UTSA & the Sun Belt

[TexasTerror]

The series of information from UTSA discussions with conferences continues from the good folks at UTSA Tailgaters - this time on the Sun Belt.

http://www.utsatailgaters.com/football/articles/status-quo-for-sun-belt


UTSATailgaters has confirmed that UTSA's Head Football Coach, Larry Coker and the athletic department have in fact had conversations with the Sun Belt Conference about a possible bid/invitation, confirms a source within the SBC. As of right now though, those talks remain just that, talks. The SBC currently sits as a 12 team member conference with currently nine of the institutions fielding a football program. Chatter had been grumbling that potentially the SBC could be taking a stand and drawing a line in the sand for it's non-football schools such as Denver University (DU) and The University of Arkansas-Little Rock (ULAR) or perhaps both schools were looking at other options.

[dirty bird]

I read the interview last night. It felt somewhat anti-climactic, or perhaps it just confirmed what everyone expected to hear from the SBC: "we have no plans yet, but we will when the dominoes fall".

Unfortunately, Coach LC or the Sunbelt brass cannot go on the record and say exactly what has been talked about; but at least the WAC mentions the FCS, Texas St., Montana, and UTSA. The only thing about the WAC that makes me wary about them is how freely they mention teams. It reminds me of the NFL or the MLB [the Florida Marlins to be exact], when they toss around the notion that one of their teams will most likely relocate to San Antonio. Everyone in the city get's in a frenzy, and later on we find out that we were the bait used to coerce the original city to build the stadium or park, provide tax abatements, and get whatever else they tried hard to bargain for....

[PantherRob82]

I read the interview last night. It felt somewhat anti-climactic, or perhaps it just confirmed what everyone expected to hear from the SBC: "we have no plans yet, but we will when the dominoes fall".

Unfortunately, Coach LC or the Sunbelt brass cannot go on the record and say exactly what has been talked about; but at least the WAC mentions the FCS, Texas St., Montana, and UTSA. The only thing about the WAC that makes me wary about them is how freely they mention teams. It reminds me of the NFL or the MLB [the Florida Marlins to be exact], when they toss around the notion that one of their teams will most likely relocate to San Antonio. Everyone in the city get's in a frenzy, and later on we find out that we were the bait used to coerce the original city to build the stadium or park, provide tax abatements, and get whatever else they tried hard to bargain for....

Is it safe to assume you guys would much rather be in the WAC?

[dirty bird]

Is it safe to assume you guys would much rather be in the WAC?

The opinion of the students, and alumni, power brokers is quite varied. Generally, the consensus among the alumni and students, is to go the nearest - geographically - conference to UTSA, and to do it with Texas State, and if possible UNT.

The administration and other vested interests [mayor, politicians] have actively expressed their desire to go to Conference USA.

[TexasTerror]

UTSA has been very open about going to C-USA as a desired destination. It was in their proposed timeline that they would likely be in C-USA (and perhaps the WAC). Their efforts have been sped up with the SLC's decision and they just need whomever will take them.

TXST has been quiet about their destination, but we know they have talked to the WAC and Sun Belt.

IMO - the Sun Belt will need to let realignment play out. They could lose schools to varying conferences due to the geographic imprint. ULM is a school to watch in all of this. They are falling off the back end of the bus economically and the budget cuts in Louisiana will be a foe and definitely not a friend. Also, the league is hesitant to pull the rug from under UALR or Denver. Denver is most likely to leave on their own (possibly to the WAC if that conference is open to a non-football, non-baseball add-on).

If if it is just Denver that leaves, I can see the SBC adding a TX school to keep the balance in place, especially if La Tech is not even close to the conversation.

[BearsCountry]

I have always felt that UTSA would end up in the WAC and Texas State in the Sun Belt.

[Redbird Ray]

UTSA has too many big home and homes scheduled to go to the Sun Belt. Sun Belt schools don't get those kind of deals on a routine basis the way UTSA has scheduled.

I always thought UTSA was a prime candidate for CUSA. Big university, big market, NFL style facility, great tourist destination that could accomodate another bowl game. I'm not sure from a talent perspective if they will be the next USF, as many of their fans feel, but they have all the other intangibles of a USF or UCF.

In my opinion, anything less than CUSA for UTSA is kind of a disappointment.

[TexasTerror]

I have always felt that UTSA would end up in the WAC and Texas State in the Sun Belt.

I'm sure the folks in San Marcos would not appreciate that scenario.

Of course, do you still think that in light of the realignment and economic changes to collegiate athletics?

[Redbird Ray]

I see UTSA going to CUSA and Texas State going to either the WAC or Sun Belt. With any sustained success in the WAC or Sun Belt, Texas State could move onto CUSA.

I think the future Sun Belt members include: South Alabama, Jacksonville State, and either Texas State or Georgia State.

[TexasTerror]

I think the future Sun Belt members include: South Alabama, Jacksonville State, and either Texas State or Georgia State.

South Alabama is a CURRENT Sun Belt member in all sports and will play football within the league in '13.

http://www.usajaguars.com/documents/2010/6/30/scheduling_timeline.pdf

[BearsCountry]

UTSA has too many big home and homes scheduled to go to the Sun Belt. Sun Belt schools don't get those kind of deals on a routine basis the way UTSA has scheduled.


Their schedules aren't exactly world beaters. For the most part its a normal FBS schedule.

[BearsCountry]

I'm sure the folks in San Marcos would not appreciate that scenario.

Of course, do you still think that in light of the realignment and economic changes to collegiate athletics?

Yes I still think that way. WAC wants something quick unless Montana can get in. Sun Belt wants to build for the future. UTSA is built for the quick while Texas State is the better long term investment.

[dirty bird]

I'd bet the SBC, WAC and MAC wouldn't mind getting schedules playing FBS teams in AQ BCS Conferences like below. Maybe they're not world beaters, but why would a start up want world beaters, and not respectable BCS conferences teams?

[2013]at Arizona, vs Houston, at Kansas State, at Virginia
[2014] at Houston, vs Arizona, vs Virginia
[2015] vs. Arizona vs. Kansas State at Colorado State at Louisiana Tech
[2016] vs. Arizona State, at Colorado State, vs Louisiana Tech
[2017]at Baylor, at Colorado State
[2018] at Arizona St, at vs Baylor, vs K State, vs Colorado St
[2019] at Baylor

[dirty bird]

UTSA is built for the quick

That's debateable.
Many would consider the quick, loading up on jucos and stocking up on world beaters in year one.

[TexasTerror]

I'd bet the SBC, WAC and MAC wouldn't mind getting schedules playing FBS teams in AQ BCS Conferences like below. Maybe they're not world beaters, but why would a start up want world beaters, and not respectable BCS conferences teams?

[2013]at Arizona, vs Houston, at Kansas State, at Virginia
[2014] at Houston, vs Arizona, vs Virginia
[2015] vs. Arizona vs. Kansas State at Colorado State at Louisiana Tech
[2016] vs. Arizona State, at Colorado State, vs Louisiana Tech
[2017]at Baylor, at Colorado State
[2018] at Arizona St, at vs Baylor, vs K State, vs Colorado St
[2019] at Baylor

Said it before...

UTSA's schedule is VERY strong by mid-major standards. The fact that UTSA has not needed 2-for-1s with AQ teams means it has become relatively easy for the program to schedule. Those 2-for-1s really make it difficult to schedule around, since they can force you to load up on poor home games, just for the purpose of getting games at home.