SLC Meetings: Could League Act on UTSA? TXST?

[TexasTerror]

The Southland Conference will be meeting in Galveston, Texas in less than two weeks.

While I have not confirmed a planned agenda from the league office, if you ask around to those who follow the league, they tell you that the league has no choice, but to discuss the UTSA situation.

For those just joining in, the Roadrunners have announced their intentions of not playing SLC football and going to FBS as soon as they can.

The league is probably not in a very strong position to do anything about UTSA. If you decide to kick them out, who do you replace them with?

You could say that their two year clock has began and they'll be out of the league on June 30, 2012 - but where do you go from there?

Two things to keep in mind...

Most of the membership rules are in place now because of the effort by then-SWT to attempt to leave the league in the early 2000s for I-A (now FBS) and also because of the situation with ULM, who played all sports in SLC while playing football at the I-A level...

Why do I mention TXST in the headline? This seems to be a post about UTSA. I mention TXST in the headline, because whatever the league decides to do with UTSA will have a direct impact on how TXST moves forward.

Same goes for some of the other schools who are mentioned in FBS talk (Lamar, SHSU), but TXST is really the next school in line after UTSA where it is a possibility.

So, should the league act? How do they act? What would you prefer them do?

[centexguy]

If other schools plan on following UTSA out of the SLC to a FBS league then I doubt they'll want to penalize UTSA. Which schools have the most power and influence in the league? I think that would also make a big difference in how the league acts.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You ask me, I'd kick them out. If your care so little about your conference that you're willing to do this, the conference should not allow them to be members. Period.

[TexasTerror]

You ask me, I'd kick them out. If your care so little about your conference that you're willing to do this, the conference should not allow them to be members. Period.

That's the general thinking that some may have, but is the league really in a position to be able to do that without having a negative impact on the conference?

[DG Cowboy]

Correct me if I am wrong. UTSA has officially said they will not play SLC football, and TX St has only said they are looking at their program, as has Sam. So If UTSA has said they have no intention of playing football in the SLC, then I feel its better for them to pursue their objectives outside the conference for all sports. The ULM situation was farce. I'm upset McNeese is playing them at all. My opinion. That's how I feel.

[slycat]

You ask me, I'd kick them out. If your care so little about your conference that you're willing to do this, the conference should not allow them to be members. Period.

The schools gave plenty to the conference over the years. Its like working at a job and then putting in your two weeks and going to a new job. You don't get kicked out of your job the second you say you found something else. No need for the conference to throw a pissy fit.

[TexasTerror]

Correct me if I am wrong. UTSA has officially said they will not play SLC football, and TX St has only said they are looking at their program, as has Sam.

Officially, UTSA has said they will not play SLC football.

Officially, TXST has announced their intentions of moving to FBS. Pending on how you interpret the rules, by doing this, they have announced their intentions of leaving the conference.

Officially, SHSU has opened a feasibility study. No where does it state that it is just an FBS study, but an analysis of the entire department. Other individuals are making it out to be an FBS study, when it serves a far greater purpose.


So If UTSA has said they have no intention of playing football in the SLC, then I feel its better for them to pursue their objectives outside the conference for all sports.

That's more in line with the post and what we are trying to discuss. Do you feel UTSA has a place in this league moving forward, since they have no intentions to be all-sports members?

[txstatebobcat]

UTSA should go. UTSA will go FBS whether or not they have a conference invitation. They will potentially create an identical problem as to what happened when ULM was an SLC member. This is precisely why those rules were written to begin with.

TxSt will has stated their wishes to go FBS if they get invited by another conference in the mean time they plan on being a full member in all sports. What the roadrunners have said is completely different than what TxSt has done and been saying this whole time.

[DG Cowboy]

All in, or all out. Why should the SLC enable them?

[TexasTerror]

UTSA should go. UTSA will go FBS whether or not they have a conference invitation. They will potentially create an identical problem as to what happened when ULM was an SLC member. This is precisely why those rules were written to begin with.

UTSA will only become an FBS member (without a conference) if the NCAA 'powers that be' grant them an exemption based on the new membership rules that could be voted into play next year for moves from FCS to FBS.

If the exemption does not occur, UTSA will need a conference home - regardless of whatever conference that will be.


