Texas State Move to FBS: A San Marcos Editorial [Archive]

TexasTerror

May 16th, 2008, 11:30 PM

I think we found the brightest individual in San Marcos. He looks at reality when it comes to the move by the Bobcats to FBS.

He acknowledges that they are average in the SLC (though I am sure someone argue that they are below average, so I'll cut him slack that he's at least willing to meet us in the middle). There's a lot who would not be willing to say what this gentleman did...

Among some of the points in this editorial regarding Texas State - San Marcos and their attempt to move to FBS...

- Right now, the Bobcats don’t deserve to even entertain the thought of such a move. Texas State is borderline average in the Southland Conference.

- The higher-profile teams, such as men’s basketball and football (aside from the 2005 season) are laughing stocks, finishing near the back of the SLC, and Teis said changing that is the primary goal.

- Texas State has a few years to create a winning tradition. It won’t look good if Teis and company go in front of the NCAA commissioners and get shot down in their bid to move into the FBS.

It will just add another loss to Texas State’s already miserable record.

http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/sports/local_story_137115823.html?keyword=topstory

slycat

May 16th, 2008, 11:44 PM

BEAR

May 16th, 2008, 11:59 PM

Hey....another thread of Texas State by TT....wow...xcoffeex

(Bueller, Bueller...)

http://www.80s.com/saveferris/images/cast/stein.jpg

Purple Pride

May 17th, 2008, 12:04 AM

I like Texas State...

If we could just get 1 more TD this year, we could "Hang 70" on them.xbowx

Retro

May 17th, 2008, 12:06 AM

a lot of the push behind the move isnt to compete with a "higher level of competition". my main motivation for the move is because if utsa does it like they want to we will be even more lost in the san antonio/austin market. we have to move up to stay in the spotlight.

its tough enough to get attention in these markets without utsa in the mix.

If you want to stay in the spotlight, then win and win often.. UTSA doesn't even have football and hasn't done anything on the national scene in other sports, so i don't buy that reasoning...

Texas State's main reasoning, although they may not admit it, is that they want to be like Texas (at austin) or A&M.. It's that simple.. It's just like UL-L wanting to be like LSU...xnonox

TXST_CAT

May 17th, 2008, 12:19 AM

xblahblahx

Your right one game away from a NC and we suck. When just about every other team in the SLC is one and done in the post season. It's a brand new year. By the way when ws the last time anyone gave a damn about the **** school in P-vill.

MaximumBobcat

May 17th, 2008, 12:42 AM

NoCoDanny

May 17th, 2008, 01:33 AM

Just the opinion of an outsider but the SHSU fans come across as total D-bags with all the take a run at SWT as much as possible agenda... lame, boring, and a waste of bandwidth.

TexasTerror

May 17th, 2008, 09:46 AM

If you want to stay in the spotlight, then win and win often.. UTSA doesn't even have football and hasn't done anything on the national scene in other sports, so i don't buy that reasoning...

Texas State's main reasoning, although they may not admit it, is that they want to be like Texas (at austin) or A&M.. It's that simple.. It's just like UL-L wanting to be like LSU...xnonox

Of course it is! Texas State (-San Marcos) feels that they should be up there with Texas and A&M. At the time of the name change, they made sure everyone knew that the name change change would push them in the direction of Florida State and Oklahoma State, both academically and athletically when they really are closer to Idaho State and Alabama State.

They used that rubbish to promote the agenda of the name change and they are using that rubbish again to promote the move to FBS.

Just the opinion of an outsider but the SHSU fans come across as total D-bags with all the take a run at SWT as much as possible agenda... lame, boring, and a waste of bandwidth.

There's a lot of bad blood there from over the years. Many feel that the Texas State - San Marcos (then SWT) ties on the board of regents held SHSU down for years. I'm personally under the impression that we just lacked strong leadership, though I have seen how the ties did do some damage. SHSU has been on a roll as of late and is moving quickly in a positive direction.

There's also the name change battle of 2003, which got pretty nasty on several fronts, mostly behind the scenes. There were quite a bit of lies and legislative crap going on that did not sit well. Remarks made by the Chancellor at the time and even the legislator who shoved the bill through to members of the SHSU family did not sit well.

A few of those who are behind the 'Division I' push have a lengthy history of negative remarks about Sam Houston State, the Southland Conference and the Football Championship Subdivision. They have even been quoted as saying that the SLC is 'holding them back', when we all know they have been average at best in the conference. If anyone is holding them back, it is themselves with their high and mighty athletic budget that does not produce the results that other schools have had with far less money than their own.

As of now, SHSU is the lone institution in the system to protect it's name. SHSU likes to throw in the '-San Marcos' because of possible attempts down the road to change the name of other member institutions (outside of SHSU).

Due to this threat and the Chancellor's wrongful actions related to the largest endowment in the system, a nice contingent of SHSU loyalists actively supported the move of Angelo State behind the scenes. Angelo State is now in the Texas Tech system and it was viewed as a kick in the groin to the Chancellor, who is a San Marcos alum.

SHSU currently also has the weight of the regents in their favor and things are going much better, but there's a lot of bad blood there.

slycat

May 17th, 2008, 10:12 AM

FormerPokeCenter

May 17th, 2008, 12:11 PM

I think we found the brightest individual in San Marcos. He looks at reality when it comes to the move by the Bobcats to FBS...

Among some of the points in this editorial regarding Texas State - San Marcos and their attempt to move to FBS...

- Right now, the Bobcats don’t deserve to even entertain the thought of such a move. Texas State is borderline average in the Southland Conference.

- The higher-profile teams, such as men’s basketball and football (aside from the 2005 season) are laughing stocks, finishing near the back of the SLC, and Teis said changing that is the primary goal.

- Texas State has a few years to create a winning tradition. It won’t look good if Teis and company go in front of the NCAA commissioners and get shot down in their bid to move into the FBS.

It will just add another loss to Texas State’s already miserable record.

http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/sports/local_story_137115823.html?keyword=topstory

In addition to being the most intelligent person in San Marcos, he's probably the loneliest. You know that sort of editorial won't get you laid in San Wannabeeville...

All in all, I thought he did a great job of not viewing the situation through Bobcat colored glasses. Of course, he probably won't be writing in San Marcos very long...

He's got way too much common sense to stay there and let them hold him back ;)

McNeese_beat

May 17th, 2008, 12:20 PM

FormerPokeCenter

May 17th, 2008, 12:22 PM

ericsaid

May 17th, 2008, 02:02 PM

I personally think, they are throwing this idea out there because they wanna get recruits coming in that thing they are moving to FBS, but when the proposal gets "shot down", Texas State still has the great athletes they otherwise would have never gotten.

Just publicity for the school and football as a whole.

MaximumBobcat

May 17th, 2008, 03:17 PM

Of course it is! Texas State (-San Marcos) feels that they should be up there with Texas and A&M. At the time of the name change, they made sure everyone knew that the name change change would push them in the direction of Florida State and Oklahoma State, both academically and athletically when they really are closer to Idaho State and Alabama State.

They used that rubbish to promote the agenda of the name change and they are using that rubbish again to promote the move to FBS.

There's a lot of bad blood there from over the years. Many feel that the Texas State - San Marcos (then SWT) ties on the board of regents held SHSU down for years. I'm personally under the impression that we just lacked strong leadership, though I have seen how the ties did do some damage. SHSU has been on a roll as of late and is moving quickly in a positive direction.

There's also the name change battle of 2003, which got pretty nasty on several fronts, mostly behind the scenes. There were quite a bit of lies and legislative crap going on that did not sit well. Remarks made by the Chancellor at the time and even the legislator who shoved the bill through to members of the SHSU family did not sit well.

A few of those who are behind the 'Division I' push have a lengthy history of negative remarks about Sam Houston Statexlolx xlolx xlolx , the Southland Conference and the Football Championship Subdivision. They have even been quoted as saying that the SLC is 'holding them back', when we all know they have been average at best in the conference. If anyone is holding them back, it is themselves with their high and mighty athletic budget that does not produce the results that other schools have had with far less money than their own.

As of now, SHSU is the lone institution in the system to protect it's name. SHSU likes to throw in the '-San Marcos' because of possible attempts down the road to change the name of other member institutions (outside of SHSU).

Due to this threat and the Chancellor's wrongful actions related to the largest endowment in the system, a nice contingent of SHSU loyalists actively supported the move of Angelo State behind the scenes. Angelo State is now in the Texas Tech system and it was viewed as a kick in the groin to the Chancellor (it was damaging to the whole TSUS and the Tech System could offer ASU more than the TSUS could), who is a San Marcos alum.

SHSU currently also has the weight of the regents in their favor and things are going much better, but there's a lot of bad blood there.

TT, your post is littered with weasel words and your opinion. I don't mind that, it's just that you try to pass it off as generally recognized fact when half the time it is just unsubstantiated hearsay. I especially like it in other posts when you try to pass off 1 or 2 fans on bobcatfans.com as "Most Bobcat fans now think..." or when a booster club or other organization tries to do something for the school and you twist words to mislead the reader into thinking the school in some sort of official capacity is doing it. I've seen you do it plenty of times before and I hope you would show a little more integrity in the future.

GeauxLions94

May 17th, 2008, 08:09 PM

It's just like UL-L wanting to be like LSU...xlmaox

Fixed the smilie for you xlolx

GeauxLions94

May 17th, 2008, 08:11 PM

In addition to being the most intelligent person in San Marcos, he's probably the loneliest. You know that sort of editorial won't get you laid in San Wannabeeville...

All in all, I thought he did a great job of not viewing the situation through Bobcat colored glasses. Of course, he probably won't be writing in San Marcos very long...

He's got way too much common sense to stay there and let them hold him back ;)

I thought the Southland was holding them back ;)

TexasTerror

May 17th, 2008, 08:30 PM

Here's a point by point assessment of what you called opinion, Max Bobcat:

1) Becoming comparable to Florida State and Oklahoma State athletically and academically.

When the name change occurred, literature was put out by those fighting for the name change that by become "TEXAS STATE", that it would help the institution gain recognition both athletically and academically, especially compared to a double-directional name. As we've seen, athletically -- not much there and academically, the TSUS ratings (as much as you guys disagree with them and do not like how they do it), have SHSU ahead of Texas State - San Marcos.

2) "Many feel that the Texas State - San Marcos (then SWT) ties on the board of regents held SHSU down for years."

Did you meet Chancellor Lamar Urbanowsky? He 'threw in the towel' as it relates to the name change of all the institutions. He said 'perception would prevail' and that eventually not only would Texas State - San Marcos become flagship because they got the name first, but the issue of all schools being changed to 'Texas State' would eventually occur without question. I met him with on several occasions and even called me on several occasions. He did not feel that the TSUS should step in the way, despite the fact that each school having it's own identity was a huge part of the system.

3) A few of those who are behind the 'Division I' push have a lengthy history of negative remarks about Sam Houston State

You can not deny this. Remarks that look down upon the Southland Conference, which last I checked, includes SHSU, have been made in publications. No, I did not say 'everyone', I said a few. Over the years, individuals who headed up the Associated Student Government had said negative things about the institution. Heard it with my own ears. The former student leader, now turned city council member brought his arrogance to Huntsville and we quickly turned an about face on that one.

4) SHSU likes to throw in the '-San Marcos' because of possible attempts down the road to change the name of other member institutions (outside of SHSU).

No school in the system has fought for the independent names of the schools to remain like SHSU has. In fact, members of the SHSU family not only introduced a bill protecting our name, but a separate bill that would protect Sul Ross, Lamar and even Stephen F Austin (though, not a member of the system). SHSU's president said in August 2006 that name change discussions would reach everyone's ears and that our friends in Austin would have to fight for the name of our beloved institution. He was not stupid. He knew attempts would come down the road. He's heard Regents talk about it. I've heard people affiliated with the system talk about it.

SHSU remains one of two NCAA Division I institution that in the athletic side of things properly calls the school by the name 'Texas State - San Marcos'. The other schools in the system are not protected and they are threatened until given the same protection that SHSU, Tarleton State and Prairie View A&M have.

5) Angelo State - both the Chancellor's wrongful actions related to the largest endowment in the system and the fact it was viewed as a kick in the groin to the Chancellor, who is a San Marcos alum.

You better believe Angelo State jetted because of wrongful actions. Word hit my ears of this pretty quickly and those in the higher ups of their administration and student body knew that the system was not being friendly to their endowment. In fact, they also felt that the TSUS was ignoring them in favor of the three major arteries of the system - San Marcos, SHSU and Lamar. SHSU knew this and I was among a group that actively supported this move out of the system.

Sure, it was not good for all the schools, because we lost a school in our system, but this was better for them. The Chancellor was not all happy that it occurred under his watch. There were some negative banter back and forth between those on his side of the argument (believe it included a member of the TSUS office) and those pushing for the ASU move in the San Angelo newspaper. Good for them!

TexasTerror

May 17th, 2008, 08:33 PM

I thought the Southland was holding them back ;)

Yep, they are unable to win in the conference on a consistent basis or in football since playing FCS, not at all (outside of one year when they were taking advantage of 'Mad Eye' Manny's ability to follow the rules).

They need to pull a Jacksonville State, leave the conference and go somewhere they may be able to compete for a league title year in and year out instead of tough trips to Conway, Ark and Thibodaux, La. that tend to equate to L's on the slate.

MaximumBobcat

May 17th, 2008, 09:09 PM

Here's a point by point assessment of what you called opinion, Max Bobcat:

1) Becoming comparable to Florida State and Oklahoma State athletically and academically.

When the name change occurred, literature was put out by those fighting for the name change that by become "TEXAS STATE", that it would help the institution gain recognition both athletically and academically, especially compared to a double-directional name. As we've seen, athletically -- not much there and academically, the TSUS ratings (as much as you guys disagree with them and do not like how they do it), have SHSU ahead of Texas State - San Marcos.

Of course a few people thought that. People are entitled to their opinion. I just don't like when you say stuff like...

"Of course it is! Texas State (-San Marcos) feels that they should be up there with Texas and A&M. At the time of the name change, they made sure everyone knew that the name change change would push them in the direction of Florida State and Oklahoma State, both academically and athletically when they really are closer to Idaho State and Alabama State."

Who exactly is the "they" you are talking about? Clearly, you address the school in a variation of it's formal name, so you're talking about the school in an official status. But you aren't, you were talking about some students or other persons and not the school or any official administration. One could argue that you purposely try to bash Texas State's reputation on this national message board, but I don't want to go down that road.

2) "Many feel that the Texas State - San Marcos (then SWT) ties on the board of regents held SHSU down for years."

Did you meet Chancellor Lamar Urbanowsky? He 'threw in the towel' as it relates to the name change of all the institutions. He said 'perception would prevail' and that eventually not only would Texas State - San Marcos become flagship because they got the name first, but the issue of all schools being changed to 'Texas State' would eventually occur without question. I met him with on several occasions and even called me on several occasions. He did not feel that the TSUS should step in the way, despite the fact that each school having it's own identity was a huge part of the system.

3) A few of those who are behind the 'Division I' push have a lengthy history of negative remarks about Sam Houston State

You can not deny this. Remarks that look down upon the Southland Conference, which last I checked, includes SHSU, have been made in publications. No, I did not say 'everyone', I said a few. Over the years, individuals who headed up the Associated Student Government had said negative things about the institution. Heard it with my own ears. The former student leader, now turned city council member brought his arrogance to Huntsville and we quickly turned an about face on that one.

Thank the Lord that Texas State University-San Marcos is THE TEXAS STATE!!! I would hate to have our university known in public as linked with that one in Huntsville. Of course it is, through the TSUS, but few people outside higher education are actually aware of the TSUS for the most part. I would HATE to see any school come to be known as Texas State - whatever. But I really wouldn't get too riled up about it because we have established the name Texas State and any school to adopt it would be known as a satellite campus.

Lol, I know about #3 terror. Our school's are rivals for crying out loud! Students say some mean things about other school sometimes. I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt when you were in SGA or whatever at SHSU, but I'm sure those guys have gotten over it and I suggest you do too.

4) SHSU likes to throw in the '-San Marcos' because of possible attempts down the road to change the name of other member institutions (outside of SHSU).

No school in the system has fought for the independent names of the schools to remain like SHSU has. In fact, members of the SHSU family not only introduced a bill protecting our name, but a separate bill that would protect Sul Ross, Lamar and even Stephen F Austin (though, not a member of the system). SHSU's president said in August 2006 that name change discussions would reach everyone's ears and that our friends in Austin would have to fight for the name of our beloved institution. He was not stupid. He knew attempts would come down the road. He's heard Regents talk about it. I've heard people affiliated with the system talk about it.

SHSU remains one of two NCAA Division I institution that in the athletic side of things properly calls the school by the name 'Texas State - San Marcos'. The other schools in the system are not protected and they are threatened until given the same protection that SHSU, Tarleton State and Prairie View A&M have.

That's just some petty person stuck in SHSU's athletic department doing that. I've noticed they don't do the same for the other schools that have shortened and proper names such as University of Texas At Austin or University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I laugh every time I see a SHSU release that states the full name throughout the whole article, reminds me of you TT. I'm all for using it properly the first time and then the shortened version throughout the rest of the article, but a few people at SHSU are just too petty for that.

TXST_CAT

May 18th, 2008, 03:19 AM

Of course it is! Texas State (-San Marcos) feels that they should be up there with Texas and A&M. At the time of the name change, they made sure everyone knew that the name change change would push them in the direction of Florida State and Oklahoma State, both academically and athletically when they really are closer to Idaho State and Alabama State.

They used that rubbish to promote the agenda of the name change and they are using that rubbish again to promote the move to FBS.

There's a lot of bad blood there from over the years. Many feel that the Texas State - San Marcos (then SWT) ties on the board of regents held SHSU down for years. I'm personally under the impression that we just lacked strong leadership, though I have seen how the ties did do some damage. SHSU has been on a roll as of late and is moving quickly in a positive direction.

There's also the name change battle of 2003, which got pretty nasty on several fronts, mostly behind the scenes. There were quite a bit of lies and legislative crap going on that did not sit well. Remarks made by the Chancellor at the time and even the legislator who shoved the bill through to members of the SHSU family did not sit well.

A few of those who are behind the 'Division I' push have a lengthy history of negative remarks about Sam Houston State, the Southland Conference and the Football Championship Subdivision. They have even been quoted as saying that the SLC is 'holding them back', when we all know they have been average at best in the conference. If anyone is holding them back, it is themselves with their high and mighty athletic budget that does not produce the results that other schools have had with far less money than their own.

As of now, SHSU is the lone institution in the system to protect it's name. SHSU likes to throw in the '-San Marcos' because of possible attempts down the road to change the name of other member institutions (outside of SHSU).

Due to this threat and the Chancellor's wrongful actions related to the largest endowment in the system, a nice contingent of SHSU loyalists actively supported the move of Angelo State behind the scenes. Angelo State is now in the Texas Tech system and it was viewed as a kick in the groin to the Chancellor, who is a San Marcos alum.

SHSU currently also has the weight of the regents in their favor and things are going much better, but there's a lot of bad blood there.

xbabycryx xgiveadamnx xboringx

You should get out of politics while your young.
xnodx

Tod

May 18th, 2008, 03:59 AM

Hey....another thread of Texas State by TT....wow...xcoffeex

(Bueller, Bueller...)

http://www.80s.com/saveferris/images/cast/stein.jpg

TT didn't write it, he linked it. You wanna link, go right ahead, nothing stopping you.

This young man obviously knows what he's talking about. TS-SM folks can't handle the truth, apparently.

xsmhx

TexasTerror

May 18th, 2008, 10:05 AM

TT didn't write it, he linked it. You wanna link, go right ahead, nothing stopping you.

This young man obviously knows what he's talking about. TS-SM folks can't handle the truth, apparently.

xsmhx

Tod, have to give the "TS-SM folks" (as you put it) some credit. A few of them on their board are acknowledging that the editorial is right on. I'd have the chutzpah to admit things about SHSU if someone pointed out the flaws.

I've already fessed up that I did not realize the plight of the Louisiana schools in the SLC until recently and that is partially why the Texas schools dominate in most sports. That while everyone is underfunded compared to Texas St-San Marcos and even SHSU fans whine about how we stand $$$-wise compared to San Marcos and SFA, we are no way in bad shape like others.

As one fan from the San Marcos school puts it...

Average would assume you have a .500 record every year.

4-7, which is the record we get more often than not, is not .500 football.

Translation: We're not even in the ball park of "average."

MaximumBobcat

May 18th, 2008, 03:05 PM

This young man obviously knows what he's talking about. TS-SM folks can't handle the truth, apparently.

xsmhx

xconfusedx

Did you just skim this thread? Nobody was really arguing against the editorial too much. If you go back and read my first post, I said it was correct, it just points out the obvious things.

TexasTerror

May 18th, 2008, 05:21 PM

C-USA board have a thread about UTSA and their "green light" forthcoming on football in June. Some of the other things they mentioned are nothing I've heard...

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=298972

MplsBison

May 18th, 2008, 06:55 PM

I've never understood the idea that because your team isn't a perennial national title contender in FCS that you have no right to consider a move up to FBS.

It's all about money. Plain and simple.

You dump money into the program, any program for that matter, and you can make it into a FBS program.

UConn will always be an example of that no matter what you say about guaranteed Big East membership.

TexasTerror

May 18th, 2008, 07:02 PM

UConn will always be an example of that no matter what you say about guaranteed Big East membership.

It was about guaranteed Big East membership though. They had the chance to put some $$$ into the program and go right into a major conference. If that chance was not there, they would not have jumped. If that was the Sun Belt or MAC instead of the Big East, UConn would still be FCS.

They knew the pie of the Big East football was awaiting. Villanova and Georgetown had their chance too, but both were not willing to make that commitment...

MplsBison

May 18th, 2008, 08:04 PM

It's still irrelevent.

If you dump money into the program, you can make it successful at the FBS level.

TexasTerror

May 18th, 2008, 08:38 PM

It's still irrelevent.

If you dump money into the program, you can make it successful at the FBS level.

Well, everything you say tends to be irrelevant - hence, the smack threads about you. And if $$$ is dumped into Texas State - San Marcos, does that necessarily put them into a conference? They can not be successful as an independent.

catdaddy2402

May 18th, 2008, 11:36 PM

My humble opinion is that Texas State is better served being cost-efficient in the FCS until such time that the climate is right for a move to an FBS league that is inexpensive (i.e., a lot of Texas mid-majors).
Maybe someday you can form a league with Rice, UH, TCU, SMU, North Texas, UTEP, Tulsa, La. Tech, ULL. etc. But I don't see that day coming any time soon.

The problem with your proposed league is that it's using a formula that has already shown it will fail. Being limited geographically was the death blow to the Southwest Conference.

TXST_CAT

May 18th, 2008, 11:47 PM

TT didn't write it, he linked it. You wanna link, go right ahead, nothing stopping you.

This young man obviously knows what he's talking about. TS-SM folks can't handle the truth, apparently.

xsmhx

Ok because you and TT say so.

Really it's TT that can't handle the truth. Truth is Texas State is advancing itself in leaps and bounds and all TT can do is sit there and bash our Athletics program (and University) while there is still time. He had his feelings hurt when the Name change was passed and now he has a vendetta against our university. That's the truth. The article by all measures is mere opinion. Yes the autor makes some good points. Points that we constantly debate on our own fan board. But we choose to push forward, nothing worth doing will ever be easy!! fact is every post TT adds about Texas State is Smack!!xnonox

Retro

May 19th, 2008, 12:02 AM

The problem with your proposed league is that it's using a formula that has already shown it will fail. Being limited geographically was the death blow to the Southwest Conference.

The SWC didn't fail.. It's just that certain members wanted to create a much bigger and more dominate football conference like that of the SEC and BIG Ten.. They merged with the Big Eight and Arkansas Joined the SEC...

TXST_CAT

May 19th, 2008, 12:08 AM

I don't think moving to the FBS alone is going to improve Texas State's standing in the Austin/San Antonio market. Would Austin/San Antonio embrace a Sun Belt team or a WAC team in a meaningful way? I doubt it (and, like I said on another thread, it may raise interest some, but would it be enough to offset costs?).

Home games against teams like UTEP, RICE, SMU, UofH, and some of the other mids in the region are what our fans want. So to answer your question Yes it will improve our image in the area. Since these teams rarely schedule us as a FCS team and would never come to our house as a FCS. With the expansion(stadium) and FBS conference affiliation we will be able to make home and away agreements with these teams. Our recruits will also improve since we attract a good number of students already(third highest applied to in the state) we loose some recruits to teams like Rice, SMU, UofH and UTEP simply because we are not FBS. These athletes want to attend our University but want to play on the "big stage".

