View Full Version : SLC: What the Non-FB Schools Have Done About FB
TexasTerror
April 30th, 2007, 11:02 AM
A bit of a preview of what to expect and what has gone on at the non-football playing institutions in the SLC who may add football...though this article is a bit outdated.
There's been some updates on a few fronts...may have to wait til your next visit down south to hear those... xthumbsupx
What others have done
Realities of reviving Islander football
By MICHAEL SELF
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi officials are considering adding a football team by 2010, when enrollment is proje**cted to reach 10,000 students.
A feasibility report released January 22, 2007, by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA), suggested that a Division I-AA football program would add an element that may be missing from the Texas A&M-Corpus Christi experience, and thus raise enrollment.
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi is not alone in its thinking. Other state schools, such as the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) and Lamar University have all considered the same idea — and after thought and research — decided against the athletic addition.
http://www.corpusbeat.org/ViewPost.ASPX?PostObjectID=7024
Za-KEE-uS
April 30th, 2007, 11:27 AM
That would be great, I dont think any of those school should have a hard time getting football teams, they all have more funding than Louisiana schools in the SLC.
TexasTerror
April 30th, 2007, 12:30 PM
That would be great, I dont think any of those school should have a hard time getting football teams, they all have more funding than Louisiana schools in the SLC.
Some of these athletic departments have more funding than the Louisiana schools without even having football... xnonono2x
GeauxColonels
May 1st, 2007, 12:19 AM
That would be great, I dont think any of those school should have a hard time getting football teams, they all have more funding than Louisiana schools in the SLC.
....and more students than Nicholls State.
Fresno St. Alum
May 1st, 2007, 01:22 AM
It's a real long shot but it would be nice to have all 4 add football. You'd have 12 teams for football. That's how it should be.
*****
May 1st, 2007, 01:58 AM
It's a real long shot but it would be nice to have all 4 add football. You'd have 12 teams for football. That's how it should be.xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx 12 team conferences is "how it should be"??????? How do you figure that? When you go to figure the AQ you have conf members who may have not played each other! Seems like 9-8-7 are more ideal. Play a conf schedule and have room for FCS OOC and FBS.
Fresno St. Alum
May 1st, 2007, 02:25 AM
CAA does it. So you'd rather have the 8 that are there and not the others. I'd like to see a conference title game but with the playoffs its not possible. Plus what if UTSA and Texas St. leave. You protect your conference numbers for FB that way. I'd rather see the 4 have football and do what many D-I and D-II conference do with 12 than just have the 8 like it is now.
Fresno St. Alum
May 1st, 2007, 02:27 AM
I wish that every college could have a football team.
slycat
May 1st, 2007, 02:59 AM
it would suck if they all added football. i dont like the idea of spliting a conference into regions where you only play some teams every other year. plus it would take away from the OOC.
but if a team does add football i think A&M CC would be the best location since there arent football teams near there.
Fresno St. Alum
May 1st, 2007, 03:04 AM
You play 7 conf games now. you could have 5 from your side and 2 cross overs. But don't worry it won't happen like that anyway I was just pointing out I'd love to see all of them add. You have 2 schools wanting to be FBS one that doesn't even have FB and 3 more thinking about adding. It won't shake down as a 12 FB SLC. But I don't mind the 2 divisions.
GeauxColonels
May 1st, 2007, 07:42 AM
it would suck if they all added football. i dont like the idea of spliting a conference into regions where you only play some teams every other year. plus it would take away from the OOC.
but if a team does add football i think A&M CC would be the best location since there arent football teams near there.
Texas A&M-Kingsville is pretty close to Corpus Christi if I'm not mistaken. They're usually a pretty good D-II team.
TexasTerror
May 1st, 2007, 08:20 AM
SLC needs just one more school to add football...
Then, we'd have eight SLC games (four home/four away). Then, SLC teams could make a very fan friendly schedule with one sub-Div I game (if not none), one FBS game and one (if not two) FCS game (rotates home and away each year).