TxSt will has stated their wishes to go FBS if they get invited by another conference in the mean time they plan on being a full member in all sports. What the roadrunners have said is completely different than what TxSt has done and been saying this whole time.

The problem with TXST is that when announcing their FBS intentions, members of 'The Drive' committee made disparaging remarks about the other schools. The member who did, have been notorious for taking shots at other schools in the past during their time as members of the Associated Student Government (same bunch that shoved the name change down everyone's throat without a formal vote of students, alumni and community supporters).


All in, or all out. Why should the SLC enable them?

Agreed.

[txstatebobcat]

UTSA will only become an FBS member (without a conference) if the NCAA 'powers that be' grant them an exemption based on the new membership rules that could be voted into play next year for moves from FCS to FBS.

If the exemption does not occur, UTSA will need a conference home - regardless of whatever conference that will be.



The problem with TXST is that when announcing their FBS intentions, members of 'The Drive' committee made disparaging remarks about the other schools. The member who did, have been notorious for taking shots at other schools in the past during their time as members of the Associated Student Government (same bunch that shoved the name change down everyone's throat without a formal vote of students, alumni and community supporters).



Agreed.

UTSA placed itself in this position when they announced that they will not play football in the Southland. As such they are or will be breaking the conference rules by not playing football while leaving their other sports. If things go badly for them then they could always reapply for membership.

Regardless of what some people may have said about other SLC schools, TXST is "all in" with regards to being an SLC member. That we may jump ship in the future is completely irrelevant and not cause for immediate expulsion.

[TexasTerror]

Regardless of what some people may have said about other SLC schools, TXST is "all in" with regards to being an SLC member. That we may jump ship in the future is completely irrelevant and not cause for immediate expulsion.

The question is the SLC by-law, has TXST made their 'intent' known.

The by-law states, "Each member reserves the right to withdraw from the Conference by written notice provided to the commissioner. In addition, an institution’s public announcement of its intent to withdraw or public acceptance of an invitation of membership in another conference shall be considered notice by the member institution to the Conference of its intent to terminate its membership."

You can say that it is completely irrelevant all you want, but several schools did talk about possibly booting TXST out of the league. Unfortunately, they were in no position to do so (see - http://anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?t=39680 for more on this subject), despite the fact that TXST made its intent known publicly.

Funny how many of the TXST fans are reversing course on their thoughts on the exact same by-law that they would like to use with UTSA.

[MaximumBobcat]

All in, or all out. Why should the SLC enable them?

I will admit I am not well-versed really on how smaller DI conferences make much of a profit, but I don't think it would be too smart for their bottom line to kick out their largest and one of their most successful members.

They got free advertisement from TXST when we made the NCAA baseball tournament with an at large bid last year. We might again this season.

TXST fans are usually some of the largest presences at many of the conference tournaments. The conference surely would miss some of those ticket sales.

More thought would probably find many reasons why it would not be smart for the SLC to kick out TXST and UTSA.

I'm all for kicking TXST out of the SLC when we start to damage the conference in some way. But until then, enforcing these by-laws solely to enforce them and in the process, potentially damaging the conference in different aspects just seems silly and petty.

[slycat]

The question is the SLC by-law, has TXST made their 'intent' known.

The by-law states, "Each member reserves the right to withdraw from the Conference by written notice provided to the commissioner. In addition, an institution’s public announcement of its intent to withdraw or public acceptance of an invitation of membership in another conference shall be considered notice by the member institution to the Conference of its intent to terminate its membership."

You can say that it is completely irrelevant all you want, but several schools did talk about possibly booting TXST out of the league. Unfortunately, they were in no position to do so (see - http://anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?t=39680 for more on this subject), despite the fact that TXST made its intent known publicly.

Funny how many of the TXST fans are reversing course on their thoughts on the exact same by-law that they would like to use with UTSA.

Texas St has not made a "public announcement of its intent to withdraw." All they did was announce The Drive which is a movement to see if they can leave and get an invite. They did not set a date like UTSA did and blow off the SLC.

My interpretation of the law would be that Texas St would have to say we are leaving.

[TexasTerror]

Texas St has not made a "public announcement of its intent to withdraw." All they did was announce The Drive which is a movement to see if they can leave and get an invite. They did not set a date like UTSA did and blow off the SLC.