My humble opinion is that Texas State is better served being cost-efficient in the FCS until such time that the climate is right for a move to an FBS league that is inexpensive (i.e., a lot of Texas mid-majors). Up until then, you look to improve your position in your market by 1. having success (you can't ride the wave of one good season forever...) and 2. having success in the "CBS" sport (men's hoop) that would draw attention in the market and by 3. Emphasizing how you're an inexpensive alternative to UT for fans.

It's not cost efficient when your Alumni refuses dollars to pressure the AD into an FCS move. Our Alumni and fans want FBS football plain and simple. McNeese fans may be happy being a big fish in a small pond but our fans see us as fish out of water in the FCS.

Maybe someday you can form a league with Rice, UH, TCU, SMU, North Texas, UTEP, Tulsa, La. Tech, ULL. etc. But I don't see that day coming any time soon. Don't banish yourself into a situation where the cost of moving up far exceeds the increased revenue you get from moving into the Sun Belt or a similar league. Believe me, brining Florida International to your stadium isn't going to fill the coffers much more than bringing Nicholls State to town.

Not so long as we are FCS. Some feel after we have established ourselves as an FBS team we may have a shot at doing this. I will not go that far until we have established some success in the FBS.

xpeacex

Retro

May 19th, 2008, 12:09 AM

It's still irrelevent.

If you dump money into the program, you can make it successful at the FBS level.

Say What? Just because you put money into a program, doesn't guarantee success at any level! You still have to win, draw fans, generate yearly revenue and self-sustain at some point.. Money can't buy you wins or fans. Money can get you top notch facilities, coaches and cover the inital demands of the cost of the FBS Move, but if that money doesn't continue to roll in, your in trouble.. Especially if your not winning.

As far as UCONN, It wasn't just being an automatic member of the Big East that helped their transition. It was the fact they are national power in men's and women's basketball, which financially take of themselves and then some, while not having to depend on another sport (s) to cover their expenses like so many FCS and some FBS schools do....

If your an FCS School and have a national power every year in something like Baskebtall or even Baseball, that's going to help you tremendously if you decide to move to the FBS Level, provided you are a decent team with better than average attendance already in Football. If your not, like Georgetown, then your going have some issues..

TXST_CAT

May 19th, 2008, 12:15 AM

The SWC didn't fail.. It's just that certain members wanted to create a much bigger and more dominate football conference like that of the SEC and BIG Ten.. They merged with the Big Eight and Arkansas Joined the SEC...

If the SWC was ever recreated with the likes of Texas State, would McNeese fans be interested in taking part in its rebirth. I see TXST going after teams like Rice, SMU, UofH, New Mexico, UNT and UTEP. Mid majors that might be interested in creating new regional rivalries.

TXST_CAT

May 19th, 2008, 12:18 AM

Say What? Just because you put money into a program, doesn't guarantee success at any level! You still have to win, draw fans, generate yearly revenue and self-sustain at some point.. Money can't buy you wins or fans. Money can get you top notch facilities, coaches and cover the inital demands of the cost of the FBS Move, but if that money doesn't continue to roll in, your in trouble.. Especially if your not winning.

As far as UCONN, It wasn't just being an automatic member of the Big East that helped their transition. It was the fact they are national power in men's and women's basketball, which financially take of themselves and then some, while not having to depend on another sport (s) to cover their expenses like so many FCS and some FBS schools do....

If your an FCS School and have a national power every year in something like Baskebtall or even Baseball, that's going to help you tremendously if you decide to move to the FBS Level, provided you are a decent team with better than average attendance already in Football. If your not, like Georgetown, then your going have some issues..

I agree. We are on uncharted territory here. TXST is going to rely on University size and popularity in the state to try and make the transition. It will not be smooth but change never is.

Retro

May 19th, 2008, 12:22 AM

Home games against teams like UTEP, RICE, SMU, UofH, and some of the other mids in the region are what our fans want. So to answer your question Yes it will improve our image in the area. Since these teams rarely schedule us as a FCS team and would never come to our house as a FCS. With the expansion(stadium) and FBS conference affiliation we will be able to make home and away agreements with these teams. Our recruits will also improve since we attract a good number of students already(third highest applied to in the state) we loose some recruits to teams like Rice, SMU, UofH and UTEP simply because we are not FBS. These athletes want to attend our University but want to play on the "big stage".

.

It's not cost efficient when your Alumni refuses dollars to pressure the AD into an FCS move. Our Alumni and fans want FBS football plain and simple. McNeese fans may be happy being a big fish in a small pond but our fans see us as fish out of water in the FCS.

Not so long as we are FCS. Some feel after we have established ourselves as an FBS team we may have a shot at doing this. I will not go that far until we have established some success in the FBS.

xpeacex

If that's the case, then your alumni and fans are not very intelligent on how things have worked out for similar schools with similar success wanting to move up.. Most of them probably know little about their own level and have made no effort to educate themselves about it's history, teams or benefits..

If you were to have an option of a conference placement as mentioned above, sure that would help, but still Texas State should concentrate on building a successful program at the FCS level and other sports while your at it.. You're not exactly doing much in any other sport to help ease the financial burdon or get some additional positive media exposure..

Mcneese is happy because they are where they should be at this time in their programs history... I suppose if we can build attendance to 20,000 +, finish the new fieldhouse (2009), get a new Basketball Arena, have a nice FBS Conference waiting and see donations continue to rise, Mcneese would make a move.. But now, what's the point? Even if they do like Troy and beat some decent FBS teams and get to a lower tier bowl, it means little except a little more money..

It's about playing for championships and no one from the SBC or C-USA can realistically do that now.. Maybe if their is a playoff at the FBS level in 4-6 years, it would be worth it if all things are in place.. For now, keep on winning SLC Titles, having the best fan support in conference and get back to the title game. Realistic and proven goals!:D

Retro

May 19th, 2008, 12:23 AM

If the SWC was ever recreated with the likes of Texas State, would McNeese fans be interested in taking part in its rebirth. I see TXST going after teams like Rice, SMU, UofH, New Mexico, UNT and UTEP. Mid majors that might be interested in creating new regional rivalries.

Yes, if all the above i mentioned are in place, especially faciltiies as visiting fan attendance would likely increase for some sports..xthumbsupx

TXST_CAT

May 19th, 2008, 12:35 AM

If that's the case, then your alumni and fans are not very intelligent on how things have worked out for similar schools with similar success wanting to move up.. Most of them probably know little about their own level and have made no effort to educate themselves about it's history, teams or benefits..

If you were to have an option of a conference placement as mentioned above, sure that would help, but still Texas State should concentrate on building a successful program at the FCS level and other sports while your at it.. You're not exactly doing much in any other sport to help ease the financial burdon or get some additional positive media exposure..

Mcneese is happy because they are where they should be at this time in their programs history... I suppose if we can build attendance to 20,000 +, finish the new fieldhouse (2009), get a new Basketball Arena, have a nice FBS Conference waiting and see donations continue to rise, Mcneese would make a move.. But now, what's the point? Even if they do like Troy and beat some decent FBS teams and get to a lower tier bowl, it means little except a little more money..

It's about playing for championships and no one from the SBC or C-USA can realistically do that now.. Maybe if their is a playoff at the FBS level in 4-6 years, it would be worth it if all things are in place.. For now, keep on winning SLC Titles, having the best fan support in conference and get back to the title game. Realistic and proven goals!:D

I agree with every thing you just said. One of the things TT fails to mention is our AD is in favor of everything you just said. He has taken lots of heat because of it. He realizes he cannot improve our programs facilities and salaries without the financial backing of our Alunmi. Yes our program has a history of neglect but our Alumni and fans are alive again and they demand FBS football. If he fights them they pull away again, if he gives them what they want the Athletics program regardless of conference affiliation will see improvement. Its politics, give the public what it wants while managing the progress of the situation. Davalos, and Wright are going to do great things for us but it takes time to rebuild a program that suffered the way ours did. We cannot lose support like we did after the Wacker days.

catdaddy2402

May 19th, 2008, 12:39 AM

The SWC didn't fail.. It's just that certain members wanted to create a much bigger and more dominate football conference like that of the SEC and BIG Ten.. They merged with the Big Eight and Arkansas Joined the SEC...
The SWC failed because it wasn't drawing the money in this new thing called tv contracts. There was no network out there that wanted to give the SWC the type money they were giving the other big name conferences since they were concentrated in two states.
Texas and Texas A&M saw the writing on the wall and started exploring other options. When the SEC started exploring their options to expand to 12 the two schools at the top of their list was Texas and Texas A&M. A&M was ready to go, but Texas looked down it's nose at the academics of the SEC schools. The Aggies knew that their football fortunes were tied with the Horns and declined an almost slam dunk invitation, leaving the SEC scrambling. Arkansas , who also saw the writing on the wall, leaped at the chance to not only make more money but to get a ton more east coast exposure for their program. That gave the SEC 11. The problem was the 12th school. They approached Florida State, who had spent the entire decade of the 1980's begging for SEC membership, and was told "Thanks, but we have a conference now." They couldn't get enough support to add Miami, so they were left with South Carolina.
Texas and A&M were left in limbo in the SWC for a few years before negotiations with the Big 8 began.

Had the SWC formula been a viable one you would have seen the schools left behind rebuild the SWC with eastern WAC and Big West schools because even as late as the mid 1990's the Southwest Conference was far more prestigious a conference than the WAC, Big West, or soon to be formed Conference USA. These same facts are true today. In the next decade the Sunbelt, a conference formed in 2001, is going to leave the MAC, a conference formed in 1947, in the dust in bowl opportunities, tv contracts, and exposure for these same reasons.

TXST_CAT

May 19th, 2008, 12:44 AM

Yes, if all the above i mentioned are in place, especially faciltiies as visiting fan attendance would likely increase for some sports..xthumbsupx

So then I guess McNeese fans should support our efforts and hope our University can succeed quickly in the FBS. Since we DO own the SWC rights it could possibly happen. Its my belief that TT is worried that Texas State dispite what the BOR says can and will become THE flagship of our system. What's on paper is only binding when a governing body has the ability to enforce it. If the public views TXST as a flagship campus and its affiliated with other "flagship" universities what's to stop us. xsmiley_wix

I guess TT xeyebrowx

xpeacex

TXST_CAT

May 19th, 2008, 12:51 AM

The SWC failed because it wasn't drawing the money in this new thing called tv contracts. There was no network out there that wanted to give the SWC the type money they were giving the other big name conferences since they were concentrated in two states.
Texas and Texas A&M saw the writing on the wall and started exploring other options. When the SEC started exploring their options to expand to 12 the two schools at the top of their list was Texas and Texas A&M. A&M was ready to go, but Texas looked down it's nose at the academics of the SEC schools. The Aggies knew that their football fortunes were tied with the Horns and declined an almost slam dunk invitation, leaving the SEC scrambling. Arkansas , who also saw the writing on the wall, leaped at the chance to not only make more money but to get a ton more east coast exposure for their program. That gave the SEC 11. The problem was the 12th school. They approached Florida State, who had spent the entire decade of the 1980's begging for SEC membership, and was told "Thanks, but we have a conference now." They couldn't get enough support to add Miami, so they were left with South Carolina.
Texas and A&M were left in limbo in the SWC for a few years before negotiations with the Big 8 began.

Had the SWC formula been a viable one you would have seen the schools left behind rebuild the SWC with eastern WAC and Big West schools because even as late as the mid 1990's the Southwest Conference was far more prestigious a conference than the WAC, Big West, or soon to be formed Conference USA. These same facts are true today. In the next decade the Sunbelt, a conference formed in 2001, is going to leave the MAC, a conference formed in 1947, in the dust in bowl opportunities, tv contracts, and exposure for these same reasons.

I can see the same teams that currently make up MWC, C-USA and the SBC wanting a little more regional concentration (Texas, LA, AR, MISS, OK, NM) to better negotiate the same TV contracts you mention. There are more TV outlets today than 10 years ago and rivalries make good TV. a New SWC with established FBS teams and some new blood can do well.

Hoyadestroya85

May 19th, 2008, 03:33 AM

TexasTerror

May 19th, 2008, 08:14 AM

i personally believe that TT has a point... What conference would TX st be in? who would their rivals be? how would they be able to compete in the recruiting game? All those questions are very legitimate in my opinion.. and until they are answered, it is ludicrous that they even brought this up

That is a valid argument. There is currently no conference that would accept Texas State - San Marcos into it. Even if the Sun Belt has a few holes after C-USA comes in to look at a few teams, I know they would look to several other options before even considering them.

The 'leaders' of the Division I movement (since they obviously are not aware of the proper nomenclature OR just are speaking so others can understand, your pick) think C-USA or the WAC is their destination.

A quick glance of Texas St-San Marcos athletic history in the SLC...

1) Most $$$ in the SLC -- least results of any football school in the SLC

2) Years of stalemates as it relates to getting a new baseball/softball facility for what has been their two most successful teams.

3) One failed attempt to move to "Division I" around the turn of the century, second attempt in progress

TheRiver

May 19th, 2008, 11:17 AM

I feel like I have read this before, anyone else?

MaximumBobcat

May 19th, 2008, 11:23 AM

TT, stop worrying about it. Our AD has been in contact with conferences. We won't go until we have a conference. As much as you think you know about everything, you don't know what has been said between our AD and the conference commissioners, so just let it go and let it play out.

Oh and for fun...

A quick glance of Texas St-San Marcos athletic history in the SLC...

1) Most $$$ in the SLC -- least results of any football school in the SLC

2) Years of stalemates as it relates to getting a new baseball/softball facility for what has been their two most successful teams.

3) One failed attempt to move to "Division I" around the turn of the century, second attempt in progress

1) Texas State was the last SLC team to win a football playoff game.

2) We ARE starting construction on new baseball stadium and softball complex this Summer.

3) Students overwhelmingly voted to financially support FBS football and more AD money. With this guaranteed money, the baseball complex as noted above will begin construction.

centexguy

May 19th, 2008, 12:45 PM

So then I guess McNeese fans should support our efforts and hope our University can succeed quickly in the FBS. Since we DO own the SWC rights it could possibly happen. Its my belief that TT is worried that Texas State dispite what the BOR says can and will become THE flagship of our system. What's on paper is only binding when a governing body has the ability to enforce it. If the public views TXST as a flagship campus and its affiliated with other "flagship" universities what's to stop us. xsmiley_wix

I guess TT xeyebrowx

xpeacex

Since no other school in the Texas State University System will have Texas State in their name no one will look at your school as a "flagship" university. And because UT is arguably the "flagship" school of the state of Texas and dominates the Austin metro area, Texas State will always have a hard time getting attention in their own area. A lot of this FBS talk is probably going on because UTSA is starting football, and they will have the San Antonio market all to themselves. Having a money conference lined up is about the only way to make a splash in the FBS world.

UNH_Alum_In_CT

May 19th, 2008, 01:38 PM

Having that automatic BE Football League membership was extremely relevant, it was THE reason UConn pumped the money into the program. Their AD had convinced the populace that not having BCS Football would negatively impact their basketball programs. They beefed up football to protect basketball, pure and simple.

TXST_CAT

May 19th, 2008, 08:44 PM

i personally believe that TT has a point...

TT made apoint I must have missed it. No I just don't care to play his game anymore. But since you asked I will answer your questions.

What conference would TX st be in?
In the order of likely hood.

1-Sunbelt Conference
2- Conference USA
3-Western Athletic Conference

Some think the WAC would be before Conference USA but I don't see our AD putting us in a conference that would require that much travel.

who would their rivals be?
Good question, depends on the Conference although FBS football gives us MORE inter state rivals in football. Right now our rivals are SAM, SFA and Texas Southern.

FBS Teams in State are Rice, TCU, SMU, UTEP, UNT, and UofH. Not to mention Baylor, UT, Tech and A&M.

how would they be able to compete in the recruiting game

This is where the University size, Academic reputation, and Name recognition comes to play. Students want to come to TXST. We can recruit very well our location is one of the best in the State.

All those questions are very legitimate in my opinion.. and until they are answered, it is ludicrous that they even brought this up

TT brought it up we didn't. For us it's win win.

bandit

May 19th, 2008, 09:14 PM

I personally think any school that has the guts to try and make the move up should be applauded. I don't see why it was good for a school like Central Arkansas to make a move to FCS but Texas State moving to FBS is seen as a foolish gambit.

It might take a decade or more for Texas State to become successful at the FBS level, but if they don't make that initial move it will never happen.

The fact is that there is a huge difference in perception between an FBS and FCS school. Unless you're an academic elite, the average American knows a university via athletics. It's the difference in many cases between a school being seen as a regional university, or a national university. Schools like Boise State and Marshall and USF and UCF and others have played in major bowl games on major network TV against the top of the BCS. Even Sun Belt schools have lured home games from teams in BCS leagues, and have played traditional powers in bowl games.

It's hard to see an opening for Texas State right now, but ultimately if they make the move there WILL be an opportunity. There always is. Look at the landscape of college athletics. It's constantly changing. The WAC wanted an East/West division at one point. What if Tx State and UTSA both move up and end up in the WAC? The Sun Belt is improving year by year. What if TCU tires of the MWC and its mediocre TV situation and decides to rebuild the SWC? What if CUSA loses a couple schools to the BE and needs replacements, and the dominoes hit the WAC or Sun Belt who then need to look. What if the MWC decides to bring in a couple members from the WAC, and the WAC needs membership to stay viable? What if, 10-15 years down the road, Wichita State revives its program? Could a rebirth of the MVC as an FBS league be possible? Who knows. But look at the landscape - apart from Notre Dame, Army and Navy - all independent by choice - there are NO FBS schools without a conference. If you make yourself attractive enough, there will be a spot for you somewhere, eventually.

There is always movement. There always has been. Opportunity will come along if you put yourself in position to take advantage of it. Texas State could find itself playing in bowl games within a few years of conference membership. And let's remember even the lowest bowl game on the FBS totem poll still draws a bigger crowd and a far larger TV audience than the FCS title game.

It's poor logic to compare a program's support as a FCS and what they might be at the FBS level. There will be a boost in support and publicity with new facilities. A move to FBS will be highly publicized at the school and within the community. It will bring excitement, and a huge boost that might be just what the school needs to bring success. Look at what is happening at the young, fast-growing schools in Florida that made the move to FBS. USF was #2 in the country at one point. UCF has beautiful new facilities and played an SEC team in a bowl game this past year - and hosted Texas. FAU played in a bowl game and has hosted schools from the Big East and Big 10. FIU has ambitious plans for a gorgeous new stadium. There is a long way to go for some of these schools, sure. But there is no reason why they won't ultimately be successful, and no reason why Texas State can't as well.

If I was a fan of other FCS schools in Texas instead of trying to point out how foolish Texas State is being, I would be urging my own school to be taking the steps it needs to do to better itself. Sure, a move is a dumb idea for some. Look at Idaho, which clearly did not have the facilities to make a move. But most of the schools that have made the move in recent years (i.e. the last 15 years) have played in bowl games already, some multiple times.

There is more $$$ in FBS football than ever. More TV opportunities, more bowl games, better attendance, more excitement. It will continue to grow, and schools that put themselves in position to take advantage of this deserve some credit, IMHO. Sure it's risky, sure it will take commitment, but ultimately the rewards are usually worth the risk if you do it right.

At the end of the day, if you aren't going to do it, someone else will.

JohnStOnge

May 19th, 2008, 09:17 PM

1) Texas State was the last SLC team to win a football playoff game.

.

All other things aside, that's a bit much. Southwest Texas State/Texas State only made the I-AA tournament once. In that year, it was not the automatic bid from the conference. Nicholls State was. Nicholls State had to go on the road to Furman; which probably had a better team than the two squads Texas State beat in the playoffs. The Colonels lost a very close, competetive game to the Paladins.

Either way, Southwest Texas State/Texas State has had a grand total of one playoff caliber team during its tenure in I-AA/FCS. The fact that it had the last team to win a playoff game may suggest a problem for the Southland Conference during the past two playoff tournaments, but it's not exactly confirmation that Texas State has been one of the more successful I-AA/FCS programs in general or Southland programs in particular.

BearsCountry

May 19th, 2008, 09:19 PM

I personally think any school that has the guts to try and make the move up should be applauded. I don't see why it was good for a school like Central Arkansas to make a move to FCS but Texas State moving to FBS is seen as a foolish gambit.

It might take a decade or more for Texas State to become successful at the FBS level, but if they don't make that initial move it will never happen.

The fact is that there is a huge difference in perception between an FBS and FCS school. Unless you're an academic elite, the average American knows a university via athletics. It's the difference in many cases between a school being seen as a regional university, or a national university. Schools like Boise State and Marshall and USF and UCF and others have played in major bowl games on major network TV against the top of the BCS. Even Sun Belt schools have lured home games from teams in BCS leagues, and have played traditional powers in bowl games.

It's hard to see an opening for Texas State right now, but ultimately if they make the move there WILL be an opportunity. There always is. Look at the landscape of college athletics. It's constantly changing. The WAC wanted an East/West division at one point. What if Tx State and UTSA both move up and end up in the WAC? The Sun Belt is improving year by year. What if TCU tires of the MWC and its mediocre TV situation and decides to rebuild the SWC? What if CUSA loses a couple schools to the BE and needs replacements, and the dominoes hit the WAC or Sun Belt who then need to look. What if the MWC decides to bring in a couple members from the WAC, and the WAC needs membership to stay viable? What if, 10-15 years down the road, Wichita State revives its program? Could a rebirth of the MVC as an FBS league be possible? Who knows. But look at the landscape - apart from Notre Dame, Army and Navy - all independent by choice - there are NO FBS schools without a conference. If you make yourself attractive enough, there will be a spot for you somewhere, eventually.

There is always movement. There always has been. Opportunity will come along if you put yourself in position to take advantage of it. Texas State could find itself playing in bowl games within a few years of conference membership. And let's remember even the lowest bowl game on the FBS totem poll still draws a bigger crowd and a far larger TV audience than the FCS title game.

It's poor logic to compare a program's support as a FCS and what they might be at the FBS level. There will be a boost in support and publicity with new facilities. A move to FBS will be highly publicized at the school and within the community. It will bring excitement, and a huge boost that might be just what the school needs to bring success. Look at what is happening at the young, fast-growing schools in Florida that made the move to FBS. USF was #2 in the country at one point. UCF has beautiful new facilities and played an SEC team in a bowl game this past year - and hosted Texas. FAU played in a bowl game and has hosted schools from the Big East and Big 10. FIU has ambitious plans for a gorgeous new stadium. There is a long way to go for some of these schools, sure. But there is no reason why they won't ultimately be successful, and now reason why Texas State can't as well.

If I was a fan of other FBS schools in Texas instead of trying to point out how foolish Texas State is being, I would be urging my own school to be taking the steps it needs to do to better itself. Sure, a move is a dumb idea for some. Look at Idaho, which clearly did not have the facilities to make a move. But most of the schools that have made the move in recent years (i.e. the last 15 years) have played in bowl games already, some multiple times.

There is more $$$ in FBS football than ever. More TV opportunities, more bowl games, better attendance, more excitement. It will continue to grow, and schools that put themselves in position to take advantage of this deserve some credit, IMHO. Sure it's risky, sure it will take commitment, but ultimately the rewards are usually worth the risk if you do it right.

At the end of the day, if you aren't going to do it, someone else will.

Excellent post and be prepared to get bashed for it.

JohnStOnge

May 19th, 2008, 09:25 PM

I personally think any school that has the guts to try and make the move up should be applauded. I don't see why it was good for a school like Central Arkansas to make a move to FCS but Texas State moving to FBS is seen as a foolish gambit..

There is not nearly the difference between the top of D-II and the top of FCS as there is between the top of FCS and the top of FBS. A school in D-II can reasonably expect to move to FCS and compete to be among the best regardless of which conference it gets into. That is not the case with a move from FCS to FBS.

bandit

May 19th, 2008, 09:33 PM

There is not nearly the difference between the top of D-II and the top of FCS as there is between the top of FCS and the top of FBS. A school in D-II can reasonably expect to move to FCS and compete to be among the best regardless of which conference it gets into. That is not the case with a move from FCS to FBS.

That is very true. But one need not be at the "top" of FBS to be successful. There are only a few elite schools that, year in year out, compete for a national title in FBS.

But look at East Carolina, Southern Miss, Marshall, Boise, UCF, etc. Those schools are selling 25 to 40k to every game. Multiple TV appearances. Major bowl games seen by millions of viewers. A thriving fan community. How much benefit have these programs done for the universities, and communities? I'd say they are a success by any measure. They might never be Ohio State or Florida, but they are all successful.

Certainly, that level of success is attainable for many current FCS programs should they choose to make the commitment to seek it.

MaximumBobcat

May 19th, 2008, 09:34 PM

All other things aside, that's a bit much. Southwest Texas State/Texas State only made the I-AA tournament once. In that year, it was not the automatic bid from the conference. Nicholls State was. Nicholls State had to go on the road to Furman; which probably had a better team than the two squads Texas State beat in the playoffs. The Colonels lost a very close, competetive game to the Paladins.