So, each team would have six games every other year (if not yearly) with four of those being SLC contests -- got to love that! It'd help improve chances of conference at getting at-large since it'd more than likely eliminate an additional FBS or sub-Div I game...
MplsBison
May 1st, 2007, 08:35 AM
SLC needs just one more school to add football...
Then, we'd have eight SLC games (four home/four away).
Adding 2 would be better. You'd still have four home/four away without leaving a conference team without a conference game every week.
TexasTerror
May 1st, 2007, 08:53 AM
Adding 2 would be better. You'd still have four home/four away without leaving a conference team without a conference game every week.
How would adding two work? You'd have one team each year that you were not playing.
Who cares about giving a conference team a bye? It may help with scheduling -- especially with the SWAC doing away with the mandate.
SWAC teams have awkward windows to fill throughout what is normally a conference slate for others due to when they have several games set (i.e Labor Day Classic). With GWFC needing scheduling -- and a constant scheduling partner with SLC -- when they can get it, even if it's the last week or two of season, I don't think it's worthwhile to add two.
Seat16Demon
May 1st, 2007, 10:48 AM
Just add 1 and be done. If the aforementioned Texas St. and UTSA decide to leave the conference for 'greener pastures' we could probably pick up a couple other football programs without a terribly difficult struggle.
chrisattsu
May 1st, 2007, 11:03 AM
Just add 1 and be done. If the aforementioned Texas St. and UTSA decide to leave the conference for 'greener pastures' we could probably pick up a couple other football programs without a terribly difficult struggle.
So if the SLC was to add one more team, would they
A. Add Tarleton State, someone they have looked at in the past. (Travel Partner for UTA)
B. Add Texas A&M Kingsville, someone with a long history of success (TP for TAMUCC)
C. Add Central Oklahoma to expand the SLC brand into a new state
D. Add West Texas A&M, who has facilities from their previous stint in D1 and has found recent success in both football and basketball.
Or somebody else?
TexasTerror
May 1st, 2007, 12:39 PM
So if the SLC was to add one more team, would they
A. Add Tarleton State, someone they have looked at in the past. (Travel Partner for UTA)
B. Add Texas A&M Kingsville, someone with a long history of success (TP for TAMUCC)
C. Add Central Oklahoma to expand the SLC brand into a new state
D. Add West Texas A&M, who has facilities from their previous stint in D1 and has found recent success in both football and basketball.
Or somebody else?
From a competitive standpoint...Delta State is the best option for the SLC! I've talked about it numerous times and I continue to stand by it... :)
DFW HOYA
May 1st, 2007, 01:34 PM
UTA would make sense... but since it's the UTA admin. that we're talking about and their ongoing lack of vision in such matters, go with West Texas State.
chrisattsu
May 1st, 2007, 01:44 PM
UTA would make sense... but since it's the UTA admin. that we're talking about and their ongoing lack of vision in such matters, go with West Texas State.
If the D2 board was up I would show thread after thread of how on poster feels that the WT administration is inept
MplsBison
May 1st, 2007, 01:50 PM
You'd have one team each year that you were not playing.
Who cares about giving a conference team a bye?
Leaving a conference team out in the cold each week is worse than not playing one conference team each year.
Fresno St. Alum
May 1st, 2007, 03:58 PM
If the D2 board was up I would show thread after thread of how on poster feels that the WT administration is inept
Yeah on the LSC board they always make fun of W.Texas A&M. I'd like to see Tarleton St. be the one to get in. Delta St. would be the most talented school but have no intentions of moving up. Maybe if the SLC gives them a call they'd change their mind.
Marcus Garvey
May 1st, 2007, 06:08 PM
I wish that every college could have a football team.
Even Bryn Mawr? xsmiley_wix
BigApp
May 1st, 2007, 06:17 PM
Immaculata too!
chrisattsu
May 1st, 2007, 06:29 PM
Even Bryn Mawr? xsmiley_wix
I knew a girl who went to Bryn Mawr, she could play center.
Wait... I guess that was kinda mean.