My interpretation of the law would be that Texas St would have to say we are leaving.

We all interpret things differently, which is why there is a Supreme Court in our land! Though I guess at the end of the day, you may be right.

TXST has failed at an FBS attempt once before and until in the eyes of the SLC 'powers that be', that they actually show some sort of publicly announced positive movement towards an FBS conference - I guess there's no reason to get in a tizzy about TXST. xlolx

[DG Cowboy]

I will admit I am not well-versed really on how smaller DI conferences make much of a profit, but I don't think it would be too smart for their bottom line to kick out their largest and one of their most successful members.

They got free advertisement from TXST when we made the NCAA baseball tournament with an at large bid last year. We might again this season.

TXST fans are usually some of the largest presences at many of the conference tournaments. The conference surely would miss some of those ticket sales.

More thought would probably find many reasons why it would not be smart for the SLC to kick out TXST and UTSA.

I'm all for kicking TXST out of the SLC when we start to damage the conference in some way. But until then, enforcing these by-laws solely to enforce them and in the process, potentially damaging the conference in different aspects just seems silly and petty.

I'm talking about UTSA. TX ST is all in and I believe, if they leave, will leave with all sports at the same time. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with UTSA keeping football out and wanting to play the rest of the sports in the SLC.

[TexasTerror]

UPDATE...

Just saw this tweet from Todd at the SLC, "For the first time in a long while there is media covering the @SouthlandSports spring meetings."

Is media from San Marcos or San Antonio covering the proceedings due to some of the discussion? Or is the local media in the Houston/Galveston area trying to make sense of how the realignment discussion impacts the 'area colleges'?

[jhanel]

Good to have the media involved in the SLC!

[El Gato]

UPDATE...

Just saw this tweet from Todd at the SLC, "For the first time in a long while there is media covering the @SouthlandSports spring meetings."

Is media from San Marcos or San Antonio covering the proceedings due to some of the discussion? Or is the local media in the Houston/Galveston area trying to make sense of how the realignment discussion impacts the 'area colleges'?

That is interesting. Please keep us updated TT on any development with this story or any other interesting news from the SLC meeting.

[TexasTerror]

That is interesting. Please keep us updated TT on any development with this story or any other interesting news from the SLC meeting.

I confirmed a few hours ago that it was the San Antonio Express News and they are there for reasons related to UTSA's future.

At this point in time, I have not seen anything from SAEN - have you? If they have indeed sent down the UTSA beat writer from San Antonio, that shows that they have an interest, as we all know the print industry is trying to cut costs, save money.

Intriguing to say the least...xchinscratchx

Will continue to provide updates as I get them...

[jhanel]

Fantastic! xthumbsupx

[txstatebobcat]

I confirmed a few hours ago that it was the San Antonio Express News and they are there for reasons related to UTSA's future.

At this point in time, I have not seen anything from SAEN - have you? If they have indeed sent down the UTSA beat writer from San Antonio, that shows that they have an interest, as we all know the print industry is trying to cut costs, save money.

Intriguing to say the least...xchinscratchx

Will continue to provide updates as I get them...

It doesn't surprise me. It will be big news either way if the rest of the SLC lets UTSA or kicks them to the curb.

[TexasTerror]

BREAKING NEWS...

http://www.southland.org/ViewArticle.dbml?temp_site=NO&DB_OEM_ID=18400&ATCLID=204955246

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The decision, with an effective date of July 1, 2011, was announced by the Southland's governing presidential body at the conclusion of the conference's annual spring business meeting Friday. If an institution chooses not to meet this requirement, then it shall relinquish its membership and notify the Conference per the withdrawal provisions listed in Article 3.04 of the league's constitution, which requires a two-year notification of withdrawal or $250,000 penalty.

Looks like the Southland is laying down the law, but with the two year notification UTSA (or anyone else) should be able to get out of the SLC should they desire.

Good for them, though. Either participate in football (and all sports), or get out.

[slycat]

Good rule but cheap penalty.

[txstatebobcat]

TxST is in and UTSA is out. Pretty much what I expected. The 250,000 fine is pretty manageable as well. I was really worried that they would move up the penalty into the 7 figures.

[TexasTerror]

TxST is in and UTSA is out. Pretty much what I expected. The 250,000 fine is pretty manageable as well. I was really worried that they would move up the penalty into the 7 figures.