Either way, Southwest Texas State/Texas State has had a grand total of one playoff caliber team during its tenure in I-AA/FCS. The fact that it had the last team to win a playoff game may suggest a problem for the Southland Conference during the past two playoff tournaments, but it's not exactly confirmation that Texas State has been one of the more successful I-AA/FCS programs in general or Southland programs in particular.

I was just stating a fact and didn't imply 1/20th of what you just wrote.

But it is an interesting fact, dontchathink? xpeacex xpeacex xpeacex

bandit

May 19th, 2008, 09:34 PM

Excellent post and be prepared to get bashed for it.

Thanks! xthumbsupx

JohnStOnge

May 19th, 2008, 09:36 PM

bandit

May 19th, 2008, 09:46 PM

Bandit, one thing you need to be very careful of is the idea that movement to FBS is more likely than not to lead to a net finanicial gain. The revenues increase, but more often than not the increase is not sufficient to offset the increase in expenditures.

I would not argue that there is an increase in exposure. But I do wonder why so many people think that is so important. So more people know the university's name. So what?

Exposure leads to growth, in every aspect of the university. Look at any school that has a run of success in football. Increased application numbers, increased enrollment, more $$ in the form of ticket sales and donations, increased standing in the community, and the opportunity to be more selective potentially. I guess it all comes down to what you are looking for and what your mission is. Many FBS schools, and FCS schools, have football programs that operate in the red. True, costs increase dramatically with a move up. That's why it takes such careful study and preparation to make a successful move.

But why do schools at the FBS level - many of which take a financial hit on the smaller bowl games - continue to accept bids? Because they feel the exposure is worth it to the program and university, and I'm in no position to argue w/ AD's and school presidents of major universities that know the issues far better than any of us. :)

One example I'm familiar with intimately - Virginia Tech. They moved up in stature within FBS because of their success under Frank Beamer, and the impact on the University, the alum, and the town of Blacksburg has been absolutely incalculable. Sure, it's a different move than what we're talking about with Tx St, but there is no question that additional exposure has paid dividends to the school and the community. Same with Boise, same with ECU, UCF, etc.

FormerPokeCenter

May 19th, 2008, 10:56 PM

It might take a decade or more for Texas State to become successful at the FBS level, but if they don't make that initial move it will never happen.

Well, they've been in the FCS for the better part of two decades and have fielded exactly ONE good team...

Looking at the marquee programs who've moved up and then underperformed, the deck is certainly stacked against Southwest Texas State and there's little reason to believe that they're singularly situated to beat the odds.

I'm all for being an optimist, but I think it would make better sense, and this is just me thinking out loud here, that they'd be better served by upgrading their program to the point where they're a quality team, year in and year out before they start thinking they're ready for prime time. There's NOTHING that suggests this is a good move.

What it IS consistent with, though, is the vainglorious overreaching pretention of an institution with a social climbing agenda, always trying to be something that they're not.

If Southwest Texas State were a highly regarded and exclusive school with a proud recent history of athletic accomplishment, I'd be inclined to believe that maybe the move would be a good one.

But, let's face the facts here. SWTSU, at best, would be the 9th best 85-scholarship school in Texas if they were to move up and there's nothing historically to suggest that they'd be in a legitimate position to improve that.

Yes, they have the misleading "Texas State" name, but I can dress a pig in a Tutu and it wouldn't be a prima ballerina by any stretch of the imagination....

MaximumBobcat

May 19th, 2008, 11:19 PM

Well, they've been in the FCS for the better part of two decades and have fielded exactly ONE good team...

Looking at the marquee programs who've moved up and then underperformed, the deck is certainly stacked against Southwest Texas State and there's little reason to believe that they're singularly situated to beat the odds.

I'm all for being an optimist, but I think it would make better sense, and this is just me thinking out loud here, that they'd be better served by upgrading their program to the point where they're a quality team, year in and year out before they start thinking they're ready for prime time. There's NOTHING that suggests this is a good move.

What it IS consistent with, though, is the vainglorious overreaching pretention of an institution with a social climbing agenda, always trying to be something that they're not.

If Southwest Texas State were a highly regarded and exclusive school with a proud recent history of athletic accomplishment, I'd be inclined to believe that maybe the move would be a good one.

But, let's face the facts here. SWTSU, at best, would be the 9th best 85-scholarship school in Texas if they were to move up and there's nothing historically to suggest that they'd be in a legitimate position to improve that.

Yes, they have the misleading "Texas State" name, but I can dress a pig in a Tutu and it wouldn't be a prima ballerina by any stretch of the imagination....

What you're obviously trying to imply is that if we do well for many years in FCS and THEN move FBS that we will have a better chance of succeeding in FBS right? We won TWO DII National Championships before we moved to FCS. Looks like all those winning seasons did jack for us in FCS, just like past losses won't affect us at FBS. School pride on campus is still high from '05 and students are beginning to rally around the team. Anyways, being FCS is the worst (sub) division to be in in Texas. I'd much rather TxSt be DII or FBS.

As for the rest...I'll try not to lower myself to your insults...

xpeacex xpeacex xpeacex

FormerPokeCenter

May 20th, 2008, 11:32 AM

What you're obviously trying to imply is that if we do well for many years in FCS and THEN move FBS that we will have a better chance of succeeding in FBS right?

Actually, no. I'm flat out saying that you should at least have some objective reasons for believing that you can succeed at the FBS level. You know, like maybe two or three good seasons in close proximity to each other....

We won TWO DII National Championships before we moved to FCS. Looks like all those winning seasons did jack for us in FCS,

Exactly! That's the point. You had a legitimate reason to move up from Division II, based on past performance. Granted, it was overly optimistic and it's generally been a failure, but at least there was a reasonable belief that it was the right thing to do...

Now, you don't even have THAT going for you....

Anyways, being FCS is the worst (sub) division to be in in Texas. I'd much rather TxSt be DII or FBS.

Yeah, especially with the SLC holding you back ;), though you may be on to something with the notion of SWTSU belonging back in Division II. You'd probably match up well with Texas A&I, Tarleton State or even Sul Ross....

As for the rest...I'll try not to lower myself to your insults...

Yeah, clearly you're above taking passive agressive parting shots. I'm glad you're possessed of such high ethical and moral standards...;)

xpeacex xpeacex xpeacex

..

MaximumBobcat

May 20th, 2008, 12:04 PM

_

I personally think that we would have had a winning season last year if Bailiff wouldn't have left. He took the majority of our asst coaches (the good ones), which severely hurt our program in almost every way, as evidenced by last season. I think a lot of people forget about that last season. One HC changing jobs is one thing, but he took the best of the asst coaches with him too, which extremely hurts programs at this level IMO.

I'm not sure how objective I can get, considering we are just talking about reasons my favorite football team may or may not win games in the future, but I think one major reason we'll be able to succeed is because of recruiting. Our recruiting has really stepped up in the past 3 years. Our coaching really hasn't been there, but I look for that to change this year, especially on D this year with new DC, Bleil.

Also, if you're talking about success on the side of fan support, our fans and students want to see UH, RICE, SMU, UNT, etc, and unfortunately we can't play them at home right now. That will change. We still enjoy our rivalries with Sam, SFA and Nicholls, but most people just want to play the bigger schools.

Anyways, the FBS move has started ALREADY affecting other sports too. We've been talking about a new BB/SB complex for a LONG time. Now with the money from the athletic fee increase (which in the long run will mostly go for football) we can upgrade other sports. The BB/SB complex is set to begin construction this Summer.

Retro

May 20th, 2008, 01:17 PM

The SWC failed because it wasn't drawing the money in this new thing called tv contracts. There was no network out there that wanted to give the SWC the type money they were giving the other big name conferences since they were concentrated in two states.
Texas and Texas A&M saw the writing on the wall and started exploring other options. When the SEC started exploring their options to expand to 12 the two schools at the top of their list was Texas and Texas A&M. A&M was ready to go, but Texas looked down it's nose at the academics of the SEC schools. The Aggies knew that their football fortunes were tied with the Horns and declined an almost slam dunk invitation, leaving the SEC scrambling. Arkansas , who also saw the writing on the wall, leaped at the chance to not only make more money but to get a ton more east coast exposure for their program. That gave the SEC 11. The problem was the 12th school. They approached Florida State, who had spent the entire decade of the 1980's begging for SEC membership, and was told "Thanks, but we have a conference now." They couldn't get enough support to add Miami, so they were left with South Carolina.
Texas and A&M were left in limbo in the SWC for a few years before negotiations with the Big 8 began.

Had the SWC formula been a viable one you would have seen the schools left behind rebuild the SWC with eastern WAC and Big West schools because even as late as the mid 1990's the Southwest Conference was far more prestigious a conference than the WAC, Big West, or soon to be formed Conference USA. These same facts are true today. In the next decade the Sunbelt, a conference formed in 2001, is going to leave the MAC, a conference formed in 1947, in the dust in bowl opportunities, tv contracts, and exposure for these same reasons.

The reason Florida State didn't go to the SEC was because they had a dominiate Football and wanted to improve their basketball presence, so that is why they chose the SEC.. They certainly didn't do it for Football reasons, although i have heard many people in that area say they didn't want to go to the SEC because they would've had to play againest far better competition and would have hurt their program's credibility in it's recent rise to the top at that time.

I don't think the SBC will leave anyone in the dust until they win some meaningfull games on a regular basis and that includes games againest Mcneese! xlolx

TXST_CAT

May 21st, 2008, 09:11 PM

I don't think the SBC will leave anyone in the dust until they win some meaningfull games on a regular basis and that includes games againest Mcneese! xlolx

Well I guess we will be able to help in that regard since we have a 3-2 advantage in our last five meetings. xsmiley_wix

Retro

May 21st, 2008, 09:52 PM

Well I guess we will be able to help in that regard since we have a 3-2 advantage in our last five meetings. xsmiley_wix

Yes, and 4 - 14 in the 18 previous years! xcoolx

FormerPokeCenter

May 21st, 2008, 11:19 PM

Well I guess we will be able to help in that regard since we have a 3-2 advantage in our last five meetings. xsmiley_wix

Yes, congratulations!!! You won convincingly against the worst McNeese team in 30 years in 2004...Who didn't?

Then, you got by the hurricane ravaged team of 2005 with your best team ever, but you took a knee and managed to screw that up later in the year. In 2006, you managed to squeak by a team reeling from a coaching change the previous week which spotted you six, count 'em, SIX turnovers...

TXST_CAT

May 22nd, 2008, 01:16 AM

Yes, congratulations!!! You won convincingly against the worst McNeese team in 30 years in 2004...Who didn't?

Then, you got by the hurricane ravaged team of 2005 with your best team ever, but you took a knee and managed to screw that up later in the year. In 2006, you managed to squeak by a team reeling from a coaching change the previous week which spotted you six, count 'em, SIX turnovers...

Did I hit a nerve Poke? xnonox

Yea we took a knee but at least we came within an OT loss from the Ship. That's more than can be said of any SLC team in recent times. Not to mention who we had to go through to get there. Also I honestly think we can get there again with the current staff and team.

Last years loss to McNeese came during a coaching transition also. One that resulted in a week defense. It will be nice to see how our two teams match up this year. WITH OUT the EXCUSES. xwhistlex

TXST_CAT

May 22nd, 2008, 01:19 AM

Yes, and 4 - 14 in the 18 previous years! xcoolx

Yea but lately We've had McNeese's number. Lets see how we do this year with a good DC calling the shots. xpeacex

FormerPokeCenter

May 22nd, 2008, 12:53 PM

Did I hit a nerve Poke? xnonox

Yea we took a knee but at least we came within an OT loss from the Ship. That's more than can be said of any SLC team in recent times. Not to mention who we had to go through to get there. Also I honestly think we can get there again with the current staff and team.

Last years loss to McNeese came during a coaching transition also. One that resulted in a week defense. It will be nice to see how our two teams match up this year. WITH OUT the EXCUSES. xwhistlex

Your coaching change happened the week before our game? If not....it's not relevant.

The week before the 2006 game, we fired an Eddie Robinson award winning guy who'd been the head coach that took us to the National Title game in 2002. And, he'd been with the program for more than 30 years as a player, administrator, position coach and, finally, the head guy.

That's a far cry from losing your DC in the offseason.

When you can beat us consistently, straight up, then you'll have our number. Until then, what you've got is a whole lotta wishful thinking. But at least you're consistant. You guys think wishfully about a number of topics.

I hate to be a killjoy by interjecting reality here, but when you manage to catch us in a down cycle, recovering from a hurricane and immediately after the termination of a guy who was the heart and soul of the program for a number of years, it's not "having" our number, it's called finally getting lucky.

You know, aside from the 2006 game, you've NEVER beaten a McTeam that had a winning record. NEVER...and at the point at which the 2006 game occured, we didn't have a winning record then, either...Every time you've beaten McNeese it's been when they had a team that finished 4-7 or worse. Take a knee and think about that. Wait, I have to correct that. You beat a 5-4 McNeese team in the hurricane abbreviated season of 2005, with your best team, ever. In 2006, McNeese was 2-3 at the time the game was played and one week removed from firing Tommy Tate. You won by a touchdown after McNeese turned the ball over 6 freakin times. It's not like you physically dominated the game, you got it giftwrapped and handed to you on a silver platter. But, after realizing just how badly they'd screwed up by handing that game to you, gift wrapped, McNeese regrouped and won out to take the league title and head to the playoffs.

It's pretty telling what happened the following year, with no distractions.

So...I hate to let the hot air out of your over inflated ego...er....balloon, but your 4 measely wins against substandard McNeese teams mean nothing, but I can see how getting three of them in a row must make it feel like you've finally turned a corner...

And about that, "more than any other SLC team has done recently" crap, get a grip. Do you really think a piss poor coaching decision in 2005 is more significant than getting to the National Title game in 2002? McNeese makes two trips to the finals in a 10-year span and that's obviated by your one measely and unsuccessful trip to the semis? McNeese makes the playoffs 6 out of the last 8 years and that doesn't measure up to your one flash in the pan run with an A&M transfer quarterback?

No wonder you guys think you're about to supplant the University of Texas as the Lone Star state's flagship institution.

There's a word for that sort of mindset. It's called "Delusional." ;)

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 01:49 PM

Your coaching change happened the week before our game? If not....it's not relevant.

The week before the 2006 game, we fired an Eddie Robinson award winning guy who'd been the head coach that took us to the National Title game in 2002. And, he'd been with the program for more than 30 years as a player, administrator, position coach and, finally, the head guy.

That's a far cry from losing your DC in the offseason.

When you can beat us consistently, straight up, then you'll have our number. Until then, what you've got is a whole lotta wishful thinking. But at least you're consistant. You guys think wishfully about a number of topics.

I hate to be a killjoy by interjecting reality here, but when you manage to catch us in a down cycle, recovering from a hurricane and immediately after the termination of a guy who was the heart and soul of the program for a number of years, it's not "having" our number, it's called finally getting lucky.

You know, aside from the 2006 game, you've NEVER beaten a McTeam that had a winning record. NEVER...and at the point at which the 2006 game occured, we didn't have a winning record then, either...Every time you've beaten McNeese it's been when they had a team that finished 4-7 or worse. Take a knee and think about that. Wait, I have to correct that. You beat a 5-4 McNeese team in the hurricane abbreviated season of 2005, with your best team, ever. In 2006, McNeese was 2-3 at the time the game was played and one week removed from firing Tommy Tate. You won by a touchdown after McNeese turned the ball over 6 freakin times. It's not like you physically dominated the game, you got it giftwrapped and handed to you on a silver platter. But, after realizing just how badly they'd screwed up by handing that game to you, gift wrapped, McNeese regrouped and won out to take the league title and head to the playoffs.

It's pretty telling what happened the following year, with no distractions.

So...I hate to let the hot air out of your over inflated ego...er....balloon, but your 4 measely wins against substandard McNeese teams mean nothing, but I can see how getting three of them in a row must make it feel like you've finally turned a corner...

And about that, "more than any other SLC team has done recently" crap, get a grip. Do you really think a piss poor coaching decision in 2005 is more significant than getting to the National Title game in 2002? McNeese makes two trips to the finals in a 10-year span and that's obviated by your one measely and unsuccessful trip to the semis? McNeese makes the playoffs 6 out of the last 8 years and that doesn't measure up to your one flash in the pan run with an A&M transfer quarterback?

No wonder you guys think you're about to supplant the University of Texas as the Lone Star state's flagship institution.

There's a word for that sort of mindset. It's called "Delusional." ;)

Now THAT is a post chock-filled with excuses.

xbawlingx xbawlingx xbawlingx

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 02:02 PM

Your coaching change happened the week before our game? If not....it's not relevant.

The week before the 2006 game, we fired an Eddie Robinson award winning guy who'd been the head coach that took us to the National Title game in 2002. And, he'd been with the program for more than 30 years as a player, administrator, position coach and, finally, the head guy.

That's a far cry from losing your DC in the offseason.

When you can beat us consistently, straight up, then you'll have our number. Until then, what you've got is a whole lotta wishful thinking. But at least you're consistant. You guys think wishfully about a number of topics.

I hate to be a killjoy by interjecting reality here, but when you manage to catch us in a down cycle, recovering from a hurricane and immediately after the termination of a guy who was the heart and soul of the program for a number of years, it's not "having" our number, it's called finally getting lucky.

You know, aside from the 2006 game, you've NEVER beaten a McTeam that had a winning record. NEVER...and at the point at which the 2006 game occured, we didn't have a winning record then, either...Every time you've beaten McNeese it's been when they had a team that finished 4-7 or worse. Take a knee and think about that. Wait, I have to correct that. You beat a 5-4 McNeese team in the hurricane abbreviated season of 2005, with your best team, ever. In 2006, McNeese was 2-3 at the time the game was played and one week removed from firing Tommy Tate. You won by a touchdown after McNeese turned the ball over 6 freakin times. It's not like you physically dominated the game, you got it giftwrapped and handed to you on a silver platter. But, after realizing just how badly they'd screwed up by handing that game to you, gift wrapped, McNeese regrouped and won out to take the league title and head to the playoffs.

It's pretty telling what happened the following year, with no distractions.

So...I hate to let the hot air out of your over inflated ego...er....balloon, but your 4 measely wins against substandard McNeese teams mean nothing, but I can see how getting three of them in a row must make it feel like you've finally turned a corner...

And about that, "more than any other SLC team has done recently" crap, get a grip. Do you really think a piss poor coaching decision in 2005 is more significant than getting to the National Title game in 2002? McNeese makes two trips to the finals in a 10-year span and that's obviated by your one measely and unsuccessful trip to the semis? McNeese makes the playoffs 6 out of the last 8 years and that doesn't measure up to your one flash in the pan run with an A&M transfer quarterback?

No wonder you guys think you're about to supplant the University of Texas as the Lone Star state's flagship institution.

There's a word for that sort of mindset. It's called "Delusional." ;)

We lost a lot more than just our HC, we lost a lot of our Asst coaches also, which if you would have actually read my post above you would know. I would argue that losing a number of asst coaches is much more damaging to a program than losing a HC, in terms of how the players produce on the field.

Yes, McNeese has been the most consistently winning program in the SLC for a while, but why did you come and join this thread anyways? To talk about how great your program is and how great you've done in the past? Get over yourself.

I love how you talk about the "only time you can beat us is when we have losing seasons" blah blah blah. Yes, you guys securely hold the all-time record over us, but the times we beat you, we beat the McNeese team that was fielded that year. We beat who was put in front of us, regardless of what they had done earlier in the season or what they would later do, Period.

FormerPokeCenter

May 22nd, 2008, 03:54 PM

We lost a lot more than just our HC, we lost a lot of our Asst coaches also, which if you would have actually read my post above you would know. I would argue that losing a number of asst coaches is much more damaging to a program than losing a HC, in terms of how the players produce on the field.

Yes, but you lost them in the off season and your team had a chance to deal with it and put it in perspective. It's not the same as losing them the week before you play the game...You know this, you're just being abstruse...

Yes, McNeese has been the most consistently winning program in the SLC for a while, but why did you come and join this thread anyways? To talk about how great your program is and how great you've done in the past? Get over yourself.

I'll admit that my initial post was made at SWTSU's expense. But the subsequent posts have merely been reality-based responses to some rather wild flights of fancy from SWTSU supporters. So I prefer realism. Shoot me...

I love how you talk about the "only time you can beat us is when we have losing seasons" blah blah blah. Yes, you guys securely hold the all-time record over us, but the times we beat you, we beat the McNeese team that was fielded that year.

Yes, and they happened to be weak or distracted teams on the four times that you've managed to do it in 24 tries. The point is, you haven't been able to do it when we've had decent teams nor competitive teams, yet your fans seem to believe that you're leading the series or something.

You know, this would be like McNeese beating an uncharacteristically weak Montana or Georgia Southern team and then crowing about it incessantly. We don't do that. Sure, we remind YOU of where you're truly at as a program, but we don't crow about beating SWTSU as through it's a worthy accomplishment. Mainly the idea of you guys going out and challenging UT or A&M, or even SMU/TCU/Rice/Baylor is so preposterous as to be hysterically funny and entertaining. That's primarily why I've posted on this thread.

And, to be fair, you haven't really dissapointed...

We beat who was put in front of us, regardless of what they had done earlier in the season or what they would later do, Period.

Yes, and the point remains that anytime a decent team was put in front of you, you lost. Take a knee and think about that for a while...

Cap'n Cat

May 22nd, 2008, 06:19 PM

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 09:24 PM

[/B]

Yes, and the point remains that anytime a decent team was put in front of you, you lost. Take a knee and think about that for a while...

Eh, your 11-1 team from last season would have lost to our '05 team IMO. Not our fault that the few times we actually have good a season, you guys find some excuse to suck it up. xlolx xpeacex xpeacex xpeacex

TexasTerror

May 22nd, 2008, 09:35 PM

Eh, your 11-1 team from last season would have lost to our '05 team IMO. Not our fault that the few times we actually have good a season, you guys find some excuse to suck it up. xlolx xpeacex xpeacex xpeacex

Four times in your 21 seasons you've "actually had a good season" in the Southland and some of those four weren't exactly good, they were barely winning. xnodx

All smack aside, the Bobcats are not that attractive a football team IMO to C-USA or the WAC because they really have nothing to give to either conference, outside of perhaps a closer foe for La. Tech in the WAC. C-USA does not find them attractive and has them on a lower run than WKU, USA, MT and even, Troy (who has an awful arena for the time being)...

And from what I can gather, they are not even attractive to the Sun Belt.

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 09:37 PM

Four times in your 21 seasons you've "actually had a good season" in the Southland and some of those four weren't exactly good, they were barely winning. xnodx

hey, a winning season is a winning season and we can take what we'll get. xnodx xnodx xnodx

Besides, everybody knows Texas State is the team of the future...year in and year out. xsmiley_wix xsmiley_wix xsmiley_wix xsmiley_wix

FormerPokeCenter

May 22nd, 2008, 09:51 PM

Eh, your 11-1 team from last season would have lost to our '05 team IMO. Not our fault that the few times we actually have good a season, you guys find some excuse to suck it up.

I guess if there's ONE good thing about having a competitive team only once every 24 years, it's that you develop some expertise in the sort of speculative fantasy necessary to actually believe that a fictional game between the best team you've ever had and an average McNeese team would hold some sort of relevance, and - moreover - to be able to take some sort of personal satisfaction as to your speculative outcome. Just speaking personally, here, I'd rather follow a team that can string together good seasons in close proximity to each other...

But, that sort of mental masturbation is to be expected I guess. Especially when you don't have anything else to hang your hat on, ya know?

One good year versus your body of work over the last 24? Please.
Good luck in your move to the FBS, by the way. Maybe the move will be a good thing.

One thing's pretty clear....You certainly don't belong in this classification ;)

In parting, I have one semi-serious question for you. Have you ever stopped to consider the underlying reasons why your infrequent success in the SLC has ALWAYS come when McNeese and/or Northwestern has been down? Or were you so grateful to get a good season that you didn't stop to consider just WHY it was that you guys were able to kick ass and take names, finally, for that one year?

I mean, seriously, why can't you guys ever manage to contend for a title when we have good teams? Why is it that you're never in contention for the league title heading into the final two weeks of the season?

Come on, you're Texas State, for crying out loud. You should have blue chippers lined up around the block to come play for you and to experience the superlative educational opportunities in San Marcos. I mean, can't coaching candidates and players see that Texas State is a sleeping giant poised to pounce on the Longhorns and Aggies and that the Powercat Logo will soon supplant the Longhorn logo as the emblem of choice in the LoneStar State?

I'm guessing you have no real answer to those questions, nor have you ever bothered to take the time to think things that far through....

TXST_CAT

May 22nd, 2008, 09:53 PM

Your coaching change happened the week before our game? If not....it's not relevant.