Marcus Garvey
May 1st, 2007, 06:31 PM
I knew a girl who went to Bryn Mawr, she could play center.
Wait... I guess that was kinda mean.
Perhaps.... But I've seen some Bryn Mawr students. I believe you! xlolx
Fresno St. Alum
May 1st, 2007, 06:43 PM
Yeah, and Mt. Holyoke, Spelman, Converse, Texas Woman's Coll., and Mills too. xlolx xlolx xoopsx I mean schools that have guys.
Marcus Garvey
May 1st, 2007, 07:27 PM
Yeah, and Mt. Holyoke, Spelman, Converse, Texas Woman's Coll., and Mills too. xlolx xlolx xoopsx I mean schools that have guys.
I knew what you meant, but if you toss me a slowpitch like that, I'm gonna take a swing! :D
I kind of see where you're comming from. But I've noticed that for a good number of colleges, football doesn't make sense. Most of those schools don't have a program, but a few do, and I often wonder why their administrations continue to go about sponsoring the sport in such a half-a$$ed manner.
Off the top of my head, some schools that have dropped football, and are bloody unlikely ever to bring it back include:
NYU, Cansius, St. Bonneventure's, St. John's (NY), Drexel and Scranton
I think UMass-Lowell would bring it back (they were DII) if the $$$ could be found. UMass-Boston should not have football. It's an urban commuter school, in reality, just an overgrown high school. If Scranton was ever going to reinstate football, that ship sailed. They've switched to a conference that doesn't sponsor the sport, so any varsity team they started wouldn't have a schedule.
Fresno St. Alum
May 1st, 2007, 07:40 PM
I can dream can't I. What I don't get is why some schools mainly NAIA have baseball but not basketball. You only need 12 for basketball. Dallas Baptist D-II barely added basketball last year but have been D-I in baseball for awhile
Glad to pitch BP to ya Marcusxlolx
GeauxColonels
May 1st, 2007, 07:43 PM
Personally I think that 8 or 9 league teams is the ideal number.
That being said, I think that adding one or two of the following 3 would be the best path: Tarleton State, Delta State, Texas A&M Kingsville.
phillyAPP
May 1st, 2007, 09:19 PM
Perhaps.... But I've seen some Bryn Mawr students. I believe you! xlolx
Hold on HERE --- I grew up in Bryn Mawr, montgomery Ave and their were very few girls at that school. I mean that would know what football was.
AND as far as Immaculata, I lived a mile from King Road and THEY are co-ed now with NEW fields. GO MACS ,lol I heard they are making a movie about the Mighty MACS winning the Womens National Basketball Championship. The sister's(Nuns) are TOUGH!!
Maybe they can practice with the team.
phillyAPP
May 1st, 2007, 09:23 PM
HEY, I forgot about THE DREXEL DRAGONS -- Can they play football,too.
Marcus Garvey
May 2nd, 2007, 11:04 AM
HEY, I forgot about THE DREXEL DRAGONS -- Can they play football,too.
Where? There's was a reason they dropped in the early 70's. Incidently, I almost went there (the lack of football was not why I didn't). They have no facilities. They certainly don't have the $$$ to build facilities, let alone acquire the land for them.
phillyAPP
May 2nd, 2007, 11:20 AM
Where? There's was a reason they dropped in the early 70's. Incidently, I almost went there (the lack of football was not why I didn't). They have no facilities. They certainly don't have the $$$ to build facilities, let alone acquire the land for them.
They do have money, New med school ala Haunamen Hospital, New Law School, wealthy alumni. What they don't have is a student body that gives a damn or a faculty.
Marcus Garvey
May 2nd, 2007, 11:27 AM
They do have money, New med school ala Haunamen Hospital, New Law School, wealthy alumni. What they don't have is a student body that gives a damn or a faculty.
Yeah, a "wealthy" alumni base with little connection to the undergraduate side of Drexel University. What they lack are wealthy alumni who recall football. Those are the ones who could influence the administration. As such, there's little concern for football among alumni. What money they have is still not enough for the cost of building the facilities in West Philly.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.