Belt. Why would we? Texas has enough FBS programs already. UNT has wanted in a conference with established regional rivals. The Sun Belt was never going to be able to lure Rice, UTEP, or Tulsa away from C-USA. I am warming up to UTSA. I like San Antonio.

Totally understand wanting to align with UTSA, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane and said so when UNT joined, but UTSA was available to be a Sun Belt and UNT didn't want them.

Mean Green Matt · January 14, 2013

Totally understand wanting to align with UTSA, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane and said so when UNT joined, but UTSA was available to be a Sun Belt and UNT didn't want them.

That's because part of that deal would be being with the rest of the Sun Belt. I'm not happy about FAU or FIU coming along with us, but at least we get a good program in MTSU and for now get to drop the rest of the bunch.

UNTexas · January 14, 2013

At first I wasn't sure about UTSA because they are a new program but I like them now. The way I see it is schools like South Florida are good programs and they haven't been playing football very long. Additionally, it will be a fun game to go to. To bad I can't wait until Fall to go see Crockett's letter from the Alamo on display and kill two birds with one stone because its only out for viewing for two weeks. I guess I get two SA trips this year. (Yes, I am a super dork with history.) Assuming its a road game. UTSA will be a great team for us in the long run.

Edited January 14, 2013 by UNTexas

CurveItAround · January 14, 2013

Totally understand wanting to align with UTSA, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane and said so when UNT joined, but UTSA was available to be a Sun Belt and UNT didn't want them.

If UNT knew (or felt that it was very likely) that we would get into CUSA in the near term, why would we want to add in state teams to a regional conference that we were confident we were leaving? It is entirely possible that CUSA was even encouraging us not to assist the SBC by adding high growth potential programs. There are just way to many variables to know what was going on at the time.

Arkstfan · January 14, 2013

If UNT knew (or felt that it was very likely) that we would get into CUSA in the near term, why would we want to add in state teams to a regional conference that we were confident we were leaving? It is entirely possible that CUSA was even encouraging us not to assist the SBC by adding high growth potential programs. There are just way to many variables to know what was going on at the time.

The variable at that time was if the Sun Belt added one of the teams headed to the WAC, the WAC ceased operation.

The ACC had not added Syracuse or Pitt and the rumor mill believed the ACC was done.

GrayEagle · January 14, 2013

Britton Banowsky erred badly in his rush to replace CUSA defectors. It's not that he didn't get potentially good replacements but adding moveups and basing his decisions (save LaTech) on markets was wrong. In business, if you promote the young neophyte over someone who has proved their worth over time the results are distrust and low morale. I see a similar parallel here.

There not being a glut of qualified teams, I believe that BB should have only added to maintain the level of 12. He had four to replace initially and North Texas, Louisiana Tech, Louisiana and Arkansas State should have been the choices in my opinion. All have been in Division 1-A at least 25 years with degrees of success. Louisiana has averaged 26,000 attendance over the last two years and Arkansas State 25,000 last year. Both have been to bowls the last two years. Louisiana has beaten San Diego State and East Carolina in those two bowls and last year was largely responsible for a record 48,000+ attendance at the New Orleans Bowl.

He might have also considered the option of raiding the MAC of the two or three teams that have had decent teams and attendance lately. The MAC has some good teams but their attendance is bad. Only Ohio and Toledo fulfill both qualifications currently. NIU was a BCS qualifying team and only averaged 15K last year but they have had better attendance in the past.

Then, on the defection of the final two, I would add Middle Tennessee for sure and then I'm faced with a decision. The next in line based on record and attendance would be Troy. But, Troy is considered a maverick by several/many universities. At that point in time it's time to consider UTSA. San Antonio is a large tourist-destination city with a bowl game but no FBS membership. They have a coach with national credentials and a 65,000 seat stadium available and the backing of the city. They have been drawing 30,000 playing Division II teams. I would then make the call and add UTSA due to the special circumstances.

I would not consider going beyond 12 teams unless some top MAC teams are interested.