The week before the 2006 game, we fired an Eddie Robinson award winning guy who'd been the head coach that took us to the National Title game in 2002. And, he'd been with the program for more than 30 years as a player, administrator, position coach and, finally, the head guy.

That's a far cry from losing your DC in the offseason.

When you can beat us consistently, straight up, then you'll have our number. Until then, what you've got is a whole lotta wishful thinking. But at least you're consistant. You guys think wishfully about a number of topics.

I hate to be a killjoy by interjecting reality here, but when you manage to catch us in a down cycle, recovering from a hurricane and immediately after the termination of a guy who was the heart and soul of the program for a number of years, it's not "having" our number, it's called finally getting lucky.

You know, aside from the 2006 game, you've NEVER beaten a McTeam that had a winning record. NEVER...and at the point at which the 2006 game occured, we didn't have a winning record then, either...Every time you've beaten McNeese it's been when they had a team that finished 4-7 or worse. Take a knee and think about that. Wait, I have to correct that. You beat a 5-4 McNeese team in the hurricane abbreviated season of 2005, with your best team, ever. In 2006, McNeese was 2-3 at the time the game was played and one week removed from firing Tommy Tate. You won by a touchdown after McNeese turned the ball over 6 freakin times. It's not like you physically dominated the game, you got it giftwrapped and handed to you on a silver platter. But, after realizing just how badly they'd screwed up by handing that game to you, gift wrapped, McNeese regrouped and won out to take the league title and head to the playoffs.

It's pretty telling what happened the following year, with no distractions.

So...I hate to let the hot air out of your over inflated ego...er....balloon, but your 4 measely wins against substandard McNeese teams mean nothing, but I can see how getting three of them in a row must make it feel like you've finally turned a corner...

And about that, "more than any other SLC team has done recently" crap, get a grip. Do you really think a piss poor coaching decision in 2005 is more significant than getting to the National Title game in 2002? McNeese makes two trips to the finals in a 10-year span and that's obviated by your one measely and unsuccessful trip to the semis? McNeese makes the playoffs 6 out of the last 8 years and that doesn't measure up to your one flash in the pan run with an A&M transfer quarterback?

No wonder you guys think you're about to supplant the University of Texas as the Lone Star state's flagship institution.

There's a word for that sort of mindset. It's called "Delusional." ;)

Let's see One Head coach who left his entire staff vs A Head coach and two thirds the staff. I think our team lost more. Especially since we went to a completely different Offense and Defense. As for "GIVING US" the win on '06. I guess we gave you the the '07 game then since we put our worst defense in six years on the field. Five INTs and a forced fumble is not giving the game away. It's having it taken away.

BTW: Nealy didn't play in '06 and never stepped a foot on the A&M Campus. xreadx

Like I Said let's see what happens this year with no excuses. xpeacex

TXST_CAT

May 22nd, 2008, 09:58 PM

I guess if there's ONE good thing about having a competitive team only once every 24 years, it's that you develop some expertise in the sort of speculative fantasy necessary to actually believe that a fictional game between the best team you've ever had and an average McNeese team would hold some sort of relevance, and - moreover - to be able to take some sort of personal satisfaction as to your speculative outcome. Just speaking personally, here, I'd rather follow a team that can string together good seasons in close proximity to each other...

But, that sort of mental masturbation is to be expected I guess. Especially when you don't have anything else to hang your hat on, ya know?

One good year versus your body of work over the last 24? Please.
Good luck in your move to the FBS, by the way. Maybe the move will be a good thing.

One thing's pretty clear....You certainly don't belong in this classification ;)

In parting, I have one semi-serious question for you. Have you ever stopped to consider the underlying reasons why your infrequent success in the SLC has ALWAYS come when McNeese and/or Northwestern has been down? Or were you so grateful to get a good season that you didn't stop to consider just WHY it was that you guys were able to kick ass and take names, finally, for that one year?

I mean, seriously, why can't you guys ever manage to contend for a title when we have good teams? Why is it that you're never in contention for the league title heading into the final two weeks of the season?

Come on, you're Texas State, for crying out loud. You should have blue chippers lined up around the block to come play for you and to experience the superlative educational opportunities in San Marcos. I mean, can't coaching candidates and players see that Texas State is a sleeping giant poised to pounce on the Longhorns and Aggies and that the Powercat Logo will soon supplant the Longhorn logo as the emblem of choice in the LoneStar State?

I'm guessing you have no real answer to those questions, nor have you ever bothered to take the time to think things that far through....

The season will be here soon enough like I said No Excuses this year. xpeacex

FormerPokeCenter

May 22nd, 2008, 10:05 PM

The season will be here soon enough like I said No Excuses this year. xpeacex

You were saying the same thing this time last year ;) And, I'd be willing to bet you probably said the same thing for the last 23 years....

If there's one thing you guys are good at, it's flipping your lips before the season.

I checked the Michigan site with the won and loss records just now. Dude, you guys have had THREE, count em THREE winning seasons since 1985...

And you guys think you're ready for the Big XII???? What's up with that?

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 10:05 PM

I'm guessing you have no real answer to those questions, nor have you ever bothered to take the time to think things that far through....

It's a game. Someone has to lose and someone has to win.

Obviously we have had some bad luck over the years with a mix of poor coaches and poor fan and administration support. You guys seem to have had some good luck with coaches and over the years you also have taken some athletes that we might not have accepted (Hey, you asked). You guys have much better fan support than anyone in the SLC, so that has something to do with it also.

Don't worry though, we'll give you a whooping this year. I just hope one year from now, you aren't on here whining again about how you gave us the game when we get a couple interceptions. xpeacex xpeacex xpeacex

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 10:07 PM

And you guys think you're ready for the Big XII???? What's up with that?

xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx

When did the school say that?

Please...tell me.

TexasTerror

May 22nd, 2008, 10:07 PM

You were saying the same thing this time last year ;) And, I'd be willing to bet you probably said the same thing for the last 23 years....

If there's one thing you guys are good at, it's flipping your lips before the season.

What's going to happen when Lamar has football? Are they going to take that role away from Texas St-San Marcos? We know they do it in basketball, but you are 'dead on' with the remark about the 'same thing this time last year'. We hear the same old tune each and every year...

Lamar may take their long-established place back at the bottom of the conference, considering they've been in last twice as much as the next team...xthumbsupx

FormerPokeCenter

May 22nd, 2008, 10:09 PM

It's a game. Someone has to lose and someone has to win.

Obviously we have had some bad luck over the years with a mix of poor coaches and poor fan and administration support. You guys seem to have had some good luck with coaches and over the years you also have taken some athletes that we might not have accepted (Hey, you asked). You guys have much better fan support than anyone in the SLC, so that has something to do with it also.

Don't worry though, we'll give you a whooping this year. I just hope one year from now, you aren't on here whining again about how you gave us the game when we get a couple interceptions. xpeacex xpeacex xpeacex

If you get a couple of interceptions, it'll be late in the game....when we're playing the reserves. I don't think Cecil Collins played against you guys, but I could be wrong...

I won't be hard to find a year from now ;)

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 10:12 PM

If you get a couple of interceptions, it'll be late in the game....when we're playing the reserves. I don't think Cecil Collins played against you guys, but I could be wrong...

I won't be hard to find a year from now ;)

Well you're right about one thing.

There's no use playing your starters when the game is already out of reach for the Pokes. ;)

FormerPokeCenter

May 22nd, 2008, 10:13 PM

xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx

When did the school say that?

Please...tell me.

I like the way you qualify your question by asking for a cite to an official administrator saying that....

As if you nutjobs don't think that's where you belong. You talk incessant smack despite having exactly THREE winning seasons since 1985, but it's the SLC that's holding you back....by kicking your asses year in and year out....

Again, try having two or three competitive seasons in close proximity to each other and get back to me about where your program is.

Until then, you're simply comic relief...

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 10:23 PM

I like the way you qualify your question by asking for a cite to an official administrator saying that....

As if you nutjobs don't think that's where you belong. You talk incessant smack despite having exactly THREE winning seasons since 1985, but it's the SLC that's holding you back....by kicking your asses year in and year out....

Again, try having two or three competitive seasons in close proximity to each other and get back to me about where your program is.

Until then, you're simply comic relief...

Haha man, you said something stupid about the Big XII, so don't try to turn it around. Our admin never said anything about it and most our fans would think it is preposterous. Of course there's a few that think it's a good idea, but I bet I could find a few on your campus that think MSU should join the SEC.

Also, if you're going to talk smack, at least try a little harder to get your facts straight. Since 85, we've had winning seasons in 90, 91, 2000, and 2005. That is four. Not great, but it's better than three. xcoolx

And I Like the fact that you chose 85. For the uninformed, before 85, we were coming off eight winning seasons and two national championships. So, since 85 we've had 4 winning seasons and since 77, we've had 12 winning seasons IIRC.
xpeacex xpeacex xpeacex

FormerPokeCenter

May 22nd, 2008, 10:36 PM

Haha man, you said something stupid about the Big XII, so don't try to turn it around. Our admin never said anything about it and most our fans would think it is preposterous.

Also, if you're going to talk smack, at least try a little harder to get your facts straight. Since 85, we've had winning seasons in 90, 91, 2000, and 2005. That is four. Not great, but it's better than three. xcoolx

And I Like the fact that you chose 85. For the uninformed, before 85, we were coming off eight winning seasons and two national championships. So, since 85 we've had 4 winning seasons and since 77, we've had 12 winning seasons IIRC.
xpeacex xpeacex xpeacex

Okay....I sit corrected. You've had 4 winning seasons in the last 23. The U Mich site only had asterisks next to three seasons....I missed the magical seaon of 1990 because it wasn't listed properly. What was it, 6-5?

When I used the term "you guys" it doesn't necessarily mean "The SWTSU Administration", though I can understand how you might interpret it that way, what with your highly subjective method for evaluating football programs. Perhaps your familiarity with common phrases in the English language is based on similarly fuzzy logic? You guys have mentioned trying to get home and homes with Big XII teams and you're apparently attempting to position yourselves as some sort of flagship. You know you think that's where you belong, just admit it ;)

I went back to 85, because that's when the McNeese/SWTSU series started.

And, posting accurate information about your won loss record and lack of dominance isn't smack. It's simply stating the truth.

If you guys had ANY familiarity with the concept of reality, you'd recognize the truth when you see it ;)

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 10:43 PM

When I used the term "you guys" it doesn't necessarily mean "The SWTSU Administration", though I can understand how you might interpret it that way, what with your highly subjective method for evaluating football programs. Perhaps your familiarity with common phrases in the English language is based on similarly fuzzy logic? You guys have mentioned trying to get home and homes with Big XII teams and you're apparently attempting to position yourselves as some sort of flagship. You know you think that's where you belong, just admit it

So trying to get a home and home with a team from a difference conf means we are trying to join the conference??? So if you guys try to get a ULL 1-n-1 does that mean you want to join the Belt???

You want to see fuzzy logic, go look in the mirror buddy. xlolx xlolx xlolx

I went back to 85, because that's when the McNeese/SWTSU series started.

Fair enough, it's just that that year would be the one to pick if someone was trying to make us look really bad as that's around the time when the downturn for our program started when we joined I-AA.

FormerPokeCenter

May 22nd, 2008, 10:54 PM

[B]So trying to get a home and home with a team from a difference conf means we are trying to join the conference??? So if you guys try to get a ULL 1-n-1 does that mean you want to join the Belt???

We brought USL a record crowd. In fact, it was the largest crowd EVER to see a Sun Belch game. A home and home with them isn't an indication that we want to be in the Sun Belch, we CHOSE to go the I-AA route and are quite pleased with the decision. The desire for a home and home is based on the economic reality that it's a game that their fans, and ours, want to see and that it would be a great game, for both schools, from a gate perspective.

Do you REALLY think that SWTSU brings much to the table in a proposed Big XII team? I mean, really...c'mon....Be serious...You're not asking a BIG XII team for a home and home where you'd bring any financial weight to the equation, you're asking Big XII teams for a home and home so you can coattail your way to profitability. The two situations aren't anywhere close to being similar...

Again, if you had ANY familiarity with reality based evaluation, you'd see that right off the bat.

Fair enough, it's just that that year would be the one to pick if someone was trying to make us look really bad as that's around the time when the downturn for our program started when we joined I-AA.[/QUOTE]

Dude, as long as the University of Michigan site lists your won/loss record, I don't have to TRY to make you look really bad....;)

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 10:58 PM

Do you REALLY think that SWTSU brings much to the table in a proposed Big XII team? I mean, really...c'mon....Be serious...You're not asking a BIG XII team for a home and home where you'd bring any financial weight to the equation, you're asking Big XII teams for a home and home so you can coattail your way to profitability. The two situations aren't anywhere close to being similar...

No certainly not at the moment. So to reiterate for you, I don't think that and I never said that.

You are the one that typed that one up broski. xlolx xlolx xlolx

FormerPokeCenter

May 22nd, 2008, 11:17 PM

No certainly not at the moment. So to reiterate for you, I don't think that and I never said that.

You are the one that typed that one up broski. xlolx xlolx xlolx

Dude, "not at the moment?" I damn sure didn't type that overly optimistic piece of text...

That overly optimistic attitude is exactly what I'm referring to. Four winning seasons in I-AA in 23 years and you're being optimistically cautious in the way you word answers to a direct question with a very OBVIOUS answer.

The answer is NO, you don't bring a DAMN thing to the table against a BigXII team except an easy win....

C'mon, say it with me. "Texas State brings NOTHING to the table against a Big 12 team." I have faith in you. I know you can do it...

C'mon..here, we'll start slowly....

Texas

State

Brings

NOTHING

to

the

Table

against

the

Big

XII.

See? That wasn't so hard, was it?

TXSUBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 11:24 PM

...the Bobcats are not that attractive a football team IMO to C-USA or the WAC because they really have nothing to give to either conference, outside of perhaps a closer foe for La. Tech in the WAC. C-USA does not find them attractive and has them on a lower run than WKU, USA, MT and even, Troy (who has an awful arena for the time being)...

I don't want to start bashing mcneese state and sam houston, but I am, anyone can get into those two schools (why would someone want to go to mcneese over LSU? btw Texas State has higher admission standards than LSU) . Texas State has the fourth highest admission standards among all schools in the state of Texas (behind Rice, Texas A&M & Texas). We not only have more quality students (except for myself) than either of your schools but we also have triple the enrollment of mcneese state and nearly double the enrollment of sam houston. That means that our university generates 3 times the amount of msu/shsu (compare Texas State's revenue to Rice, U of H, SMU, etc). Texas State has construction plans that total $600 million for the next 7 years, that is probably the amount that your schools will spend over the next 20 years.

What I'm trying to get at with all of this, to expound on what MB had said, is that Texas State is the team of the future and all of the facts that I have just stated are why this university will be attractive to conferences. In 5 years a win over us by either of your schools will be considered a major upset, that is if we decide to schedule your school as a warm up game to open the season.

I'm going to save all of these quotes by TT and poke, and repost them again on AGS in 5 years and we will see who has the better athletic program then (and I will laugh because you guys will still be in I-AA).

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 11:34 PM

Dude, "not at the moment?" I damn sure didn't type that overly optimistic piece of text...

That overly optimistic attitude is exactly what I'm referring to. Four winning seasons in I-AA in 23 years and you're being optimistically cautious in the way you word answers to a direct question with a very OBVIOUS answer.

Most fans will be optimistic about their teams future. While I don't think we will ever be IN the Big XII, there's no reason not to think that ONE DAY things could possibly change and good things will happen in terms of W's and L's.

As a former player, maybe your pessimistic attitude is a hint towards why the McNeese program has never won a NC???

TexasTerror

May 22nd, 2008, 11:48 PM

Enrollment, Academics, Enrollment, Academics, blah, blah blah...

You stressed academic and enrollments and NOTHING to do with athletics. Sure, those things help, but they are not the end all, be all. The Ivy League is the Ivy League. There are schools larger than yours that are Division II and Division III.

For the record -- SHSU does not want to have the enrollment of your institution, as we want to hold true to the values that the school was founded on. Academically, our standards continue to improve and our enrollment has gone up. When SFA increased their standards, their enrollment went down. SHSU bucked the trend and has had the largest enrollment increase the last few years while maintaining our standards. We don't want to go much more than 20k.

What I'm trying to get at with all of this, to expound on what MB had said, is that Texas State is the team of the future and all of the facts that I have just stated are why this university will be attractive to conferences. In 5 years a win over us by either of your schools will be considered a major upset, that is if we decide to schedule your school as a warm up game to open the season.

How is your school the team of the future? You've apparently had the academic, enrollment edge (since this is what you stressed) over the rest of the SLC for years and still have not done anything. Oh, you've also had the financial benefits over all schools in the SLC, sometimes double them and guess what, they still have topped you.

Your school has not done well with all the same advantages you tout. What will make the future different? Your fans crap all over your athletic director and he's really the one in the position to make the difference.

If Texas State - San Marcos were in the Sun Belt (which they won't be), that would not be an upset considering our conference's track record against the SBC. If Texas State - San Marcos were in the C-USA or WAC, would that be an upset? Maybe, but you guys aren't even in their first tier of desires. That tier includes teams with established success in football and basketball, something your school does not have, plus the other crap you mentioned above (academics and enrollment) which apparently have a huge impact on athletics -- again, not so.

I'm going to save all of these quotes by TT and poke, and repost them again on AGS in 5 years and we will see who has the better athletic program then (and I will laugh because you guys will still be in I-AA).

Please do it...wish I'd saved quotes from guys like Doerr and Fischer as well as numerous quotes made by members of the Texas St-San Marcos community and random folks from the ASG, that seems to have all the pull in San Marcos.

Much of what they said and what you say are the same messages we've been hearing. It's 2008, not 2003. That's five years that have passed since I really began to hear it and guess what, not much has changed. The only success that you guys have had since (and your entire time in Division I football), arguably came in large part in aid from the biggest NCAA violator your school has ever seen -- Manny Mataskis, who loved to rub elbows with Doerr, Fischer and of course, his golden boy, Nealy.

Good thing he helped with the name change and the SuperCat logo. I know you guys hold those close to the vest.

TXST_CAT

May 22nd, 2008, 11:54 PM

You were saying the same thing this time last year ;) And, I'd be willing to bet you probably said the same thing for the last 23 years....

If there's one thing you guys are good at, it's flipping your lips before the season.

I checked the Michigan site with the won and loss records just now. Dude, you guys have had THREE, count em THREE winning seasons since 1985...

And you guys think you're ready for the Big XII???? What's up with that?

McNeese has been saying the same thing about beating TXST for the last two years. Only difference is it took two years to get payback against one of our worst defensive teams in six years. Even a bad '06 team beat your beloved Conference Champ team. But I guess that was a bad year for McNeese also. What ever Slow Poke, stop drinking the water from the swamps. Wasn't McNeese a FBS team at one point!?!? Well I guess if you're happy with playing FCS you shouldn't care if we do or don't go FBS. Either way we have better attendance(look it up), facilities and most importantly better women. Gotta love being In central Texas mid Summer. xnodx xsmiley_wix

MaximumBobcat

May 22nd, 2008, 11:55 PM

That's five years that have passed since I really began to hear it and guess what, not much has changed.

Just chill and let it play out. It's only been a few months since the students started putting more money behind the team. I say wait another 5.

TXST_CAT

May 23rd, 2008, 12:13 AM

When you play A&M this good why not join the BIG XII..........xwhistlex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuhP055B-ZE

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 12:21 AM

we also have triple the enrollment of mcneese state and nearly double the enrollment of sam houston. That means that our university generates 3 times the amount of msu/shsu (compare Texas State's revenue to Rice, U of H, SMU, etc).

Guess what? You've had that same financial advantage for the last 23 years and haven't been able to do squat with it....

What I'm trying to get at with all of this, to expound on what MB had said, is that Texas State is the team of the future

You guys have been the team of the future for the last 23 years. Maybe next year....or the year after that.....or the year after that...or.....well...you get the picture...We certainly do ;)

In 5 years a win over us by either of your schools will be considered a major upset, that is if we decide to schedule your school as a warm up game to open the season.

You know, I've heard this before. From USL. I'll look for you in 2013...

I'm going to save all of these quotes by TT and poke, and repost them again on AGS in 5 years and we will see who has the better athletic program then (and I will laugh because you guys will still be in I-AA).

Dude, I-AA is the old nomenclature for football only. It does't apply to your athletic department as a whole...

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 12:23 AM

Most fans will be optimistic about their teams future. While I don't think we will ever be IN the Big XII, there's no reason not to think that ONE DAY things could possibly change and good things will happen in terms of W's and L's.

As a former player, maybe your pessimistic attitude is a hint towards why the McNeese program has never won a NC???

I'm hardly a pessimist. I'm just familiar with your program ;)

TXST_CAT

May 23rd, 2008, 12:28 AM

I'm hardly a pessimist. I'm just familiar with your program ;)

Sure you are that's why you thought Neally played at A&M. xnonox

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 12:31 AM

McNeese has been saying the same thing about beating TXST for the last two years. Only difference is it took two years to get payback against one of our worst defensive teams in six years. Even a bad '06 team beat your beloved Conference Champ team. But I guess that was a bad year for McNeese also. What ever Slow Poke, stop drinking the water from the swamps. Wasn't McNeese a FBS team at one point!?!? Well I guess if you're happy with playing FCS you shouldn't care if we do or don't go FBS. Either way we have better attendance(look it up), facilities and most importantly better women. Gotta love being In central Texas mid Summer. xnodx xsmiley_wix

Better attendance? <giggle>.....We were never an FBS team, though we probably appeared to be one when we played you guys ;)

We were I-A in the late 70's, winning the Inaugural Independence Bowl and playing in two others. We appeared in the AP and UPI top 20 a few times....

When the NCAA bifurcated Division I, we took stock of the landscape and decided that it was better to be in a conference with geographically desireable opponents than to go I-A as an independent rent-a-win of the week. We took a lot of flack for that decision, most notably by folks over at USL. Much like Texas State, theiir wins over us were few and far between.

They had the same attitude you guys have, convinced of their own intrinsic worth despite copious amounts of readily available data to the contrary. USL fans were convinced that they'd be extended an invitation to thet SEC in short order.

Fast forward 21 years and we finally get them back on the field. And, sure enough, there was a palpable difference in football talent that was easily discernible. One of the teams didn't belong on the same field with the other.

The only problem was the crappy team was the I-A "powerhouse."

I'm not a pyschologist or a sociologist, except as an amateur, but forgive me if I've seen a manifestation of your particular brand of delusional thinking before ;)

Retro

May 23rd, 2008, 12:35 AM

I don't want to start bashing mcneese state and sam houston, but I am, anyone can get into those two schools (why would someone want to go to mcneese over LSU? btw Texas State has higher admission standards than LSU) . Texas State has the fourth highest admission standards among all schools in the state of Texas (behind Rice, Texas A&M & Texas). We not only have more quality students (except for myself) than either of your schools but we also have triple the enrollment of mcneese state and nearly double the enrollment of sam houston. That means that our university generates 3 times the amount of msu/shsu (compare Texas State's revenue to Rice, U of H, SMU, etc). Texas State has construction plans that total $600 million for the next 7 years, that is probably the amount that your schools will spend over the next 20 years.

What I'm trying to get at with all of this, to expound on what MB had said, is that Texas State is the team of the future and all of the facts that I have just stated are why this university will be attractive to conferences. In 5 years a win over us by either of your schools will be considered a major upset, that is if we decide to schedule your school as a warm up game to open the season.

I'm going to save all of these quotes by TT and poke, and repost them again on AGS in 5 years and we will see who has the better athletic program then (and I will laugh because you guys will still be in I-AA).

xrolleyesx OK, Here we go! As soon we throw some real facts that downplay your great successs, some rookie jumps in with the old admissions standards bit. xreadx
Yes, different schools have different standards depending on their needs, courses, etc. Does this really matter? No, not at all. Because all the students that play football are in the same boat.. They all have to reach a level of education that is pretty much the same and have to maintain their grades, graduation progress, etc..

If your going to use that old excuse, then why even play football? I'm sure some prized high school recruits say "Geez i really want to go to Texas State, but i'm not smart enough, so i guess i'll go to Mcneese"? It's more like "I wanna play for a winning team that has great fan support and i'll do what it takes to make the grade"

I guess that is your excuse for losing scholarships for performance too? http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41078

TXST_CAT

May 23rd, 2008, 12:36 AM

Better attendance? <giggle>.....We were never an FBS team, though we probably appeared to be one when we played you guys ;)

We were I-A in the late 70's, winning the Inaugural Independence Bowl and playing in two others. We appeared in the AP and UPI top 20 a few times....

When the NCAA bifurcated Division I, we took stock of the landscape and decided that it was better to be in a conference with geographically desireable opponents than to go I-A as an independent rent-a-win of the week. We took a lot of flack for that decision, most notably by folks over at USL. Much like Texas State, theiir wins over us were few and far between.