The $250,000 fee is what has been in place for some time. I do not think they adjusted it, same goes for the two-year window of notification.

An 11-team SLC is not ideal, the league will have to look at other options as far as adding on.

[slycat]

The $250,000 fee is what has been in place for some time. I do not think they adjusted it, same goes for the two-year window of notification.

An 11-team SLC is not ideal, the league will have to look at other options as far as adding on.

With both Texas St and UTSA more then likely leaving it would leave the SLC at 10. I'm sure expansion would be looked at but not rushed.

[TexasTerror]

This was the copy of the by-laws from two years ago, so not sure if there were changes. Will try to get an update on 3.04.



3.04 Withdrawal. Each member reserves the right to withdraw from the Conference by written notice provided to the commissioner. In addition, an institution’s public announcement of its intent to withdraw or public acceptance of an invitation of membership in another conference shall be considered notice by the member institution to the Conference of its intent to terminate its membership. [8/02]

3.04.01 Effective Date. A withdrawing institution shall be required to participate fully in regular season competition for two (2) full academic years following the provision of notice as
defined in 3.04 before the withdrawal shall become effective. If notification of intent to
withdraw is provided more than two (2) full academic years in advance of its intended
effective date, the remaining Conference members retain the sole authority to determine the
actual effective date of the institution’s withdrawal and the rights and privileges of
membership that will be extended prior to withdrawal. In this instance, the withdrawal date
shall be determined by a majority vote of the Conference’s remaining members in
accordance with applicable Conference bylaws. All membership changes will become
effective on June 30. Any member that fails to fulfill the timely notice provision indicated
above will be assessed a financial penalty of $250,000.

3.04.02 Accrued Assets. Any member that elects to withdraw from the Conference automatically forfeits its share of any accrued assets of the Conference. This section shall in no way be construed as limiting the monetary damages or remedies to which the Conference or its remaining members may be entitled at law or equity.

3.04.03 Revenue, Dues and Distributions. A member institution that elects to withdraw from the Conference shall forfeit its share of revenue distributed by the Conference effective
immediately upon its withdrawal notice. The institution shall be subject to all applicable
dues and fees paid by member institutions prior to the effective date of its membership
withdrawal. Funds assigned to the withdrawing institution from the NCAA broad-based
revenue distribution formula (e.g., grant-in-aid, sports sponsorship, academic enhancement
and special assistance) shall not be subject to forfeiture.

3.04.04 Championship Participation. Upon notice of an institution’s intent to withdraw, the
institution’s teams become ineligible to compete for Conference team championships on a
date determined by the remaining members. Student-athletes may compete for individual
honors in Conference individual championships but team points will not be calculated for
the withdrawing member. However, individual student-athletes from a withdrawing
member remain eligible to receive All-Conference and related awards until the institution’s
date of withdrawal.

3.04.05 Voting Privileges. A member institution that elects to withdraw from the Conference shall forfeit all voting privileges on all matters from the time the notice is provided until the
institution’s effective date of withdrawal.

3.04.06 NCAA Committee Service. Representatives from the withdrawing institution who serve in Conference assigned positions on NCAA boards, councils, cabinets and committees shall resign effective immediately upon the withdrawal announcement and be replaced by
representatives from the remaining Conference members.

3.04.07 Conference Committee Service. Representatives from the withdrawing institution who serve on Conference committees (i.e., Marketing and Television, Compliance, Finance,
Executive, Strategic Planning, Championships and Competition, Basketball Tournament
and Officiating) shall resign effective immediately upon the withdrawal announcement and
be replaced by representatives from the remaining Conference members.

3.04.08 Compliance with Conference Regulations. A member institution that elects to withdraw from the Conference shall be subject to and comply with all applicable provisions of the Conference constitution, bylaws and operating code. A withdrawing institution’s failure to comply with applicable provisions of the Conference constitution, bylaws and operating code shall subject the withdrawing institution to penalties to be established by the
Conference Compliance Committee.

3.04.09 Liability. The withdrawing member shall remain liable for its proportional share of any
financial judgments levied against the Conference existing before or assessed during the
time period between the withdrawing member’s notice of withdrawal and its effective date
of withdrawal.