They had the same attitude you guys have, convinced of their own intrinsic worth despite copious amounts of readily available data to the contrary. USL fans were convinced that they'd be extended an invitation to thet SEC in short order.

Fast forward 21 years and we finally get them back on the field. And, sure enough, there was a palpable difference in football talent that was easily discernible. One of the teams didn't belong on the same field with the other.

The only problem was the crappy team was the I-A "powerhouse."

I'm not a pyschologist or a sociologist, except as an amateur, but forgive me if I've seen a manifestation of your particular brand of delusional thinking before ;)

Div I-A=FBS today.

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 12:36 AM

Sure you are that's why you thought Neally played at A&M. xnonox

Okay, so he played at Houston...I get my SLC transfer QBs over in Texas confused...

That doesn't change the fact that I know exactly what Texas State is, and - perhaps more importantly - what it isn't ;)

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 12:39 AM

Div I-A=FBS today.

In the late 70's, early 80's, there was no such thing as a Division I-A team. We were a Division I team.

We qualified to be a Division I-A team, by virtue of the stadium size AND attendance requirements of the time. We were the only SLC team who did so. USL qualified based on Stadium Size. When the NCAA mandated actual attendance, USL began employing "new math" to figure their attendance...

I'm sure you'll adopt the same method, if you haven't already...

MaximumBobcat

May 23rd, 2008, 12:41 AM

Bottom line to non-TxSt fans: We're going to try to give it a shot. If we succeed, great. If we don't...why do YOU care?

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 12:46 AM

Bottom line to non-TxSt fans: We're going to try to give it a shot. If we succeed, great. If we don't...why do YOU care?

That's the first reasonable post I've ever seen you make. I don't think ANYBODY would object to that mindset.

What makes us point and laugh at you is the ridiculous notion that you'll immediately be successful and competitive in the FBS when you can't - by any stretch of the imagination - be considered successful and competitive now...

I mean, crap, you guys act as though FBS excellence is a foregone conclusion. Good luck with that. If you object to being ridiculed for your team's performance, try consistently winning some games ;)

MaximumBobcat

May 23rd, 2008, 12:51 AM

That's the first reasonable post I've ever seen you make. I don't think ANYBODY would object to that mindset.

What makes us point and laugh at you is the ridiculous notion that you'll immediately be successful and competitive in the FBS when you can't - by any stretch of the imagination - be considered successful and competitive now...

I mean, crap, you guys act as though FBS excellence is a foregone conclusion. Good luck with that. If you object to being ridiculed for your team's performance, try consistently winning some games ;)

Well, I never said we would immediately be successful in FBS, so you're pulling that one out your butt again, chump. The last few times we have played FBS (Baylor, AnM, Baylor, excl UK) we have been competitive. I think it will take time, but that's just me.

And you didn't really answer the question. xrulesx

TXST_CAT

May 23rd, 2008, 01:02 AM

Better attendance? <giggle>)

2007 McNeese
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 7/12819

2007 TXST
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 6/11408

2006 McNeese
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 6/10882

2006 TXST
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 6/12886

2005 McNeese
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 5/12112

2005 TXST
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 5/11164

3yr average

McNeese.........11938

TXST..............11819

Not bad for a "bottom dweller" TEAM. xthumbsupx

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 08:55 AM

2007 McNeese
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 7/12819

2007 TXST
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 6/11408

2006 McNeese
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 6/10882

2006 TXST
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 6/12886

2005 McNeese
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 5/12112

2005 TXST
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 5/11164

3yr average

McNeese.........11938

TXST..............11819

Not bad for a "bottom dweller" TEAM. xthumbsupx

When you consider that McNeese has less than half the student base that Texas State has, it certainly puts things in perspective, no?

McNeese has roughly 9 thousand students and draws 12k. Texas State has 20k in student population and draws 11k. Even here you underperform.

But you're ready for Prime Time, right? ;)

TexasTerror

May 23rd, 2008, 09:07 AM

Just chill and let it play out. It's only been a few months since the students started putting more money behind the team. I say wait another 5.

More money? You guys already outspend every one else in the conference and lack results. I do not see how more money is going to do the trick for your program.

When you consider that McNeese has less than half the student base that Texas State has, it certainly puts things in perspective, no?

McNeese has roughly 9 thousand students and draws 12k. Texas State has 20k in student population and draws 11k. Even here you underperform.

The Bobcats have closer to 30k, I thought. If they could get 10% to show up at basketball games, that'd be sensational, wouldn't it? That's too high of a mark for them, they couldn't come close to the mark -- which is what SHSU does (as we have predominantly students at our games).

For football, there's no excuse for the Bobcats to not fill the stadium, yet it took Nealy and the Mataskis boys to accomplish the feat. Why expand the stadium, if you are not going to fill it? Throw out the FBS argument and if you were playing Ohio, Louisiana-Lafayette and New Mexico State, you would fill it, right? Those schools won't travel and you guys won't have much a chance, since you can't even seem to find a way to beat the Nicholls States and Abilene Christians of the world on a consistent basis.

Anyone have the football budgets for ACU and the 'Cats? San Marcos probably outspent them 4:1, if not more on football and still fell. That's consistent for the Bobcats, who outspend everyone else and get beat on a consistent basis. Yankees, they are not.

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 09:13 AM

Well, I never said we would immediately be successful in FBS, so you're pulling that one out your butt again, chump. The last few times we have played FBS (Baylor, AnM, Baylor, excl UK) we have been competitive. I think it will take time, but that's just me.

And you didn't really answer the question. xrulesx

Listen, send me your address....a post office box will be fine. I need to send you a copy of a really excellent reference tome entitled "Message Board decorum for Dummies."

I think it'll make your online time a lot more enjoyable.

In the meantime, let me offer this little tidbit of advice: When a guy makes a post about your school and has clearly been referring to your school, collectively, and the outrageously delusional optimism of your fans, collectively, chances are that he's using the word "you" collectively and not "you" specifically...

I realize that you're significatly hamstrung when it comes to understanding conventions of normal English usage, what with being a SWTSU grad and all, but at some point you're gonna have to realize that not everybody thinks as linearly and simply as you do ;)

Once you realize this, it may cut down on the overly literal replies.

What's funny, and a behavioural quirk also exhibited by your overreaching social climbing cousins in Lafayette, is this weird propensity for overreaching social climbers to feel free to engage in hyperbole to make a point, but then fail to see hyperbole for what it is when it comes from other sources. It's an interesting phenomenon, really.

I often wounder if the humorlessness gene is found in the same sequence as the wannabee gene? Maybe there's a research project there. The only problem, though, is that a guy would have to examine lots of SWTSU and USL grads to find out...

Who's masochistic enough for that? ;)

Oh, and when you played Baylor and A&M competitively, what were their records? Were they good Bear and Aggie teams, or was your near success against them similar to your success against McNeese, happening only when your opponent is experiencing a down cycle?

Something tells me that you (individually) have't bothered to do that analysis, either ;)

But, fear not, I've done it for you. Baylor was 3-9 and 3-8 when you were "competitive" with them. A&M was 5-6...Play them close in a decent or good year and get back to me.

You know, if you're gonna throw out "close" games, I've got an A&M game you should check out.....2001. A&M was 8-4 and went to a bowl game. We played them and had led for the entire game, going into the 4th quarter. If you were a fan of ESPN's series on college football teams, you might be familiar with the scene where their All-everything linebacker was hysterical on the sidelines in the 4th quarter, screaming at his teammates, "What in the hell is wrong with y'all, we're getting beat by a team with the school name on the back of their jerseys!" ;)

bobcatalum05

May 23rd, 2008, 09:18 AM

You stressed academic and enrollments and NOTHING to do with athletics. Sure, those things help, but they are not the end all, be all. The Ivy League is the Ivy League. There are schools larger than yours that are Division II and Division III.

For the record -- SHSU does not want to have the enrollment of your institution, as we want to hold true to the values that the school was founded on. Academically, our standards continue to improve and our enrollment has gone up. When SFA increased their standards, their enrollment went down. SHSU bucked the trend and has had the largest enrollment increase the last few years while maintaining our standards. We don't want to go much more than 20k.

How is your school the team of the future? You've apparently had the academic, enrollment edge (since this is what you stressed) over the rest of the SLC for years and still have not done anything. Oh, you've also had the financial benefits over all schools in the SLC, sometimes double them and guess what, they still have topped you.

Your school has not done well with all the same advantages you tout. What will make the future different? Your fans crap all over your athletic director and he's really the one in the position to make the difference.

If Texas State - San Marcos were in the Sun Belt (which they won't be), that would not be an upset considering our conference's track record against the SBC. If Texas State - San Marcos were in the C-USA or WAC, would that be an upset? Maybe, but you guys aren't even in their first tier of desires. That tier includes teams with established success in football and basketball, something your school does not have, plus the other crap you mentioned above (academics and enrollment) which apparently have a huge impact on athletics -- again, not so.

Please do it...wish I'd saved quotes from guys like Doerr and Fischer as well as numerous quotes made by members of the Texas St-San Marcos community and random folks from the ASG, that seems to have all the pull in San Marcos.

Much of what they said and what you say are the same messages we've been hearing. It's 2008, not 2003. That's five years that have passed since I really began to hear it and guess what, not much has changed. The only success that you guys have had since (and your entire time in Division I football), arguably came in large part in aid from the biggest NCAA violator your school has ever seen -- Manny Mataskis, who loved to rub elbows with Doerr, Fischer and of course, his golden boy, Nealy.

Good thing he helped with the name change and the SuperCat logo. I know you guys hold those close to the vest.

You havent been is San Marcos on Campus for the past 5 years, you have no idea how far along TXST has come along. The money is now their and we hope the athletes are too with more to follow.

Worry about SHSU and we will worry about TXST. We are doing what we think is best for our University and you should do the same for your own.

SHSU and McNeese have plenty to improve on and they should concentrate on their own downfalls instead of worrying about TXST.

Its pretty sad that TXST has lofty goals and you guys have to hate.

Shake them haters off.

TexasTerror

May 23rd, 2008, 09:26 AM

Worry about SHSU and we will worry about TXST. We are doing what we think is best for our University and you should do the same for your own.

The question is, will you be the next Florida A&M? Wait, you've already announced a move to I-A before and well, your still in FCS. And your still trying...and well, there's no sign that any conference wants you -- not even the Sun Belt, which is probably your best chance for finding a home.

Or will you be the next Middle Tennessee State? Nope, that's actually an institution on the move that even had a Sweet 16 appearance in volleyball this past year, made it to the finals of both men's and women's conference basketball championships and has a wide array of success across the board.

SHSU and McNeese have plenty to improve on and they should concentrate on their own downfalls instead of worrying about TXST.

Our own downfalls? SHSU is moving up rapidly in the world. Plenty of facilities upgrades, academic improvements across the board and numerous other things that are putting us where we want to be without leaving our institution's values behind. There are no lies, no deception and no false pretenses about it when it comes to SHSU.

McNeese is making a fair share of progress in the post-Rita world and is getting some financial help in the athletic-side that held them with one hand tied behind their back for a long time.

Its pretty sad that TXST has lofty goals and you guys have to hate.

Your institution has had lofty goals for year and continue to fall short. We're just helping you guys acknowledge the problems you've had and will continue to have.

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 09:42 AM

SHSU and McNeese have plenty to improve on and they should concentrate on their own downfalls instead of worrying about TXST.

Its pretty sad that TXST has lofty goals and you guys have to hate.

Shake them haters off.

Pointing out that you're ridiculously optimistic, even in the face of demonstrable fact doesn't make us haters. It merely makes us fair-minded.

You should try it sometime. You might like it...;)

bobcatalum05

May 23rd, 2008, 09:54 AM

The question is, will you be the next Florida A&M? Wait, you've already announced a move to I-A before and well, your still in FCS. And your still trying...and well, there's no sign that any conference wants you -- not even the Sun Belt, which is probably your best chance for finding a home.

Or will you be the next Middle Tennessee State? Nope, that's actually an institution on the move that even had a Sweet 16 appearance in volleyball this past year, made it to the finals of both men's and women's conference basketball championships and has a wide array of success across the board.

Our own downfalls? SHSU is moving up rapidly in the world. Plenty of facilities upgrades, academic improvements across the board and numerous other things that are putting us where we want to be without leaving our institution's values behind. There are no lies, no deception and no false pretenses about it when it comes to SHSU.

McNeese is making a fair share of progress in the post-Rita world and is getting some financial help in the athletic-side that held them with one hand tied behind their back for a long time.

Your institution has had lofty goals for year and continue to fall short. We're just helping you guys acknowledge the problems you've had and will continue to have.

Once again worried about TXST but all is rosey over at McNeese and SHSU. Give me a break I have been on those campuses and I have seen your academic standards. You guys have plenty to work on as do we. Thing is we are trying to address our own needs not some one elses.

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 11:33 AM

[QUOTE=bobcatalum05;957052]Once again worried about TXST but all is rosey over at McNeese and SHSU. Give me a break I have been on those campuses and I have seen your academic standards. You guys have plenty to work on as do we. Thing is we are trying to address our own needs not some one elses.[/QUOTE

I'd be more impressed with the "I've seen your academic standards" argument if it came from somebody whose school wasn't full of UT and A&M washouts ;)

MSUstudent

May 23rd, 2008, 11:39 AM

2007 McNeese
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 7/12819

2007 TXST
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 6/11408

2006 McNeese
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 6/10882

2006 TXST
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 6/12886

2005 McNeese
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 5/12112

2005 TXST
ATTENDANCE....................
Games/Avg Per Game.......... 5/11164

3yr average

McNeese.........11938

TXST..............11819

Not bad for a "bottom dweller" TEAM. xthumbsupx

Not bad???Thats horrible..You are comparing attendence with us starting in 2005 (when Rita slammed us!!) & ya'll have over double students then us & we still had a better overall average

catdaddy2402

May 23rd, 2008, 12:32 PM

If Texas State is so horrible and so inferior to the rest of the Southland then shouldn't the Southland folks WANT them to leave?

813Jag

May 23rd, 2008, 12:35 PM

The question is, will you be the next Florida A&M? Wait, you've already announced a move to I-A before and well, your still in FCS. And your still trying...and well, there's no sign that any conference wants you -- not even the Sun Belt, which is probably your best chance for finding a home.

Or will you be the next Middle Tennessee State? Nope, that's actually an institution on the move that even had a Sweet 16 appearance in volleyball this past year, made it to the finals of both men's and women's conference basketball championships and has a wide array of success across the board.

Our own downfalls? SHSU is moving up rapidly in the world. Plenty of facilities upgrades, academic improvements across the board and numerous other things that are putting us where we want to be without leaving our institution's values behind. There are no lies, no deception and no false pretenses about it when it comes to SHSU.

McNeese is making a fair share of progress in the post-Rita world and is getting some financial help in the athletic-side that held them with one hand tied behind their back for a long time.

Your institution has had lofty goals for year and continue to fall short. We're just helping you guys acknowledge the problems you've had and will continue to have.
They don't have anywhere near the problems FAMU had when they attempted to move.

TexasTerror

May 23rd, 2008, 01:03 PM

If Texas State is so horrible and so inferior to the rest of the Southland then shouldn't the Southland folks WANT them to leave?

I know I want them to leave. They've already announced a move to FBS and in doing so started the clock -- which is probably why the SLC is letting Lamar in for 2011, so we don't feel the effect of the bonehead decision on the football field...

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39680

I wish them well as a FCS Independent as lord knows that won't help them in the least bit in getting into a conference. They are setting the model for which schools will not want to follow. Of course, all schools do not want to have as many losing seasons at the Division I level in comparison to winning seasons that they have at this point.

MaximumBobcat

May 23rd, 2008, 01:41 PM

Listen, send me your address....a post office box will be fine. I need to send you a copy of a really excellent reference tome entitled "Message Board decorum for Dummies."

I think it'll make your online time a lot more enjoyable.

In the meantime, let me offer this little tidbit of advice: When a guy makes a post about your school and has clearly been referring to your school, collectively, and the outrageously delusional optimism of your fans, collectively, chances are that he's using the word "you" collectively and not "you" specifically...

I realize that you're significatly hamstrung when it comes to understanding conventions of normal English usage, what with being a SWTSU grad and all, but at some point you're gonna have to realize that not everybody thinks as linearly and simply as you do ;)

Once you realize this, it may cut down on the overly literal replies.

What's funny, and a behavioural quirk also exhibited by your overreaching social climbing cousins in Lafayette, is this weird propensity for overreaching social climbers to feel free to engage in hyperbole to make a point, but then fail to see hyperbole for what it is when it comes from other sources. It's an interesting phenomenon, really.

I often wounder if the humorlessness gene is found in the same sequence as the wannabee gene? Maybe there's a research project there. The only problem, though, is that a guy would have to examine lots of SWTSU and USL grads to find out...

Who's masochistic enough for that? ;)

Oh, and when you played Baylor and A&M competitively, what were their records? Were they good Bear and Aggie teams, or was your near success against them similar to your success against McNeese, happening only when your opponent is experiencing a down cycle?

Something tells me that you (individually) have't bothered to do that analysis, either ;)

But, fear not, I've done it for you. Baylor was 3-9 and 3-8 when you were "competitive" with them. A&M was 5-6...Play them close in a decent or good year and get back to me.

You know, if you're gonna throw out "close" games, I've got an A&M game you should check out.....2001. A&M was 8-4 and went to a bowl game. We played them and had led for the entire game, going into the 4th quarter. If you were a fan of ESPN's series on college football teams, you might be familiar with the scene where their All-everything linebacker was hysterical on the sidelines in the 4th quarter, screaming at his teammates, "What in the hell is wrong with y'all, we're getting beat by a team with the school name on the back of their jerseys!" ;)

http://www.currentadventurecharters.com/0807red1.JPG

Haha man, trust me, I know you were talking collectively. I just like to mess with you and TT and make you put a little more work in your posts. Thanks for the long reply, it was entertaining. xlolx xlolx xlolx

MaximumBobcat

May 23rd, 2008, 01:43 PM

I know I want them to leave. They've already announced a move to FBS and in doing so started the clock -- which is probably why the SLC is letting Lamar in for 2011, so we don't feel the effect of the bonehead decision on the football field...

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39680

I wish them well as a FCS Independent as lord knows that won't help them in the least bit in getting into a conference. They are setting the model for which schools will not want to follow. Of course, all schools do not want to have as many losing seasons at the Division I level in comparison to winning seasons that they have at this point.

Why don't you pretend we already left and never make another post about TxSt again.

And you never answered my question TT.

Why do you care so much about if TxSt doesn't do well in FBS if we make the move?

bobcatalum05

May 23rd, 2008, 01:58 PM

TT spends more time trying to figure out how to run down TXST than he spends thinking about SHSU sports and academics.

TexasTerror

May 23rd, 2008, 02:11 PM

Why do you care so much about if TxSt doesn't do well in FBS if we make the move?

If you do not do well, it does not bold well for the rest of the system as far as potential athletic growth. While we do not have reasoning to go to FBS at this point (namely due to the unfair system for football), SHSU's program will eventually leave.

It would leave a bad taste in the mouth of the BoR (who lean SHSU's way presently), if the school known as Texas State - San Marcos were to fall flat in FBS. They would be questioning the move, why the school used so many resources to get there and tell the other schools not to do it because they'd make a grave mistake.

Whatever happens to your school has a direct correlation to mine and Lamar. We want all of our program to succeed. Problem is, to get to that point, you guys have seemingly have had to resort to dragging the rest of the league down through negative riff-raff (the remarks about the SLC holding you back, school not being on same academic/athletic level, etc) and more that I just do not stand for.

TT spends more time trying to figure out how to run down TXST than he spend thinking about SHSU sports and academics.

Nope, I spend plenty of time thinking about SHSU sports and academics. It's not a legislative period, so it is a down time for me, but I am constantly on the phone, sending e-mails, doing research, promoting SHSU and all that jazz seven days a week. A good deal of what you see is relatively minuscule to much of the work I do.

MaximumBobcat

May 23rd, 2008, 02:21 PM

Nope, I spend plenty of time thinking about SHSU sports and academics. It's not a legislative period, so it is a down time for me, but I am constantly on the phone, sending e-mails, doing research, promoting SHSU and all that jazz seven days a week. A good deal of what you see is relatively minuscule to much of the work I do.

This from the guy that has made (from my rough estimate) 4, 5, 6, maybe even 7 thousand posts on various forums across the country about TxSt in the past couple years.

xlolx xlolx xlolx xnodx xnodx xnodx

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 03:55 PM

Haha man, trust me, I know you were talking collectively. I just like to mess with you and TT and make you put a little more work in your posts. Thanks for the long reply, it was entertaining. xlolx xlolx xlolx

LOL, trust me. It takes absolutely NO work nor effort to point out the flaws in Bobcat thinking ;)

Oh, and by the way. You never did comment on the fact that your incredibly competitive games with Baylor and A&M happened when they were both fielding very weak teams.

Do you have any thoughts on why it seems that aside from ONE year, SWTSU seems to do their best work ONLY against weak opponents ?

What's up with that?

MaximumBobcat

May 23rd, 2008, 04:25 PM

LOL, trust me. It takes absolutely NO work nor effort to point out the flaws in Bobcat thinking ;)

Oh, and by the way. You never did comment on the fact that your incredibly competitive games with Baylor and A&M happened when they were both fielding very weak teams.

Do you have any thoughts on why it seems that aside from ONE year, SWTSU seems to do their best work ONLY against weak opponents ?

What's up with that?

There were no flaws, I was just trying to goad you. xthumbsupx

A&M wasn't that weak that year, their W-L wasn't great, but they only lost to the eventual BCS NC's by 11 points. As for the Baylor games, they just had more scholarships than us and we were on the road.

Also, last year we played very well against a fairly highly ranked CalPoly team and we won that game, so you're wrong again.

txphi592

May 23rd, 2008, 07:21 PM

Check this out:

http://www.athletics.txstate.edu/thedrive/

Bobcat Stadium Expansion Study:

http://www.athletics.txstate.edu/thedrive/Documents/BroaddusandAssociates_FinalReport_Draft_042107.pdf

TexasTerror

May 23rd, 2008, 07:29 PM

As I noted in another post...Texas State - San Marcos has in essence, done even more to announce their intentions to leave the Southland Conference.

The Bobcats officially should have just two years remaining in the conference, meaning they should be out on June 30, 2010 -- if the powers that be do not give them the boot earlier. Time to start taking away privileges, such as no share of SLC NCAA money unless the Bobcats themselves make the postseason...

SLC schools will be able to help Lamar out schedule-wise in 2010 quite a bit and this is why Lamar is going to play football in 2011 in the SLC.

txphi592

May 23rd, 2008, 07:35 PM

All this TxState bashing sounds like sour grapes..

All the points being raised have to do with Bobcat football performance in the past but one thing to consider is the issue of recruiting in Texas to a FCS program...good football recruits want to play at the highest level and get the most exposure they can, this isn't possible in FCS. Once TxState makes the move it will be a completely different team considering the much higher caliber recruit that will be coming in. TxState already competes to some extent with mid majors such as UTEP for recruits at the FCS level.

With FBS, vastly upgraded athletic/academic facilities, huge strides in academics and attendence that are sure to increase dramatically in the coming years, etc etc there is no reason to think that lackluster performance in the past will carry over. FBS is a whole different ballgame. You guys have to also keep in mind that while TxState may not be a top tier candidate to a conference right now, that does not mean that it won't be 4-5 years from now.

FormerPokeCenter

May 23rd, 2008, 07:41 PM

There were no flaws, I was just trying to goad you. xthumbsupx

A&M wasn't that weak that year, their W-L wasn't great, but they only lost to the eventual BCS NC's by 11 points. As for the Baylor games, they just had more scholarships than us and we were on the road.

Also, last year we played very well against a fairly highly ranked CalPoly team and we won that game, so you're wrong again.

Okay, so you managed to beat a team lwith a winning record last year, finally. Congratulations.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news again, but it was Cal Poly's first game, with a new offense and a new quarterback. Running the triple option out of a spread formation is a nifty trick, which depends on timing and lots of repetitive execution. Throwing in cutbacks and counters complicates things even more, to say nothing of what happens when you try to install a potent passing game on top of all that.

Since that was the first time they actually tried it in a game situation, I think I know why you won....

Doesn't it bother you that ALL of your examples of quality play by Texas State come at the expense of the other team's struggles? I mean, can't you guys man up and actually play somebody good when they're good and give them a great game?

Just once?

Is that TOO much to ask?

And, the A&M loss to Texas by only 11 points? Crackah puhlease....

Thats Texas v. Texas A&M. You can throw the record books out in that one...That's like Cat-Griz or Delaware-Villanova or App State and Georgia Southern...

What floors me is that you guys actually believe that shyte and have it right at your fingertips to throw into a message board discussion. That's just a really weird way to rationalize your team's underperformance.

And, therein lies the problem. You guys really don't have a nice rivalry with anybody. So, consequently, you don't have that one game where you play for pride, no matter what the record, and where you learn that football's not like horseshoes or handgrenades and it just flat out doesn't matter how close you came. What matters is whether you won or not.

Since you guys don't get to experience that sort of environment every year, it's hard for it to spill over into the rest of your season, which is why I guess you guys indulge in your fantasy football "what if" speculations or engage in flights of fancy about being successful in the FBS when it's pretty clear that your foray into FCS has been a failure.

I'm guessing that you're pretty young, so you probably don't remember the great rivalry you guys used to have with A&I, often with the National Title on the line.

That's when SWTSU football was relevant, at least on some level.

The thing is, when you move up, you're STILL not gonna have that experience, because the schools you aspire to compete against have had natural rivals since the Golden Age of college football in Texas.

You're gonna be the Texas version of USL and ULM. If you think that's a step up, good luck. Hopefully, you'll be able to attract the Rice's, the SMUs and the TCUs back to your brand of the reconstituted Southwest Conference, because if you can't, you're about to take bad football to a whole new level...

And, about that whole goading thing? Do you make a habit of leading with your chin when you engage in pugilistic endeavors?

TexasTerror

May 23rd, 2008, 07:45 PM

You guys have to also keep in mind that while TxState may not be a top tier candidate to a conference right now, that does not mean that it won't be 4-5 years from now.

If the SLC follows their rules and acts like a professional organization of any sort, that 4-5 years may need to be 2-3 years. The intention to leave has been announced, time for the SLC to act. June 30, 2010 -- count down!

There is no reason right now that the Bobcats are not the top dog in the major sports, no reason considering all the advantages that have been brought up in this thread, namely the $$$ issue. Yet, they do not do that.

Your institution is about to pump even more $$$ into the programs and we'll see if that has any difference on the underachieving results that your institution has possessed thus far.

Yes, it is about the past, but again, the advantage has been there before and it's not like the other institutions (there are a few) are moving as quickly as yours at making advances academically and athletically.

Sounds more like George Steinbrenner not doing so well, so he's going to double the amount of $$$ he spends on free agents in the offseason so his payroll is equal to that of the top three top competitors combined.

txphi592

May 23rd, 2008, 07:54 PM

Okay, so you managed to beat a team lwith a winning record last year, finally. Congratulations.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news again, but it was Cal Poly's first game, with a new offense and a new quarterback. Running the triple option out of a spread formation is a nifty trick, which depends on timing and lots of repetitive execution. Throwing in cutbacks and counters complicates things even more, to say nothing of what happens when you try to install a potent passing game on top of all that.

Since that was the first time they actually tried it in a game situation, I think I know why you won....

Doesn't it bother you that ALL of your examples of quality play by Texas State come at the expense of the other team's struggles? I mean, can't you guys man up and actually play somebody good when they're good and give them a great game?

Just once?

Is that TOO much to ask?

And, the A&M loss to Texas by only 11 points? Crackah puhlease....

Thats Texas v. Texas A&M. You can throw the record books out in that one...That's like Cat-Griz or Delaware-Villanova or App State and Georgia Southern...

What floors me is that you guys actually believe that shyte and have it right at your fingertips to throw into a message board discussion. That's just a really weird way to rationalize your team's underperformance.

And, therein lies the problem. You guys really don't have a nice rivalry with anybody. So, consequently, you don't have that one game where you play for pride, no matter what the record, and where you learn that football's not like horseshoes or handgrenades and it just flat out doesn't matter how close you came. What matters is whether you won or not.

Since you guys don't get to experience that sort of environment every year, it's hard for it to spill over into the rest of your season, which is why I guess you guys indulge in your fantasy football "what if" speculations or engage in flights of fancy about being successful in the FBS when it's pretty clear that your foray into FCS has been a failure.

I'm guessing that you're pretty young, so you probably don't remember the great rivalry you guys used to have with A&I, often with the National Title on the line.

That's when SWTSU football was relevant, at least on some level.

The thing is, when you move up, you're STILL not gonna have that experience, because the schools you aspire to compete against have had natural rivals since the Golden Age of college football in Texas.

You're gonna be the Texas version of USL and ULM. If you think that's a step up, good luck. Hopefully, you'll be able to attract the Rice's, the SMUs and the TCUs back to your brand of the reconstituted Southwest Conference, because if you can't, you're about to take bad football to a whole new level...

And, about that whole goading thing? Do you make a habit of leading with your chin when you engage in pugilistic endeavors?

If I am not mistaken, TxState was running a brand new offence (very similar to Cal Polys) AND defense AND new head coach and staff.

As far as rivalries...you have got to be joking... you don't live in Texas apparently. Not only is UTSA starting a FBS program next door (already a huge rivalry in other sports) but there are plenty of other teams such as UNT that could make for a natural rivalry.

Please, for the sake of your argument, get your facts straight before spewing them for everybody to see.

TexasTerror

May 23rd, 2008, 07:57 PM

As far as rivalries...you have got to be joking... you don't live in Texas apparently. Not only is UTSA starting a FBS program next door (already a huge rivalry in other sports) but there are plenty of other teams such as UNT that could make for a natural rivalry.

Could make for a natural rivalry, but regional programs like UNT, La-Lafayette, Arkansas St and La Tech do not want to be associated with Texas State-San Marcos.

They look down upon those programs in the same way the SLC schools used to look down on the Gulf Star schools before we finally got in when a majority of the SLC moved to I-A.

Sounds good when the folks in San Marcos talk about it, but those schools really do not want much to do with your institution. They are trying to shed the SLC image that was associated with their school and they do not want to be known as the FBS version of the SLC. Allowing your school in, does just that...

txphi592

May 23rd, 2008, 08:02 PM

If the SLC follows their rules and acts like a professional organization of any sort, that 4-5 years may need to be 2-3 years. The intention to leave has been announced, time for the SLC to act. June 30, 2010 -- count down!

There is no reason right now that the Bobcats are not the top dog in the major sports, no reason considering all the advantages that have been brought up in this thread, namely the $$$ issue. Yet, they do not do that.

Your institution is about to pump even more $$$ into the programs and we'll see if that has any difference on the underachieving results that your institution has possessed thus far.

Yes, it is about the past, but again, the advantage has been there before and it's not like the other institutions (there are a few) are moving as quickly as yours at making advances academically and athletically.

Sounds more like George Steinbrenner not doing so well, so he's going to double the amount of $$$ he spends on free agents in the offseason so his payroll is equal to that of the top three top competitors combined.

My main argument was recruitment not money, again you are going back to your bitter, tired argument of past performance...it just holds no water. The other difference is the huge groundswell of student pressure to make this move. School pride, perception, attendence, academics, etc are at its highest in history. This is the optimal time to build up the program/hype for the next 4 years, put the pieces together and make th jump. Don't be so bitter.

txphi592

May 23rd, 2008, 08:03 PM

Could make for a natural rivalry, but regional programs like UNT, La-Lafayette, Arkansas St and La Tech do not want to be associated with Texas State-San Marcos.

They look down upon those programs in the same way the SLC schools used to look down on the Gulf Star schools before we finally got in when a majority of the SLC moved to I-A.

Sounds good when the folks in San Marcos talk about it, but those schools really do not want much to do with your institution. They are trying to shed the SLC image that was associated with their school and they do not want to be known as the FBS version of the SLC. Allowing your school in, does just that...

Really? Go read the UNT msg board and see what most of the FANS think. In fact a lot of them are convinced that Texas State will PASS THEM up. They may not want to be associated with SHSU, don't put TxState in that miserable pool..

http://www.gomeangreen.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40470

MaximumBobcat

May 23rd, 2008, 08:42 PM

Okay, so you managed to beat a team lwith a winning record last year, finally. Congratulations.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news again, but it was Cal Poly's first game, with a new offense and a new quarterback. Running the triple option out of a spread formation is a nifty trick, which depends on timing and lots of repetitive execution. Throwing in cutbacks and counters complicates things even more, to say nothing of what happens when you try to install a potent passing game on top of all that.

Since that was the first time they actually tried it in a game situation, I think I know why you won....

Doesn't it bother you that ALL of your examples of quality play by Texas State come at the expense of the other team's struggles? I mean, can't you guys man up and actually play somebody good when they're good and give them a great game?

Just once?

Is that TOO much to ask?

And, the A&M loss to Texas by only 11 points? Crackah puhlease....

Thats Texas v. Texas A&M. You can throw the record books out in that one...That's like Cat-Griz or Delaware-Villanova or App State and Georgia Southern...

What floors me is that you guys actually believe that shyte and have it right at your fingertips to throw into a message board discussion. That's just a really weird way to rationalize your team's underperformance.

And, therein lies the problem. You guys really don't have a nice rivalry with anybody. So, consequently, you don't have that one game where you play for pride, no matter what the record, and where you learn that football's not like horseshoes or handgrenades and it just flat out doesn't matter how close you came. What matters is whether you won or not.

Since you guys don't get to experience that sort of environment every year, it's hard for it to spill over into the rest of your season, which is why I guess you guys indulge in your fantasy football "what if" speculations or engage in flights of fancy about being successful in the FBS when it's pretty clear that your foray into FCS has been a failure.

I'm guessing that you're pretty young, so you probably don't remember the great rivalry you guys used to have with A&I, often with the National Title on the line.

That's when SWTSU football was relevant, at least on some level.

The thing is, when you move up, you're STILL not gonna have that experience, because the schools you aspire to compete against have had natural rivals since the Golden Age of college football in Texas.

You're gonna be the Texas version of USL and ULM. If you think that's a step up, good luck. Hopefully, you'll be able to attract the Rice's, the SMUs and the TCUs back to your brand of the reconstituted Southwest Conference, because if you can't, you're about to take bad football to a whole new level...

And, about that whole goading thing? Do you make a habit of leading with your chin when you engage in pugilistic endeavors?

Okay, I answered all your questions and proved you wrong multiple times. I'm done with you for now, as you have been reduced to trash talk as seen above. xcoffeex xcoffeex xcoffeex

TexasTerror

May 23rd, 2008, 08:42 PM

My main argument was recruitment not money, again you are going back to your bitter, tired argument of past performance...it just holds no water. The other difference is the huge groundswell of student pressure to make this move. School pride, perception, attendence, academics, etc are at its highest in history. This is the optimal time to build up the program/hype for the next 4 years, put the pieces together and make th jump. Don't be so bitter.

Regarding recruitment, the state of Texas is getting over-saturated. More and more FCS programs are coming in here. More and more FBS teams coming down here. Even more football programs starting (Lamar and soon UTSA).

You talk about recruiting against "mid-majors", the whole SLC is recruiting against those same schools. I'm not sure why members of your fan base continually to put it off as if's something that no other SLC school is doing. In fact, we're seeing more SLC schools competing against the "big" schools.

Student pressure for the move? The students hold all the strings there, don't they? They also say a lot of incorrect things (and have been known to talk down to the students at your campus). I know. I fought them tooth and nail in Austin in '03. They even had a state senator making up some baloney, but what else is new? Those blokes in 2003 got 'cuddly' with Mataskis too.

Attendance at it's highest? Didn't you guys draw more when you were in the LSC and playing A&M-Kingsville? I thought Div II years especially in the early 1980s were your best years attendance-wise.

Really? Go read the UNT msg board and see what most of the FANS think. In fact a lot of them are convinced that Texas State will PASS THEM up. They may not want to be associated with SHSU, don't put TxState in that miserable pool..

The response wasn't all too favorable. Sure, a few positive remarks, but quite a few fun ones like 'Southland Extreme Conference' and people wanting Ga Southern or Appalachian State. And those are fans and just a sampling. I don't talk to fans when it comes to North Texas or the Sun Belt. You guys need to look elsewhere unless desperation sinks in. WAC may want you. C-USA would like MT, WKU and USA before they even think of anyone in Texas.

TXST_CAT

May 23rd, 2008, 10:14 PM

Check this out:

http://www.athletics.txstate.edu/thedrive/

Bobcat Stadium Expansion Study:

http://www.athletics.txstate.edu/thedrive/Documents/BroaddusandAssociates_FinalReport_Draft_042107.pdf

If we don't make the move we will have the best Stadium in FCS. 40000 seats and those grand stands will put our stadium right up there with Montana. Say what you want TXST is on the way up and I don't see any SLC team keeping up. xbowx xbowx xbowx

Correction: We will surpass Montana if they don't expand any further.

TexasTerror

May 23rd, 2008, 10:58 PM

Is San Marcos going to follow the examples of a few other schools that used to be in the SLC? Announce a crowd of 15,000 to meet the NCAA requirements and really only have 3k, maybe 4k? Seems I recall some major attendance fudging for a Florida Atlantic home game a few years ago. ;)

TexasTerror

May 23rd, 2008, 11:03 PM

If we don't make the move we will have the best Stadium in FCS. 40000 seats and those grand stands will put our stadium right up there with Montana. Say what you want TXST is on the way up and I don't see any SLC team keeping up. xbowx xbowx xbowx

If San Marcos gets to 40,000 and is still in FCS -- they will draw some pretty bad crowds. The fans there will probably wear grocery bags over their heads (a practice I believe has been in place for most of the school's time in Division I ;)).

This thing is in phases. If the program can not move to FBS -- which I do think they will eventually do, just won't have the conference situation that is ideal, unless they piggy-back on UTSA - they won't put all the phases into play.

Of course, if the program stays in FCS, I'm sure the Associated Student Government will fight to stop paying the FBS tax they put on the student body.

FormerPokeCenter

May 24th, 2008, 12:34 AM

Really? Go read the UNT msg board and see what most of the FANS think. In fact a lot of them are convinced that Texas State will PASS THEM up. They may not want to be associated with SHSU, don't put TxState in that miserable pool..

http://www.gomeangreen.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40470

You've got a terrible reading comprehension problem. They're worried about UTSA passing them up....

Most of the comments, save for the references to your spending, were quite dismissive, opining that App State and Georgia Southern would make far better conference mates.

At least you're consistent with that whole wishful thinking thing...

FormerPokeCenter

May 24th, 2008, 12:39 AM

If I am not mistaken, TxState was running a brand new offence (very similar to Cal Polys) AND defense AND new head coach and staff.

As far as rivalries...you have got to be joking... you don't live in Texas apparently. Not only is UTSA starting a FBS program next door (already a huge rivalry in other sports) but there are plenty of other teams such as UNT that could make for a natural rivalry.

Please, for the sake of your argument, get your facts straight before spewing them for everybody to see.

In 2007, you were running the same offense you ran the year before. Much was made of the fact that Bradley George had a full year running the offense under his belt. Next misconception, please?

As to rivalries, who's your natural rivalry right NOW? Most of your optimism is based on wholecloth fabrications. The fact is, you don't have a rival. If UTSA gets a program off the ground, maybe that'll develop into one.

SHSU has a rivalry with Stephen F. Austin. Northwestern and McNeese are rivals. Nicholls and Southeastern are rivals. You got nuthin...

TXST_CAT

May 24th, 2008, 01:17 PM

In 2007, you were running the same offense you ran the year before. Much was made of the fact that Bradley George had a full year running the offense under his belt. Next misconception, please?

As to rivalries, who's your natural rivalry right NOW? Most of your optimism is based on wholecloth fabrications. The fact is, you don't have a rival. If UTSA gets a program off the ground, maybe that'll develop into one.

SHSU has a rivalry with Stephen F. Austin. Northwestern and McNeese are rivals. Nicholls and Southeastern are rivals. You got nuthin...

If thats the case why are these fools acting like they won the National Championship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcHF4NbMZMQ&feature=related

TexasTerror

May 24th, 2008, 05:02 PM

If thats the case why are these fools acting like they won the National Championship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcHF4NbMZMQ&feature=related

Due to the treatment by your fans to our guys throughout the game and the emotions of our comeback against you...did you see SHSU's reaction after beating SFA? Your institution is our secondary rival to Stephen F Austin, no questions there.

McTailGator

May 24th, 2008, 05:34 PM

Check this out:

http://www.athletics.txstate.edu/thedrive/

Bobcat Stadium Expansion Study:

http://www.athletics.txstate.edu/thedrive/Documents/BroaddusandAssociates_FinalReport_Draft_042107.pdf

MORE CHAMPIONSHIPS?

That video might look a little better if you had a few more trophy's to hold up.

Want to borrow the 12 that McNeese has so that you will have one more than us? xsmiley_wix

txphi592

May 24th, 2008, 08:31 PM

MORE CHAMPIONSHIPS?

That video might look a little better if you had a few more trophy's to hold up.

Want to borrow the 12 that McNeese has so that you will have one more than us? xsmiley_wix

The painfull truth of the matter is that nobody really cares about FCS championships unless you are in FCS, and even then FCS games/champonships don't scratch the surface of FBS games/championships when it comes to popularity, ratings, level of competition, etc. By accepting that fact, why wouldn't you strive to play at the highst level and bring greater exposure to your university?

patssle

May 24th, 2008, 08:37 PM

patssle

May 24th, 2008, 08:41 PM

BTW, I havn't found one single Texas State fan or SHSU fan that would give up their respective 2005/2004 playoff runs for a single bowl game.

Hoyadestroya85

May 24th, 2008, 08:59 PM

I believe the only excuses to move up are an invite to a BCS conference or multiple national championships in a short span..
Texas St. has neither.. and as long as they have neither they are foolish to think they can execute this.. No one wants to watch Texas State play football outside of alumni, a lot of people don't even know the school exists, it's overshadowed by like 10 other schools in its own state!

txphi592

May 24th, 2008, 10:06 PM

TexasTerror

May 24th, 2008, 10:21 PM

...and why is it overshadowed?

Because of an institution named the University of Texas that shares the same market as Texas State - San Marcos and soon enough, another university (UTSA) that will share the same "market". Squeezed from the north and south.

In this arms race, your school may be a little late -- especially if UTSA gets football approval in the next few weeks, which it might. Perhaps this move was a bit late and you should've gotten out about seven years ago, but that was probably the SLC holding you back. xoopsx

TXST_CAT

May 25th, 2008, 02:33 AM

Because of an institution named the University of Texas that shares the same market as Texas State - San Marcos and soon enough, another university (UTSA) that will share the same "market". Squeezed from the north and south.

In this arms race, your school may be a little late -- especially if UTSA gets football approval in the next few weeks, which it might. Perhaps this move was a bit late and you should've gotten out about seven years ago, but that was probably the SLC holding you back. xoopsx

Yea because UTSA will be FBS day one. You're truly beyond help. Most fans in Texas don't care about FCS. Most Football fans outside this Website don't care about FCS. Fact is many college football fans in Texas have no clue many of the schools represented on this website even exist. I didn't even know until I decided to learn more about DivI-AA football at the time. It's not a knock on any teams either. It's just being honest because there are some very quality teams in FCS. It's just too bad our fans and alumni didn't start to care sooner.

McTailGator

May 25th, 2008, 08:53 AM

The painfull truth of the matter is that nobody really cares about FCS championships unless you are in FCS, and even then FCS games/champonships don't scratch the surface of FBS games/championships when it comes to popularity, ratings, level of competition, etc. By accepting that fact, why wouldn't you strive to play at the highst level and bring greater exposure to your university?

So your STUDENTS are "Driving the Bus"...

Nice move to put a bunch 18, 19, and 20 year olds in charge of a Billion Dollars worth of property and operations. THAT WAS SMART...xeekx

We are Division One (as YOU are NOW)...

One does NOT move UP to the D-I Football Bowl SUBDIVISION from the D-I Football Championship SUBDIVISION ...

One moves OVER to the D-I Football Bowl SUBDIVISION from the D-I Football Championship SUBDIVISION...

TxSU's lack of ability to win more than one SLC Championship (one that it SHARED) should be enough to realize that you will not be successfull, and will more than likely end up right back in FCS after not being able to meet the NCAA minimum attendance requirments, because you will not win more than 4 games a year (IF THAT).

The Scum Belch is pretty clear that it IF it expands, it wants to expand to the East.

Jacksonville State, Georgia Southern, and App. State will probably be on their radars before TxSU and even UTSA.

The NCAA will NOT allow a new conference into Division I period. They have already made that clear.

SO WHERE ARE YOU GONNA GO?

FormerPokeCenter

May 25th, 2008, 09:49 AM

Yea because UTSA will be FBS day one. You're truly beyond help. Most fans in Texas don't care about FCS. Most Football fans outside this Website don't care about FCS. Fact is many college football fans in Texas have no clue many of the schools represented on this website even exist. I didn't even know until I decided to learn more about DivI-AA football at the time....It's just too bad our fans and alumni didn't start to care sooner.

I can guarantee you that knowledgeable football fans know all about FCS and even Division II teams. The fact that YOU didn't has no bearing on what perception is among knowledgeable football fans ;)

txphi592

May 25th, 2008, 01:40 PM

So your STUDENTS are "Driving the Bus"...
]We are Division One (as YOU are NOW)...

One does NOT move UP to the D-I Football Bowl SUBDIVISION from the D-I Football Championship SUBDIVISION ...

One moves OVER to the D-I Football Bowl SUBDIVISION from the D-I Football Championship SUBDIVISION...

You have GOT TO BE kidding right?? LOL Do you actually believe this?? This is the dumbest, most dellusional thing I've seen posted regarding FCS/FBS in a long long time. My sides are starting to hurt..

TexasTerror

May 25th, 2008, 01:42 PM

You have GOT TO BE kidding right?? LOL Do you actually believe this?? This is the dumbest, most dellusional thing I've seen posted regarding FCS/FBS in a long long time. My sides are starting to hurt..

Considering they are both DIVISION I subdivisions proves that you are in essence, not moving up or down. You are moving laterally. It's not like going from Div II to Div I. The championship-side of things even recognizes a national champion, unlike the BS side...

txphi592

May 25th, 2008, 01:49 PM

TexasTerror

May 25th, 2008, 01:56 PM

UTSA is not sqeezing anything. They have no football team at the moment, accept 98% of their applicants, have no identity whatsoever, and are in San Antonio. It's a glorified community college.

Considering they are in San Antonio and if they went FBS, would get coverage from San Antonio media (who already flip backwards for Univ of Texas), that would take away any possible coverage of your program.

You guys would not have any media markets per say to really generate interest in your program since they would be tied up in San Antonio covering UTSA and UT while in Austin, devoting all their to UT. The San Marcos Daily Record would be about it if UTSA went FBS at the same time as you. In fact, you guys would need to piggy-back on UTSA to make it to the next level.

What media coverage are you guys really expecting to get if UTSA goes FBS?

txphi592

May 25th, 2008, 01:56 PM

Considering they are both DIVISION I subdivisions proves that you are in essence, not moving up or down. You are moving laterally. It's not like going from Div II to Div I. The championship-side of things even recognizes a national champion, unlike the BS side...

Oh my gay.. this forum is precious..

txphi592

May 25th, 2008, 01:59 PM

Considering they are in San Antonio and if they went FBS, would get coverage from San Antonio media (who already flip backwards for Univ of Texas), that would take away any possible coverage of your program.

You guys would not have any media markets per say to really generate interest in your program since they would be tied up in San Antonio covering UTSA and UT while in Austin, devoting all their to UT. The San Marcos Daily Record would be about it if UTSA went FBS at the same time as you. In fact, you guys would need to piggy-back on UTSA to make it to the next level.

What media coverage are you guys really expecting to get if UTSA goes FBS?

Txstate has a very large presence of alumni in Austin and SA. Fans can watch more than one team. People around here just want to see big time football.

bobcatalum05

May 25th, 2008, 02:01 PM

In 2007, you were running the same offense you ran the year before. Much was made of the fact that Bradley George had a full year running the offense under his belt. Next misconception, please?

As to rivalries, who's your natural rivalry right NOW? Most of your optimism is based on wholecloth fabrications. The fact is, you don't have a rival. If UTSA gets a program off the ground, maybe that'll develop into one.

SHSU has a rivalry with Stephen F. Austin. Northwestern and McNeese are rivals. Nicholls and Southeastern are rivals. You got nuthin...

Wrong it was a new offense in 2007 with a new offensive coordinator. Not an excuse but none the less the truth.

txphi592

May 25th, 2008, 02:03 PM

Yea because UTSA will be FBS day one. You're truly beyond help. Most fans in Texas don't care about FCS. Most Football fans outside this Website don't care about FCS. Fact is many college football fans in Texas have no clue many of the schools represented on this website even exist. I didn't even know until I decided to learn more about DivI-AA football at the time. It's not a knock on any teams either. It's just being honest because there are some very quality teams in FCS. It's just too bad our fans and alumni didn't start to care sooner.

You are absolutely right. I bet we can ask 100 random students where Mcneese is and I'm sure 80 of them won't know it even existed.

TexasTerror

May 25th, 2008, 02:06 PM

Txstate has a very large presence of alumni in Austin and SA. Fans can watch more than one team. People around here just want to see big time football.