3.04.10 Legal Expenses. Should it become necessary for the Conference to incur legal expenses as a result of a member withdrawing from the Conference, all such legal expenses shall be paid by the withdrawing member upon request by the Conference.

3.04.11 Jurisdiction. The Conference is a Texas non-profit corporation. Therefore, the withdrawal policy shall be interpreted, enforced and governed under the laws of the State of Texas and any action arising out of a breach or challenge to the policy shall have venue in Collin County, Texas. The policy shall be binding and valid in all federal, state and local
jurisdictions.

3.04.12 Unenforceable Provisions. If any provision of the policy is found to be unenforceable, such provision will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible, and the remainder of the policy will continue in full force and effect.

3.04.13 Prior Withdrawal Policy. The withdrawal policy was adopted in accordance with the
constitution and bylaws of the Conference, and supersedes any and all prior agreements or
understanding pertaining to Conference withdrawal policies.

3.04.14 Amendment. The withdrawal policy may be amended only by written approval of the
Conference Board of Directors and in accordance with the Conference’s Constitution and
Bylaws. No waiver of any of the policy’s provisions shall be construed as a waiver of any
other policy provision(s), and a waiver at any time of any of the provisions shall not be
construed as a waiver at any subsequent time of the same provisions.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

3.04.02 Accrued Assets. Any member that elects to withdraw from the Conference automatically forfeits its share of any accrued assets of the Conference. This section shall in no way be construed as limiting the monetary damages or remedies to which the Conference or its remaining members may be entitled at law or equity.

3.04.03 Revenue, Dues and Distributions. A member institution that elects to withdraw from the Conference shall forfeit its share of revenue distributed by the Conference effective immediately upon its withdrawal notice. The institution shall be subject to all applicable dues and fees paid by member institutions prior to the effective date of its membership withdrawal. Funds assigned to the withdrawing institution from the NCAA broad-based revenue distribution formula (e.g., grant-in-aid, sports sponsorship, academic enhancement and special assistance) shall not be subject to forfeiture.

Two years without basketball money? Could that be a big financial hit too, aside from the $250K?

And if the school leaves for a conference like, say, the Sun Belt, they may never be able to recoup that through (chuckle) football revenues OR basketball.

[JSU02]

$250k is actually pretty cheap

[TXST_CAT]

The problem with TXST is that when announcing their FBS intentions, members of 'The Drive' committee made disparaging remarks about the other schools. The member who did, have been notorious for taking shots at other schools in the past during their time as members of the Associated Student Government (same bunch that shoved the name change down everyone's throat without a formal vote of students, alumni and community supporters).

Your logic is flawed sir. Comments made behind closed doors or in conference are a norm not all partners will agree. Also for the most part the "comittee" you keep referring to were students. UTSA has publicly on numerous occasions bashed he SLC claiming it is not the "level" of competition they want to compete at. These coments were made by the ADMINISTRTATION of the institution. To allow an institution to dismiss your conference so PUBLICLY and still compete within the conference would be view so weak why would anyone take them serious. TXST has shown interest in leaving but the ADMINISTRATION and COACHES have done nothing but praised the level of competition in the SLC.

[TexasTerror]

Bleed Gold on the BobcatFans message board brought up great points that Lynn Hickey had been making some remarks for the last few weeks about her program to get 'ahead of the eight ball', if you will - as the program was aware of what was forthcoming...

Some of us commented that the recent remarks by Lynn Hickey were surprising - surprising in the fact that she 'showed her cards' in regards to some things. We all can attest that Hickey knows how the cards are dealt at the NCAA, but very surprising indeed that she showed her hand, but knew it was coming.

UTSA probably informed the SAEN of this too or at least gave them a head's up - so they would be at the SLC meetings. The SAEN has done a great job of publicizing and putting the UTSA football start-up in a positive light. Quid pro quo, eh?

[TexasTerror]

Here's a brief from the UT-San Antonio AD Lynn Hickey...

“What changed today is, no longer can we be an independent in football and stay in the Southland Conference,” she said. “That is done.”

Less than an hour after the announcement, Hickey identified three possible choices:

— Join the SLC fully.

— Leave the conference and operate as an FBS independent in all sports.