The fans can watch more than one team. I am referring to the media. The media coverage of your program will decrease and you guys complain on a constant basis as is about it on your boards...

Statesman will cover the Horns with marginal and decreasing attention for your program if UTSA goes FBS. The San Antonio Express-News will stick to UTSA and Horns. Do not see either of them expanding their coverage of the Bobcats. If anything, it will decrease if UTSA has 'big time' athletics.

txphi592

May 25th, 2008, 02:10 PM

The fans can watch more than one team. I am referring to the media. The media coverage of your program will decrease and you guys complain on a constant basis as is about it on your boards...

If the fans are there (ratings, etc), the media coverage follows. The fans and media coverage aren't there now because nobody cares when TxState playes Northwest-Middle-School nobody here has heard of.

TexasTerror

May 25th, 2008, 02:13 PM

If the fans are there (ratings, etc), the media coverage follows. The fans and media coverage aren't there now because nobody cares when TxState playes Northwest-Middle-School nobody here has heard of.

Not sure the fans will get pumped up about Ohio, New Mexico State and Middle Tennessee, especially when your program does against them what it has done against Nicholls State and McNeese State. xcoffeex

No dramatic increase in fans.
No increase in success (as far as postseason goes).
No increase in media coverage.

Simple as that.

TXST_CAT

May 25th, 2008, 02:24 PM

Not sure the fans will get pumped up about Ohio, New Mexico State and Middle Tennessee, especially when your program does against them what it has done against Nicholls State and McNeese State. xcoffeex

No dramatic increase in fans.
No increase in success (as far as postseason goes).
No increase in media coverage.

Simple as that.

You keep bashing TXST's coverage due to it's lack of success but where is all the great press about SAM and SFA. When was the last time any media outlet in Texas cared about you're program. Fact is we saw more love by the press in our one run than Sam has ever had in it's entire programs history. xcoffeex

In Texas if you're not FBS then you're seen as DivII. Plain and simple. That goes for SAM also.

TXST_CAT

May 25th, 2008, 02:30 PM

The fans can watch more than one team. I am referring to the media. The media coverage of your program will decrease and you guys complain on a constant basis as is about it on your boards...

Statesman will cover the Horns with marginal and decreasing attention for your program if UTSA goes FBS. The San Antonio Express-News will stick to UTSA and Horns. Do not see either of them expanding their coverage of the Bobcats. If anything, it will decrease if UTSA has 'big time' athletics.

Let's see how long it takes for UTSA to play "Big Time football" by Texas Standards. I bet we will be there first and the drive in UTSA will realize there is more to putting a FBS program together. We've put the plan together the funds are there the facilities are being built and the athletes are already there. Last years no defense was a mistake. One that has already been corrected. See in the past we probably would have put up with a DC that wasn't doing well. Now the need to win NOW is greater and our HC decided to go after a DC with experience. If McNeese thinks they will have the best defense in the SLC we will just have to wait and see. xcoffeex

TexasTerror

May 25th, 2008, 02:33 PM

You keep bashing TXST's coverage due to it's lack of success but where is all the great press about SAM and SFA. When was the last time any media outlet in Texas cared about you're program. Fact is we saw more love by the press in our one run than Sam has ever had in it's entire programs history. xcoffeex

In Texas if you're not FBS then you're seen as DivII. Plain and simple. That goes for SAM also.

Difference between SHSU/SFA and your institution is that we are not sandwiched between two media markets. We have a media market south of us that has numerous Div I schools (Texas Southern, Rice, Houston, Houston Baptist and Prairie View A&M).

We know what we are competing with and know we won't get much, especially since A&M, Texas get a fair share of competition. Nor are we trying to become FBS like your school is.

You have two media markets with three Div I schools total (Texas, UTSA and yourselves). I still do not think you could break through the much smaller clutter with just two media markets.

And no, I am not bashing your lack of media coverage based on wins and losses. I am putting the lack of media coverage if you go FBS on the fact one more school that has FBS football, particularly INSIDE the city of one of your two media markets (UTSA, San Antonio), will do you no favors. It would hurt you guys that there would be that situation.

If UTSA does not get football, it won't be as bad and you'll get an increase. UTSA adds football, it will hurt your school and not give you the dramatic boost that you may see if they do not.

bobcatalum05

May 25th, 2008, 02:33 PM

TexasTerror

May 25th, 2008, 02:35 PM

Let's see how long it takes for UTSA to play "Big Time football" by Texas Standards. I bet we will be there first and the drive in UTSA will realize there is more to putting a FBS program together. We've put the plan together the funds are there the facilities are being built and the athletes are already there.

If UTSA announces football this summer (which they very well could), they would be on a five or six year time frame to get up to full FBS. That's 2014, 2015 (same time you guys would be bowl-eligible, they would be).

The fact they were on the move to FBS (and would announce so from the beginning) would be enough for them to get consideration from C-USA or the WAC. Professional facility (Alamodome) and more would be a nice springboard -- just watch Georgia State.

They have city support for the facilities and loads of sponsors that will put some $$$ into them, that would not even have to leave the city to support FBS football, like they would if they looked into San Marcos.

TexasTerror

May 25th, 2008, 02:38 PM

17 pages and counting and they keep hating on TXST. Why? Cause they have nothing else better to do and they are obviously concerned for some reason. Otherwise they wouldnt bother with their hundreds of post about TXST.

When ever someone constantly bashes something their is usually an underlying issue. If we are so inconsequential then why do they keep ragging on TXST?

Correction its now on 18 pages.

It's more our collective disgust with the...

a) hype - we've seen it over and over again, with no results
b) constant lack of facts - that helped in getting the name change too
c) constant be-rating of our schools and the SLC by members of the feasibility study committee
d) for SHSU, a complete failure for your move to FBS (which is more likely than success) would derail any move by us or Lamar to the FBS in the future

FormerPokeCenter

May 25th, 2008, 03:31 PM

I'm not so much disgusted by Texas State as I am morbidly amused at the collective delusion.

Even when you wish them well, they respond with more snippy bull****.

It's like watching a Monty Python sketch about the black knight. Thus far, the Bobcats have been de-horsed, separated from their weapons and have had their arms, legs torso and neck whacked away. Basically, they're collectively one big talking helmet screaming "Just wait till next year, we're the team of the future!"

"I didn't need that horse, anyway. And those weapons were just holding us back!. Arms, HA! We don't need no stinking arms. We're Texas State. Legs, Ha! we don't need any legs. Just wait till we get to the FBS! What's that you say? A talking helmet can't play football? Ha, we don't need bodies, we're raising funds like nobody's business..."

"What do you mean we've never been successful in the FCS? We almost had the ability to take a shot at winning a semi-final game! Besides, haven't you seen our mock-up PDFs?"

TXST_CAT

May 26th, 2008, 09:16 PM

If UTSA announces football this summer (which they very well could), they would be on a five or six year time frame to get up to full FBS. That's 2014, 2015 (same time you guys would be bowl-eligible, they would be).

The fact they were on the move to FBS (and would announce so from the beginning) would be enough for them to get consideration from C-USA or the WAC. Professional facility (Alamodome) and more would be a nice springboard -- just watch Georgia State.

They have city support for the facilities and loads of sponsors that will put some $$$ into them, that would not even have to leave the city to support FBS football, like they would if they looked into San Marcos.

And yet you don't care to see them or Lamar Kicked out of the Southland. xnonox

You contradict your self. And now we will here you claim they have not"officialy" anounced their move although they have no desire to even play SLC football. xnonono2x

TXST_CAT

May 26th, 2008, 09:20 PM

TexasTerror

May 26th, 2008, 09:41 PM

And yet you don't care to see them or Lamar Kicked out of the Southland. xnonox

UTSA does not have football currently. Yes, they will go to FBS, but let them announce football first. The SLC has already said they will not let them play football in the SLC if they make the move to FBS clear from the beginning.

Lamar has not announced a move to FBS. They are actually trying to speed up their entrance into the SLC, which could be aided by the removal of your school from the conference.

Your institution is a present football playing member and have officially announced a move to FBS.

You contradict your self. And now we will here you claim they have not"officialy" anounced their move although they have no desire to even play SLC football. xnonono2x

Each situation is different. Let UTSA get football first.

Your school has officially announced a move and discussions have gone on behind the scenes. Such was confirmed to me last fall by someone involved in the discussions. I sat on my information until you guys made it absolutely clear that you were going FBS.

The rules were put in place the last time you guys attempted a move by an AD interested in protecting the conference. Your institution should immediately be removed from taking advantage of NCAA shares outside of the ones you guys earn yourselves, which considering your lack of success in men's basketball, shouldn't matter.

Cap'n Cat

May 26th, 2008, 09:42 PM

Mods, please.

xrolleyesx

TxState_GO_CATS!

May 27th, 2008, 12:27 AM

Mods, please.

xrolleyesx

took the words right out of my mouth.

let's face it. there will NEVER be a non-smack thread regarding texas state as long as certain folks are lurking around.

oh well...xcoffeex

FormerPokeCenter

May 27th, 2008, 07:00 AM

let's face it. there will NEVER be a non-smack thread regarding texas state as long as certain folks are lurking around.

oh well...xcoffeex

At least you admit that your fellow SWTSU fans are the cause. That's a step in the right direction ;)

TxState_GO_CATS!

May 27th, 2008, 07:28 PM

At least you admit that your fellow SWTSU fans are the cause. That's a step in the right direction ;)

haha, oh riiiiight. you're funny.xlolx

TexasTerror

May 27th, 2008, 08:14 PM

Malleus, a popular figure on the Bobcat board brought up a good point as it relates to the pressure on the AD and President...

Yeah, this is going to work out real well, considering they didn't want to push it through on their own power. If we MAKE them do it that's going to have a better result... right...

As I responded...oddly enough, quite a few of the same people pushing through FBS that pushed through something else that "they" did not want to push through a few years back...

Difference is, the Texas Legislature is much different than the NCAA. And getting alum support for such a move like this is more broad base than that one considering most of the alums have been led to believe the Bobcat athletic program is not Division I...

McTailGator

May 28th, 2008, 09:09 AM

You have GOT TO BE kidding right?? LOL Do you actually believe this?? This is the dumbest, most dellusional thing I've seen posted regarding FCS/FBS in a long long time. My sides are starting to hurt..

It IS fact...

The delusions are with UN-KNOWLEDGEABLE FOOTBALL FANS from schools with student fans such as TxSU who do not know their @$$ from a hole in the ground and yet, THEY GET TO DRIVE THE BUS.

ARE YOU ADULT's (I assume you have adult fans), SO DUMB AS TO LET THAT HAPPEN? WHY DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING DONORS?

You already play in the NCAA Division I's HIGHEST level of Championship football FACT.

The BCS National Champion is NOT an NCAA National Champion and has NOTHING to do with the NCAA. That is why we play in THE Football CHAMPIONSHIP Subdivision.

YOU ARE D-I,

McTailGator

May 28th, 2008, 09:11 AM

McTailGator

May 28th, 2008, 09:16 AM

You are absolutely right. I bet we can ask 100 random students where Mcneese is and I'm sure 80 of them won't know it even existed.

FROM WHAT I HAVE LEARNED AND EXPERIENCED WITH THE TXsu STUDENTS I HAVE MET... I DO NOT DOUBT YOU

Your's are among the worse group of mis-behaved children I have ever seen.

They all need much more than a time out. Most need their little @$$es spanked xasswhipx and put in their rooms.

TexasTerror

May 28th, 2008, 09:36 AM

Finally,

SOMEONE GET'S IT! xthumbsupx

I did go to the flagship of the Texas State University System or at the very least, the school that has the edge in that argument according to a 2005 report on said subject and a remark made by the 2006-2007 San Marcos student body president... xnodx

McTailGator

May 28th, 2008, 10:05 AM

bobcatalum05 Said..."17 pages and counting and they keep hating on TXST. Why?

If we are so inconsequential then why do they keep ragging on TXST?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have fans here on this, (THE FCS BOARD), who typically never come here trying to convince a bunch of FCS fans (who know better) that TxSU is BETTER than all of us and somehow we should all bend down and kiss their xazzx because THEY feel like they are somehow better than us because you once SHARED a SLC title and NOW you are ready for THE BIG TIME?

Believe me. As a long time member of the SLC, McNeese has seen this same stupidity before. UL-Lafayette, LaTech, North Texas, and ULM. ALL have had MORE losing seasons then you guys have had since joining the SLC. And they were all very successful in the SLC (well OK, ULL always sucked), but look at them now. Once proud traditions, now all smashed to hell and living in embarrisment.

They are all bottom feeders and the best most of them can hope for is a trip to one of the filthest, rat infested cities in the US to play in a Bowl game in front of more empty seats then they have ever seen in their lives. And if they don't sell 15,000 tickets to that Toilet Bowl in New Orleans on a Tuesday night, they do not make ANY money at all.

BUT HEY,

Do what you want.

Just tell your fellow BobCat fans to not come to THIS board and try to tell us how you are going to do better. Or they will all get their @$$es jumped like you have seen here.

You should all remind yourselves that your team has been a failure (except for one SHARED SLC title and a KNEE). And now you are saying, you want to move over to a SUB-DIVISON, where your best year out of every 15 to 20 will be a 5 win season?

Go for it!

Don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out...

txphi592

May 28th, 2008, 01:57 PM

It IS fact...

The delusions are with UN-KNOWLEDGEABLE FOOTBALL FANS from schools with student fans such as TxSU who do not know their @$$ from a hole in the ground and yet, THEY GET TO DRIVE THE BUS.

ARE YOU ADULT's (I assume you have adult fans), SO DUMB AS TO LET THAT HAPPEN? WHY DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING DONORS?

You already play in the NCAA Division I's HIGHEST level of Championship football FACT.

The BCS National Champion is NOT an NCAA National Champion and has NOTHING to do with the NCAA. That is why we play in THE Football CHAMPIONSHIP Subdivision.

YOU ARE D-I,

If the technicality of being within the same "division" as FBS makes you feel better about being in FCS, then whatever floats your boat. Anybody with any common sense knows that in general there is a HUGE difference in talent, competition, money, media exposure, fan support, recruitment standards, a lot of times academics, and overall public perception etc etc etc between FBS and FCS. By "moving up" most people understand I am reffering to upgrading. But keep telling yourself you are Division I (which you are) to somehow rationalize the fact that you play in an inferior sub-division (vs FBS) that most people don't care about.

TxState_GO_CATS!

May 28th, 2008, 01:59 PM

i guess i still don't get it...

again, why do you guys care?

MaximumBobcat

May 28th, 2008, 02:14 PM

i guess i still don't get it...

again, why do you guys care?

i think it's a mix of all the hater's teams not doing as well as they thought they'd be lately, a bit of sour grapes, and just an unnatural obsession in some cases.

it's ok though, TXState_Go_Cats, both me and you know that every post by the haters is just a confirmation of all the things I just said above.

sit back with me and laugh at them.

xlolx xlolx xlolx xnodx xnodx xnodx

patssle

May 28th, 2008, 02:18 PM

The BCS National Champion is NOT an NCAA National Champion and has NOTHING to do with the NCAA. That is why we play in THE Football CHAMPIONSHIP Subdivision.

And 95% of football fans out there don't care. The BCS is the national champion to everybody except you, me, and this message board.

TexasTerror

May 28th, 2008, 02:51 PM

MaximumBobcat

May 28th, 2008, 03:20 PM

i think it's a mix of all the hater's teams not doing as well as they thought they'd be lately, a bit of sour grapes, and just an unnatural obsession in some cases.

Our programs, particularly in the sport of football, have done much better than that of your program.

Re-read the bolded part, then go back and look at some posts on Katfans in early Fall '06. xlolx xlolx xlolx

Again -- most of the hatred by EVERY school in the SLC directed at yours is due to the constant put downs coming from San Marcos, the lies, the deception and just the ridiculous behavior set forth by individuals who represent your school, sit on the committee pushing for FBS and so forth.

So, what Larry Teis says forces you to come on multiple message boards and spew forth hatred and filth??? xconfusedx I'm not following...

If you want to follow something, try following my behavior I've tried to put into practice over on Katfans lately. xpeacex

FormerPokeCenter

May 28th, 2008, 03:24 PM

i think it's a mix of all the hater's teams not doing as well as they thought they'd be lately, a bit of sour grapes, and just an unnatural obsession in some cases.

it's ok though, TXState_Go_Cats, both me and you know that every post by the haters is just a confirmation of all the things I just said above.

sit back with me and laugh at them.

xlolx xlolx xlolx xnodx xnodx xnodx

Pointing out that you guys are delusions isn't an indication that anybody hates you, it's simply confirmation that you are, in fact, delusional...

Why is that so hard for you to understand? We don't hate you...in fact, we're kinda sad to see you go.

If nothing else, you guys are entertaining...

Just not for the reasons you think ;)

MaximumBobcat

May 28th, 2008, 03:28 PM

Pointing out that you guys are delusions isn't an indication that anybody hates you, it's simply confirmation that you are, in fact, delusional...

i think it's a mix of all the hater's teams not doing as well as they thought they'd be lately, a bit of sour grapes, stubbornness, fear of change, and just an unnatural obsession in some cases.

it's ok though, TXState_Go_Cats, both me and you know that every post by the haters is just a confirmation of all the things I just said above.

sit back with me and laugh at them.

xlolx xlolx xlolx xnodx xnodx xnodx

FormerPokeCenter

May 28th, 2008, 03:55 PM

xlolx xlolx xlolx xnodx xnodx xnodx

I've always known that you guys were repetitive and prone to quote yourselves as authoritative sources - which as I'm sure you're undoubtedly aware is a logical fallacy (since, after all, you DID go to SWTSU - that bastion of illuminative instruction on the Blanco - which would have, as a matter of practice, relied heavily upon Socrates's "On Sophistical Refutations" to instruct it's students in the art of competitive and contested arguments), which pretty much undermines your stated position.

Knowing, as I do, that you're a SWTSU man; I know that you're well schooled in the didactic, dialectic, examinatory and contentious schools of argumentative thought and - accordingly - would never resort to a logical fallacy unless there were a larger point you were trying to make. I mean why else would you stake an untennable position unless you were trying to bait an intellectual trap?

So, if you could take time out of your busy repetitively delusional schedule to explain just what this larger point is, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I 'll just have to assume that you slept through Logic and/or Forensics at UT or A&M before you transferred to SWTSU...;)

MaximumBobcat

May 28th, 2008, 04:00 PM

I've always known that you guys were repetitive and prone to quote yourselves as authoritative sources - which as I'm sure you're undoubtedly aware is a logical fallacy (since, after all, you DID go to SWTSU - that bastion of illuminative instruction on the Blanco - which would have, as a matter of practice, relied heavily upon Socrates's "On Sophistical Refutations" to instruct it's students in the art of competitive and contested arguments), which pretty much undermines your stated position.

Knowing, as I do, that you're a SWTSU man; I know that you're well schooled in the didactic, dialectic, examinatory and contentious schools of argumentative thought and - accordingly - would never resort to a logical fallacy unless there were a larger point you were trying to make. I mean why else would you stake an untennable position unless you were trying to bait an intellectual trap?

So, if you could take time out of your busy repetitively delusional schedule to explain just what this larger point is, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I 'll just have to assume that you slept through Logic and/or Forensics at UT or A&M before you transferred to SWTSU...;)

You're just being a troll and I don't want to waste my time dissecting every one of your ridiculous comments. You should be happy, I'm saving you time from arguing with me when you could be out with wife and kids, instead of trying to insult people and institutions on the internet.

FormerPokeCenter

May 28th, 2008, 04:53 PM

You're just being a troll and I don't want to waste my time dissecting every one of your ridiculous comments.

Yet still you respond...Ya know, another thing you SWTSU guys have in common with USL is that you HAVE to try to have the last word. It's almost pathological...;)

txphi592

May 28th, 2008, 05:06 PM

I've always known that you guys were repetitive and prone to quote yourselves as authoritative sources - which as I'm sure you're undoubtedly aware is a logical fallacy (since, after all, you DID go to SWTSU - that bastion of illuminative instruction on the Blanco - which would have, as a matter of practice, relied heavily upon Socrates's "On Sophistical Refutations" to instruct it's students in the art of competitive and contested arguments), which pretty much undermines your stated position.

Knowing, as I do, that you're a SWTSU man; I know that you're well schooled in the didactic, dialectic, examinatory and contentious schools of argumentative thought and - accordingly - would never resort to a logical fallacy unless there were a larger point you were trying to make. I mean why else would you stake an untennable position unless you were trying to bait an intellectual trap?

So, if you could take time out of your busy repetitively delusional schedule to explain just what this larger point is, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I 'll just have to assume that you slept through Logic and/or Forensics at UT or A&M before you transferred to SWTSU...;)

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

You sir, belong on a tool belt. Oh how hard he tries xlolx xlolx

FormerPokeCenter

May 28th, 2008, 05:16 PM

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

You sir, belong on a tool belt. Oh how hard he tries xlolx xlolx

Actually, pointing out your illogical assumptions takes absolutely NO work whatsoever....

With apologies to GEICO, it's so simple, even a Caveman could do it... ;)

McTailGator

May 29th, 2008, 10:29 AM

And 95% of football fans out there don't care. The BCS is the national champion to everybody except you, me, and this message board.

It IS still FACT.

McTailGator

May 29th, 2008, 10:39 AM

If the technicality of being within the same "division" as FBS makes you feel better about being in FCS, then whatever floats your boat. Anybody with any common sense knows that in general there is a HUGE difference in talent, competition, money, media exposure, fan support, recruitment standards, a lot of times academics, and overall public perception etc etc etc between FBS and FCS. By "moving up" most people understand I am reffering to upgrading. But keep telling yourself you are Division I (which you are) to somehow rationalize the fact that you play in an inferior sub-division (vs FBS) that most people don't care about.

HEY DA..

WHAT PART ABOUT BEING D-I DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

AND if you think Texas State is going to see an increase in Talent once it moves OVER to the other SUB-DIVISION, why don't you have your AD give us a call in a few years and we'll go down to SM and kick your @$$ just for old times sake. OK.

Of course, you won't be able to afford our guarantee because you WON'T PUT 4,000 people in your newly inlarged stadium because you will not win enough to draw any interest.

And those KIDS you are letting drive your bus, will CONTINUE to drive it up to Austin and go hang out at the UT games. All the while talking about "HOW BAD THE BOBCATS SUCK".

If you don't think that will happen. Show up here in 10 years and prove me wrong.

YOU AND THE REST OF YOUR DELUSIONAL TxSU STUDENT CHILDREN HAVE YET TO REALIZE THAT YOUR PROGRAM HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFULL IN D-1 NOW.

ALL YOU HAVE TO SHOW FOR IT IS HALF OF A SLC CHAMPIONSHIP AND A REPLAY OF YOUR COACH CALLING THE KNEE PLAY. xrotatehx

AND NOW YOU WANT TO MOVE "UP" TO THE SUNBELT??????!!!!

xlolx

TxState_GO_CATS!

May 29th, 2008, 01:49 PM

seriously, how old are we?

and again, why do you even care?

graysky

June 1st, 2008, 09:28 AM

McTailGator

June 1st, 2008, 10:49 AM

seriously, how old are we?

and again, why do you even care?

Old enough to have grand children, and smart enough to know which cliff your student body is about to drive you buss over.

I know about a dozen of your ADULT fans, and they are nice folk.

I feel sorry for them, because they are headed for DECADES of disastrous losing. I would like to see better for them.

McTailGator

June 1st, 2008, 10:52 AM

Wait! Isn't this the same Texas State team that struggles with Sam Houston State every year and is the whipping boy for McNeese State? How many Southland conference titles does Texas State own? One or Two..............I don't remember. McNeese has about 12 titles! And now, Texas state is ready for the FBS? I have one thought...........the University of Louisiana-Lafayette or Texas El-Paso. This is where Texas State is headed if they join the FBS. Silly bobcats.

Huh, to be accurate...

They SHARED one SLC title with Nichols in 2005.

That's it.

Since Moving UP to Division I, their records are as follows:

1984 = 7-4
1985 = 3-8
1986 = 4-7
1987 = 4-7
1988 = 4-7
1989 = 5-6
1990 = 6-5
1991 = 7-4
1992 = 5-5-1
1993 = 2-9
1994 = 4-7
1995 = 4-7
1996 = 5-6
1997 = 5-6
1998 = 4-7
1999 = 3-8
2000 = 7-4
2001 = 4-7
2002 = 4-7
2003 = 4-8
2004 = 5-6
2005 = 11-3
2006 = 5-6
2007 = 4-7

5 winning seasons in 24 years.

FormerPokeCenter

June 1st, 2008, 01:51 PM

Huh, to be accurate...

They SHARED one SLC title with Nichols in 2005.

That's it.

5 winning seasons in 24 years.