— Join another conference, preferably in the FBS.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/southland_hits_utsa_with_ultimatum_on_football_956 46329.html

[TXST_CAT]

TT I love how you can read numerous post find one that falls in line with your views and try to pass it off as fact or inside knowledge. Everything you just said nothing more than speculation and an attempt to spin what might be a huge failure. If she is "showing her hand" that tells me her bluff has been called and she went all in. Someone needs to tell her she's at UTSA not UT Austin.

[TexasTerror]

Updated article on the UTSA situation, includes remarks from Tom Burnett...

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/college/southland_hits_utsa_with_ultimatum_on_football_956 46329.html

[TexasTerror]

Just wanted to touch base on what was discussed at the league meetings based on conversations I have had, as well as press clippings.

* Obviously the UTSA issue came to a head and the league is now making schools compete in the SLC if they have a sport which is sponsored by the league.

* The league has discussed and ended up tabling a decision that would require ALL schools to sponsor teams in ALL sports sponsored by the SLC. Most notably, this would impact UT-Arlington and Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, who would both have to add football. Other schools around the league would have to add teams in men's tennis, softball and women's soccer among other sports, if they were to comply. This was tabled and could be brought up this fall or winter.

* The league's contract with Katy, Texas for the SLC men's and women's basketball tournament comes to an end after the 2010-11 season. Corpus Christi, Beaumont and several communities in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex have expressed an interest in hosting, should it become open.

* The SLC continues to move forward on improving out of conference basketball schedules. If I am not mistaken, the amount of games against sub-Div I opponents will drop this coming year (per last year's meetings) and the league has expressed interest in pursuing a 'challenge' series similar to what other conferences at the Division I level have - namely Pac-10/Big 12 and ACC/Big 10.

[GeauxLions94]

Just wanted to touch base on what was discussed at the league meetings based on conversations I have had, as well as press clippings.

* Obviously the UTSA issue came to a head and the league is now making schools compete in the SLC if they have a sport which is sponsored by the league.

* The league has discussed and ended up tabling a decision that would require ALL schools to sponsor teams in ALL sports sponsored by the SLC. Most notably, this would impact UT-Arlington and Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, who would both have to add football. Other schools around the league would have to add teams in men's tennis, softball and women's soccer among other sports, if they were to comply. This was tabled and could be brought up this fall or winter.

* The league's contract with Katy, Texas for the SLC men's and women's basketball tournament comes to an end after the 2010-11 season. Corpus Christi, Beaumont and several communities in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex have expressed an interest in hosting, should it become open.

* The SLC continues to move forward on improving out of conference basketball schedules. If I am not mistaken, the amount of games against sub-Div I opponents will drop this coming year (per last year's meetings) and the league has expressed interest in pursuing a 'challenge' series similar to what other conferences at the Division I level have - namely Pac-10/Big 12 and ACC/Big 10.

Would love to see a Southland/Southern or Southland/Big Sky Challenge in hoops. Basketball could be moving from Katy to Frisco in the near future and baseball might head up there as well after Texas State hosts in 2011 (and 2012???)

[txst80]

* The SLC continues to move forward on improving out of conference basketball schedules. If I am not mistaken, the amount of games against sub-Div I opponents will drop this coming year (per last year's meetings) and the league has expressed interest in pursuing a 'challenge' series similar to what other conferences at the Division I level have - namely Pac-10/Big 12 and ACC/Big 10.

God that is great news. I'm so tired of 4 non-D1 home games every year.

[TexasTerror]

Would love to see a Southland/Southern or Southland/Big Sky Challenge in hoops. Basketball could be moving from Katy to Frisco in the near future and baseball might head up there as well after Texas State hosts in 2011 (and 2012???)

Southland v SoCon sounds like a good one!

It needs to be done with a comparable RPI league, that's for sure. The Summit League would be a nice fit, because they are typically within 3-4 spaces of us and we have football series with some of those schools (i.e. Southern Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, Western Illinois - for instance).

Problem is - for us and them - it is a bit costly for such an OOC match-up. Someone will luck out with Oral Roberts, but then the rest of the league has to spend a pretty penny to fly out...


God that is great news. I'm so tired of 4 non-D1 home games every year.

Only problem is how the schools utilize the games. We can't be playing extra $$$ games, we need good ole home-and-homes. I'm sure most of the SLC can get a home-and-home with Houston Baptist! Let's all call them. I know they'd appreciate it!