When you read the cold hard statistics on their ability to win games and then read their message board about the grandiose plans to move up to FBS and compete for bowl births, I feel like I'm watching an episode of Fantasy Island with SWTSU students stepping off "da plane" and announcing their intentions to rule the college football world, meanwhile you, me, TT and a few others are taking turns alternatively playing Ricardo Montalban and Herve Villechaize by interjecting factual discourse into the ongoing drama...

You know, since you're shorter than me, I think I know which role you get to play ;)

TexasTerror

June 1st, 2008, 03:33 PM

June 30, 2010...so long, San Marcos!

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/IMAGES/77/039_20026.jpg

gokats85

June 1st, 2008, 06:45 PM

June 30, 2010...so long, San Marcos!

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/IMAGES/77/039_20026.jpg

xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox

...and don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord done split ya!

McTailGator

June 1st, 2008, 08:35 PM

You know, since you're shorter than me, I think I know which role you get to play ;)

Ha,

I figured you would play the "Vertically Challenged Card" xsmiley_wix

BUT, we should stop placing all the FACTS out on the table. All these facts are just making their "Vision" hazy. xwhistlex

MaximumBobcat

June 1st, 2008, 09:35 PM

Ha,

I figured you would play the "Vertically Challenged Card" xsmiley_wix

BUT, we should stop placing all the FACTS out on the table. All these facts are just making their "Vision" hazy. xwhistlex

God, you, FPC and TT are like a bunch of women. Sitting around bitching about something that has very little to do with you. And your BS about the TSUS accepting Sam as FBS later Terror, it's not a big enough excuse for the amount of crap you do.

Yes, it's obvious that we are going into this, hoping to rely on momentum from the students and community and a lot of luck.

What else do you guys have to say?

C'mon...we all know you love to bitch and talk. This 20 pages wouldn't have been possible without either one of you... I'm talking to you FPC and TT...

MaximumBobcat

June 1st, 2008, 09:47 PM

Ha,

I figured you would play the "Vertically Challenged Card" xsmiley_wix

BUT, we should stop placing all the FACTS out on the table. All these facts are just making their "Vision" hazy. xwhistlex

God, you, FPC and TT are like a bunch of women. Sitting around bitching about someone else. :D :D :D

You guys are laughing now as we attempt to move up with a poor record in I-AA. Who knows who will be laughing in 5, 10 or 20 years? The answer is no one does. We may succeed, we may not, but the point is nobody knows yet. You can try to come up with some witty comeback FPC, but you know as well as I do, that no one knows what will happen and past results don't have an impact on the future.

Until then, all of you can continue to bicker about the Bobcats amongst yourselves, as usual.

xcoffeex

McTailGator

June 2nd, 2008, 12:06 AM

God, you, FPC and TT are like a bunch of women. Sitting around bitching about someone else. :D :D :D

You guys are laughing now as we attempt to move up with a poor record in I-AA. Who knows who will be laughing in 5, 10 or 20 years? The answer is no one does. We may succeed, we may not, but the point is nobody knows yet. You can try to come up with some witty comeback FPC, but you know as well as I do, that no one knows what will happen and past results don't have an impact on the future.

Until then, all of you can continue to bicker about the Bobcats amongst yourselves, as usual.

xcoffeex

OH YES We DO KNOW...

We have seen it with:

UL-Lafayette, who I compare you guy's to. Your programs and fans are ALMOST identical. Well OK, with you it's primarily your younger fans/students. With ULL, it's the adults, hanging on for their shot at a single crappy Bowl game 36 years after joining Division I.

Think about that... What will your student bus drivers and boosters do if you don't win enough over a 36 year period to ever go to a bowl game?

And all they have to do is basically win 50% of their games to be bowl eligible. AND STILL nothing to show for it.

We have seen similar things out of North Texas (cut they did win the Belch 3 years in a row), but how proud can they be to say they were the best team the Sunbelt had 3 years in a row? That's like saying, "I just took a bath in dog urine. Why aren't you proud of me?"

Then there is LaTech, and ULM. Again, nothing to show for it. Tech did have one 8 win season, and still did not get any interest from any of the bowls. ULM, Well they did beat a bad Bama team, and then had to sit back and watch all the Bama fans drive through Monroe on their way to Shreveport for a bowl game. ULM won 6 games and were perplexed who they were staying home and BAMA is in a bowl. Dah!

Now it's your turn.

And you have had FAR less success than any of the other three teams mentioned.

If you can't be a BCS team, your just waisting time and money pretending to be something that you can not be.

MaximumBobcat

June 2nd, 2008, 12:21 AM

txphi592

June 2nd, 2008, 12:59 AM

We have seen similar things out of North Texas (cut they did win the Belch 3 years in a row), but how proud can they be to say they were the best team the Sunbelt had 3 years in a row? That's like saying, "I just took a bath in dog urine. Why aren't you proud of me?"

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but you play in the SOUTHLAND, and you are putting down the Sunbelt??? There are lots of things you can say about the Sunbelt, but fact is its a very new, and fast up and coming conferance. Nobody has even heard of the southland, get real...

I did some looking around, I couldn't even find TV ratings posted for the southland championship game (suprise suprise), so I found the FCS national championship tv ratings (around 1mil viewers and one of the best ratings ever for this game) as compared to the "toilet bowl" as you call it that attracts over 1.5mil.

TexasTerror

June 2nd, 2008, 09:27 AM

I did some looking around, I couldn't even find TV ratings posted for the southland championship game (suprise suprise), so I found the FCS national championship tv ratings (around 1mil viewers and one of the best ratings ever for this game) as compared to the "toilet bowl" as you call it that attracts over 1.5mil.

See, you just show your "credibility" each time you post. Southland championship game? Are you kidding me? xrolleyesx

I'm not one to dog the Sun Belt -- but the Bobcats do not even have a chance to get into the conference. The other schools don't want it and the conference has much higher standards than that.

McTailGator

June 2nd, 2008, 09:54 AM

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but you play in the SOUTHLAND, and you are putting down the Sunbelt??? There are lots of things you can say about the Sunbelt, but fact is its a very new, and fast up and coming conferance. Nobody has even heard of the southland, get real...

I did some looking around, I couldn't even find TV ratings posted for the southland championship game (suprise suprise), so I found the FCS national championship tv ratings (around 1mil viewers and one of the best ratings ever for this game) as compared to the "toilet bowl" as you call it that attracts over 1.5mil.

AGAIN:

Those stars your seeing are NOT from what you THINK life will be like.

They are caused when you get hit in the head and can cause long term retardedness. xbangx xdizzyx

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE SOUTHLAND vs THE Slum BELCH RECORD IS?xrotatehx

I will give you a hint.

You currently play in the conference that has won the most head to head match-ups on the field. xwhistlex THAT'S RIGHT!

All you TxSU fans are going to IMPROVE your existance by moving to a "fast and upcoming" conference that is much more powerful than the SLC?

New's Flash: The Skunk Belt is 4-11 vs the SLC since becoming a conference in 2001. Only ONE of those Belch victories were against an SLC team with a winning record and that SLC team finished at 6-5.

McNeese has a perfect record vs the Slum Belch at 3-0. And our games with those schools have not really been close. We blew out ULL last season, we bulled our way over and wore out ULM in 2002, and we came from behind to beat FIU in 2004 when we played a bunch of RS freshmen and only won 4 games all season. xlolx

There the Belch is going somewhere FAST alright. They are quickly become THE laughing stock of ALL of Division I football.

As I said, in another post somewhere...

SO NOT COME TO THIS BOARD LOOKING FOR SOME HERO WORSHIPERS xbowx WISHING THEY COULD BE YOU.

We know what is going to happen to you.

AND IT WILL WORSE THAN HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE 1984. And we all know that has not been pretty at all. xsmiley_wix

And why would you want your games to be on TV?

SO THE WHOLE WORLD CAN SEE HOW BAD TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY SUCKs? xconfusedx

patssle

June 2nd, 2008, 10:20 AM

I did some looking around, I couldn't even find TV ratings posted for the southland championship game (suprise suprise),

There is no such thing as a SLC championship game in football.

So keep looking.

TXSUBobcat

June 2nd, 2008, 01:09 PM

Past performance is not indicative of success at the next level in the LONG RUN( and please don't respond stating that FBS and FCS are on the same level because the perception is that they are not). Research has shown that success at the next level is exclusively tied to the amount of revenue that a university generates. Is it no coincidence that UNT has won the sunbelt the past three years? (checkout the enrollment figures of some of the schools in the sunbelt) The comparison of Texas State University to ULL is absurd, the enrollment/revenue of TxSU is double the amount of ULL. As a matter of fact, TxSU has triple the revenue/enrollment of ULM and La Tech. To spell it out for you guys, what that means is that TxSU can spend more money on new facilities, upgrades, higher profile coaches, etc.; and what y'all are going to say next is: Why hasn't TxSU won more in the southland and more importantly (what should be asked) is why hasn't TxSU spent more on athletics. For the past decade the university has put a higher priority on building new academic facilities, upgrading academic facilities and programs, upgrading the campus, etc. If anyone has looked at our master plan through 2015 ( also why your there take a look at the construction projects that are going on the link to that can be found on the home page) much of the campaign is directed toward enhancing our campus and growing the round rock campus. What I'm interested to see, as I'm sure all of you are, is what the plan will be after 2015.

The point is that TxSU doesn't have to win right away because we can afford to lose, think of it as a long-term investment, in the short run we are going to take a hit but one really good season in FBS will do ten fold what that one good season in 2005 (in FCS)did in the following years. If you make it to the FCS championship the only recognition you get is the games you play on the ESPN network, you won't here Herbstriet and Corso talking about the FCS championship game. However, if you have a good season in the FBS your school will receive much more recognition than if you make it to the championship game in FCS. I think all of you would agree that App State got much more recognition for its win over Michigan than it did for winning those previous FCS championships.

MaximumBobcat

June 2nd, 2008, 02:50 PM

AGAIN:

Those stars your seeing are NOT from what you THINK life will be like.

They are caused when you get hit in the head and can cause long term retardedness. xbangx xdizzyx

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE SOUTHLAND vs THE Slum BELCH RECORD IS?xrotatehx

I will give you a hint.

You currently play in the conference that has won the most head to head match-ups on the field. xwhistlex THAT'S RIGHT!

All you TxSU fans are going to IMPROVE your existance by moving to a "fast and upcoming" conference that is much more powerful than the SLC?

New's Flash: The Skunk Belt is 4-11 vs the SLC since becoming a conference in 2001. Only ONE of those Belch victories were against an SLC team with a winning record and that SLC team finished at 6-5.

McNeese has a perfect record vs the Slum Belch at 3-0. And our games with those schools have not really been close. We blew out ULL last season, we bulled our way over and wore out ULM in 2002, and we came from behind to beat FIU in 2004 when we played a bunch of RS freshmen and only won 4 games all season. xlolx

There the Belch is going somewhere FAST alright. They are quickly become THE laughing stock of ALL of Division I football.

As I said, in another post somewhere...

SO NOT COME TO THIS BOARD LOOKING FOR SOME HERO WORSHIPERS xbowx WISHING THEY COULD BE YOU.

We know what is going to happen to you.

AND IT WILL WORSE THAN HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE 1984. And we all know that has not been pretty at all. xsmiley_wix

And why would you want your games to be on TV?

SO THE WHOLE WORLD CAN SEE HOW BAD TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY SUCKs? xconfusedx

Reading your posts over the past year, McTailGator, and looking at this post, you seem to like things simple. Let me try to explain...

ULL, ULM, FIU? Looking up their records at the time, those are the weakest of the weak. Hmm...try to play Troy or FAU in the next couple of years, then maybe your comments about the Sunbelt being weak will hold some water.

P.S. FIU was Independent when you beat them, NOT a member of the Sunbelt. xlolx

McTailGator

June 2nd, 2008, 09:39 PM

McTailGator

June 2nd, 2008, 10:03 PM

Reading your posts over the past year, McTailGator, and looking at this post, you seem to like things simple. Let me try to explain...

ULL, ULM, FIU? Looking up their records at the time, those are the weakest of the weak. Hmm...try to play Troy or FAU in the next couple of years, then maybe your comments about the Sunbelt being weak will hold some water.

P.S. FIU was Independent when you beat them, NOT a member of the Sunbelt. xlolx

Tisk tisk tisk....

When are you Junior BoobCats gonna learn that I was born at night, but not last night...

I have been around this crap and seen more unsuccessful attempts at going to FBS than all 27000 of you student bus drivers.

Quit diving into this fire. xsplatx

FAU and Troy have NOT played SLC teams since joining. But hell we owned them when they were an SLC team, while they were kicking your @$$es along with us. But I do respect their tradition, and I do not think they will be Skunk Belch long anyway.

And to be factual (and prove you wrong again), FIU was in transition to the Belch (, they were included in the BELCH's meetings, and they had 84 scholarship players),

BUT, and here is why you are wrong again;

Their games vs other Skunk Belchers COUNTED as SBC wins and losses during their two year transition. As did FAU's games. Both beat other Belchers that season. So in other words, the Belch had to include them in their win columns so they could get to the necessary 6 game win requirments to go to the NO Toilet Bowl.

4-11 - It is what it is, BUT, if 4 and 9 makes you feel like they are ALMOST HALF AS GOOD as the SLC, go ahead and throw out those 2 other losses they had. That will make a huge difference. xlolx

Plus, I did not count the other 2 losses ULL had to SLC schools (SHSU and U) prior to starting skunk play. Nor did I count Ark States (loss to Nichols prior to begining Belch play).

So you see, that 4-11, and even the 4-9 could grow by another 3 to 5 losses if I wanted to spend the time looking it up.

AM I EDUCATING YOU GUYS ENOUGH YET.

Are you starting to see that there is a reason they call it the SKUNK BELT?

patssle

June 2nd, 2008, 10:04 PM

Research has shown that success at the next level is exclusively tied to the amount of revenue that a university generates

Texas State's athletic budget blows away the rest of the SLC. Yet on the field, the rest of the SLC blow away Texas State.

Obviously that research has exceptions...and your it!

McTailGator

June 2nd, 2008, 10:14 PM

Reading your posts over the past year, McTailGator, and looking at this post, you seem to like things simple. Let me try to explain...

ULL, ULM, FIU? Looking up their records at the time, those are the weakest of the weak. Hmm...try to play Troy or FAU in the next couple of years, then maybe your comments about the Sunbelt being weak will hold some water.

P.S. FIU was Independent when you beat them, NOT a member of the Sunbelt. xlolx

IF FAU and Troy want to chance playing us and CAN AFFORD US as we sell more season ticket than they do and require a much larger guarantee than they can afford, I would junp on that chance to play them in a heart beat.

And as I said in my other post...

FAU and FIU games counted as wins and losses for other Belchers during their 2 year transition. Plus they had a full count of FBS scholarships on their team.

They also sat in on the Skunks meetings and gave them plenty of input.

Just because there were not bowl eligable means nothing. We still kicked their ass in a down year for us.

Almost like saying we kicked their ass with one arm tied behind our backs and blindfolded.

SHALL I ALSO GIVE YOU ULL, ULM'S, AND ARK ST. LOSS RECORDS TO Nichols, SHSU, and NSU prior to the formation of Belch football in 2001? (Hell they even lost to Woford, and Troy in the late 90's) Shall I also count ULL's record vs D-II North Alabama?

They have been in division I for 36 years and they still suck as much now as they did when they were in the SLC.

They DO remind me of TxSU in SO MANY WAYS.

Same lame administrators, and same lame clueless fans and students trying to run the show and their program into the ground.xnodx

MaximumBobcat

June 2nd, 2008, 11:30 PM

And to be factual (and prove you wrong again), FIU was in transition to the Belch (, they were included in the BELCH's meetings, and they had 84 scholarship players),

Well, according to here they didn't join the SBC till 2005, so if you want to take that up with them, fine by me.

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sunbelt/florida_international/index.php

And be realistic, just because they may be allowed 84 scholarships, that wasn't a regular I-A football team, that was a transitional team that played a crazy schedule and a lot of I-AAs that year. I mean, if TxSt had done that I would probably be bragging too, but just cause MSU beat FIU and a couple other of those Louisiana mudskipper schools just down the swamp from you, doesn't mean the entire Sunbelt is horrible. They're lowend I-A yes, and that usually means up and down years, but I think they're starting to get everything straightened out. If I can remember all correctly, Arkansas State, UNT, MTSU, FAU and Troy are all looking to get things a little more consistent and on the winning side of things. Yes, there will always be a top Southland team that could take down the lower third of the Sunbelt, but I think the Sunbelt is improving by leaps and bounds.

TXST_CAT

June 3rd, 2008, 01:00 AM

If there was any other proof that TXST is leaving the SL behind it's the 20+ pages of the mighty Cowgirls and pretend kitties trying to hold on to your pride as the team that never did leaves you guys behind. Say what you may we're bailing and all you guys can do is sit back and watch. xbawlingx

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

TexasTerror

June 3rd, 2008, 09:40 AM

If San Marcos moves up, SHSU won't be too far behind unless the Bobcats completely blow their move up...I've said it numerous times...

I'm not interested in moving up as I am fine with actually having a program in football that can compete for national championships. Even if the Bobcats were in the SBC or a Div I Independent or whatever, I fully believe that SHSU could be competitive and beat them on a consistent basis (see McN/ULL). Again, I'd rather stay FCS in football...

How's the baseball NIT going, Bobcats? xlolx

graysky

June 3rd, 2008, 10:24 AM

If Texas State struggles with the likes of Nicholls and Souteastern Louisiana, how in the bejeebees are they going to handle Oklahoma State and Texas A.M.? McNeese is not even ready for the BCS and they win conference every other year. Wake up bobby-cats. Purr!

TexasTerror

June 25th, 2008, 09:01 AM

FYI...this was in the minutes from the regents meeting...and I didn't even have to add the name of the city, it was already there! ;)

2008-67
TxSt-SM: Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS)
Upon motion of Regent Amato, seconded by Regent Flores, with all regents voting aye, it was ordered that Texas State University-San Marcos be authorized to take such actions as may be necessary and lawful to become classified as an NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) university, subject to approval by the Chancellor.

FormerPokeCenter

June 25th, 2008, 09:42 AM

FAU and FIU games counted as wins and losses for other Belchers during their 2 year transition. Plus they had a full count of FBS scholarships on their team.

Don't forget that the Skunk Belch was so abyssmally bad that just a few years ago, they got to count I-AA games as conference games. I forget which year it was, but it's been since 2002....2004 maybe?

3rd Coast Tiger

June 25th, 2008, 11:04 AM

If San Marcos moves up, SHSU won't be too far behind

xreadx xreadx xreadx xreadx xreadx xreadx xreadx

jcf5445

June 25th, 2008, 11:14 AM

Don't forget that the Skunk Belch was so abyssmally bad that just a few years ago, they got to count I-AA games as conference games. I forget which year it was, but it's been since 2002....2004 maybe?

That was in 2005 when they lost 3 teams to the WAC and had to replace them with FAU and FIU, neither of which was fully transitioned. Also, the scheduling wasn't in place, so some teams had designated conference games. It wasn't the Sun Belt's fault. The ACC started that whole chain of events, but I believe the Sun Belt is a much better conference in the long run with FAU, FIU, and WKU instead of Idaho, Utah State, and New Mexico State.

TexasTerror

June 25th, 2008, 12:12 PM

xreadx xreadx xreadx xreadx xreadx xreadx xreadx

3rd Coast -- the "powers that be" at SHSU are already discussing the various scenarios, where the school can get the necessary money and the needed things to reach that level.

We know the Regents, who are more favorable to us than the San Marcos based institutions, will ask why we are not making the move. If the Bobcats move looks rather successful and does not go belly-up (see FAMU or the original SWT attempt), the questions will be asked and SHSU has to be ready to go as well...

Do not confuse us with your alma mater as a school that has until late had no answers to the tough questions regarding the state of their athletic program...

UCABEARS75

June 25th, 2008, 12:30 PM

3rd Coast Tiger

June 25th, 2008, 12:52 PM

3rd Coast -- the "powers that be" at SHSU are already discussing the various scenarios, where the school can get the necessary money and the needed things to reach that level.

We know the Regents, who are more favorable to us than the San Marcos based institutions, will ask why we are not making the move. If the Bobcats move looks rather successful and does not go belly-up (see FAMU or the original SWT attempt), the questions will be asked and SHSU has to be ready to go as well...

Do not confuse us with your alma mater as a school that has until late had no answers to the tough questions regarding the state of their athletic program...

Isn't this something special?

After all these years...
After all these threads you created...
After all those posts you replied to...

The Chastising, brutilizing, punishing, sodomizing (yeah, I said it) all others who made the move up about how "FBS is not real football", "real teams play for a championship", blah, blah, blah, diarreah that has spewed out of your mouth has now succumbed to this?

What about season tickets sales that would warrent such move?
What about the history of winning your conference on the FCS level first and foremost?

Oh yeah, divert by bringing up Texas Southern when the spotlight is on you huh? What else would we expect for the ultimate "Internet Fan".

TexasTerror

June 25th, 2008, 02:05 PM

The Chastising, brutilizing, punishing, sodomizing (yeah, I said it) all others who made the move up about how "FBS is not real football", "real teams play for a championship", blah, blah, blah, diarreah that has spewed out of your mouth has now succumbed to this?

You better believe I will chastise the move if we make the move when the "climate" is not ideal. Why should we suffer at the bottom if we do not have a seat at the table (see playoffs)? I've already said that to anyone that will listen, but the fact remains what I said above...

What about season tickets sales that would warrent such move?

We'd need to expand Bowers Stadium and put more tails in the seat. We are apparently in the process of building a soccer facility. Outside of tennis and soccer, all of our facilities are the near the top of the SLC and are "championship standard" facilities by the conference's standards.

The tennis facility would be huge if that happens and it may be around the corner, but the soccer facility is next on the docket. Those pieces of the puzzle would establish our program squarely right about near the #1 spot as far as facilities go.

We don't play at city park-like facilities for baseball/softball anymore if you've seen our facility upgrades as of late. ;)

What about the history of winning your conference on the FCS level first and foremost?

We've had more success than SWT/TXST has had this level. A few more playoffs and defining moments that extend outside of a campaign in which remnants of an NCAA violator (see Mataskis) led the team to the promised land (2005).

Our program needs a constant winner. 6-5 and 7-4 are nice over the last two years as our not so new anymore coach builds up the program, let's keep it up! If we can maintain that success and momentum and we get a "seat at the table" in FBS plus some folks moving up around us, I do not see why we could not move.

Again...not a fan unless we have a seat at the table...

gokats85

June 25th, 2008, 02:58 PM

We'd need to expand Bowers Stadium and put more tails in the seat. We are apparently in the process of building a soccer facility. Outside of tennis and soccer, all of our facilities are the near the top of the SLC and are "championship standard" facilities by the conference's standards.

Putting more tails in the seats needs to happen before any talk of expanding Bowers starts. Of course, winning on a regular basis helps.

Lionsrking

June 25th, 2008, 03:24 PM

I do know that there has been some talk, I do not know how much or how official, of the SLC moving to the 85 scholarship level together as a conference.

I've heard that as well. It'll never happen and I'm against it for obvious reasons but part of the thought behind it is scheduling.

UCABEARS75

June 25th, 2008, 03:35 PM

I've heard that as well. It'll never happen and I'm against it for obvious reasons but part of the thought behind it is scheduling.

At this point I agree with you 100% king. However, should there be even more "re-organization" within the NCAA whereby there would be formed a "super" D-I level (SEC, et al) and then the "other" D-I level (85 scholarships) it might make sense for the SLC, in part or in whole, to move to this level. If the possibility of re-forming with Monroe, ULL, La. Tech, and Arkansas State were part of the deal it could (and I said could) make sense at some point in the future.

TexasTerror

June 25th, 2008, 03:40 PM

My big concern with a conference move is just having a seat at the table, whether be through a playoff or some other form that would allow our schools chances at championships besides that of conference ones...

Lionsrking

June 25th, 2008, 04:47 PM

At this point I agree with you 100% king. However, should there be even more "re-organization" within the NCAA whereby there would be formed a "super" D-I level (SEC, et al) and then the "other" D-I level (85 scholarships) it might make sense for the SLC, in part or in whole, to move to this level. If the possibility of re-forming with Monroe, ULL, La. Tech, and Arkansas State were part of the deal it could (and I said could) make sense at some point in the future.

I would not have a problem moving up under that scenario, but as it stands now, we have an opportunity to compete for a conference championship as well as a national championship and the opportunity is there to compete on a national level, albeit FCS. Even though we're still a young program and have yet to establish ourselves, FCS fans around the country, particularly those who frequent AGS, have heard of us and definitely know the history of the Southland Conference. If we make the move as a conference to FBS, we run the risk of becoming regionalized, with zero national appeal, other than being fodder for BCS schools to beat up on.