[Legend500]

UTSA's AD says independent is the way to get into the FBS...

Quote

the Roadrunners would become one of just four independent football teams in the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A). They would remain there indefinitely until an opportunity to move their entire athletic program into an FBS conference presents itself.

San Antonio Express-News

So, it sounds like UTSA is currently without a home in the FBS, and might be without one in the FCS. Are they either 1) the next USF or 2) setting themselves up for failure?

[TheTastyGreek]

Yes, I think this sounds like a terrible idea.

When USF made this move, they spent two years as a D-1 independent (just like WKU did during their provisional D-1 period) while maintaining a non-football membership in a conference that sponsored D-1A football: C-USA. USF had been a C-USA member since 1995, two years before their football program was even launched and 5 years before they made their transitional move to D-1A.

Connecticut did a stint as an independent during their provisional period, and two years afterwards. But they made their move up at the invitation of the Big East, which they already belonged to in all other sports. The Big East asked them and Villanova to decide by 1997 whether they'd move up to D-1A football, with a conference entry year of 2005. Because of realignment, the Big East brought them in in 2004, so Connecticut only spent two years as a non-provisional Independent rather than three. But the whole time, they were guaranteed a spot in the Big East.

Around the same time that Connecticut and USF did their independent years, there were a lot more independent 1-A teams out there. I think La Tech was still independent in 2000 (not sure). I know a lot of the teams that founded Sun Belt football (MTSU, ULM, and others) were independent at the time, because that's what led to the expedited Sun Belt football process.

Now, there are only 3 other independents- Navy, Army, and Notre Dame. Notre Dame gets a special deal in the BCS contract, while Navy has it's own bowl tie-in contract. All of them have unique advantages that allow them to schedule games throughout the season. It's no coincidence that those are the only teams that have managed to survive as D-1A football independents. And it's also no coincidence that they all belong to a conference to provide a home for their other sports.

UTSA will have no conference mates, which means no conference schedule. They'll probably have no trouble filling their schedule in the first 4-6 weeks of the year, before everyone else is locked into their conference slate... But they'll have a terrible time getting games (especially home games) in the last 6-8 weeks of the year. Look at USF... Back in 2001, they scheduled fellow independent Connecticut, C-USA member Houston, and 3 D-1AA teams in Oct/Nov just to fill out their schedule. In 2002, they played 4 C-USA teams (they were scheduled to join full conference play the next year, I'm sure that helped) and a D-1AA to fill out October and November.

Even if they do manage to find enough D-1A teams to schedule them during open weeks to ensure a full 11 D-1A games (with one 1-AA that could still count towards postseason eligibility)... UTSA will have no bowl tie-ins. That means that no game could/would take them unless all existing primary and secondary contractual deals with the conferences and independents are not able to be met. So if they do somehow manage to fill out a schedule, and they do manage to get a winning record... The odds are very, very slim that there would even be a possible home for them.

Some might argue that the Alamo Bowl would offer a secondary deal to them as a show of San Antonio support... But in the past 15 years, neither the Big 10 nor the Big 12 has ever failed to meet their contractual obligation and send an eligible team to the game. Considering that the main value a bowl brings to a city is the tourist money spent on hotels, restaurants, bars, and so forth... I can't see UTSA getting a bid there. Not when half the teams that play in that bowl are nationally ranked, and all of them have national recognition for TV ratings and fan bases that travel in huge numbers.

So, they'll have a near impossible task setting a schedule and nothing to show for it even if they manage to schedule and win.

Throw in the fact that they're alienating the Southland, their home for all other sports, and this could be a potential catastrophe for their entire athletics program. Going independent in football is hard enough; so hard that everyone else besides Notre Dame and 2 of the service academies gave it up. Going independent across the board is madness. That's why there's a New Jersey school in the Great West Conference- Because teaming up with anyone, no matter how geographically or ideologically unsuitable the arrangement may seem, is almost always better than going it alone. It's why only seven schools out of the 347 that play D-1 basketball do it as independents.

Of those seven, Savannah State and Seattle are desperately seeking admission to the MEAC and WCC, respectively. Winston-Salem is a former MEAC member in the process of dropping down to D-2. Longwood is in the process of dropping down to D-III (like UNO). Cal-State Bakersfield is still in transition up from D-2, and trying for Big West membership in 2011. North Carolina Central just finished moving up from D-2, and they'll join the MEAC on July 1st. SIU-Edwardsville just moved up from D-2, they compete in the OVC starting next school year.

Even those guys are all either still transitioning up, down, or begging to join pretty much anyone. If UTSA's football hubris gets the school kicked out of the Southland like the article hints may be happening... They'd better have a backup plan for their other sports. Or they may find themselves stuck in the Great West with Houston Baptist (and no NCAA basketball auto-bid, either).

And anyone who thinks this sort of attitude towards the conference might not permanently sour their relationship with the Southland should remember two words: Louisiana Tech. Mention their name to longtime Sun Belt members and see how much their attitude towards the conference back during their member days continues to alienate people, even a decade later. Arkstfan can speak to the lingering hard feelings a lot better than I can, because I just hear/read the old stories and fan complaints. If he sees this, I hope he'll chime in on this angle of the UTSA story.

---------

UTSA is taking a far riskier chance than USF (or anyone else in the past 10 years) took in transitioning to D-1A football. They don't have the affiliation or relationship in place like Connecticut or USF did. They don't have the scheduling support/opportunities or postseason options that independent teams did at the beginning of the decade.

Throw in the fact that they run the risk of alienating their conference mates and losing their home for all other sports (something Texas State and Lamar have managed to avoid as they aspire to take the same step up to D-1A football), and this could be a disaster.

Best case, they're adding the most expensive sport with a near-zero chance of postseason play and few resources to even set a schedule. Worst case, they have to find a new, less geographically friendly home for their other sports, and their athletics expenses rise across the board. Given that they aren't exactly powerhouses in the other sports they sponsor, it won't necessarily be easy to get into another conference from the outside if they get themselves kicked out of the SLC. Unless someone winds up in a desperate situation (the WAC collapse/raid scenario), it may be hard for them to get an offer to join any conference that sponsors D-1A football at all.

All in all... It seems like a very bizarre move. If this is their attempt to wave a hankie at the WAC in hopes that they get an invite sooner than later, they'd better hope the gamble works.

[DeepGreen]

On the other hand, it's possible that UTSA already has overtures from some established conference that would add the upstart program in the near future. Add to that the "University of Texas" @ San Antonio name recognition and war che$t they could possibly have, an aggressive AD, a huge stadium to play in, and a name coach like Coker.

I truly expect tha MWC to add Boise State within a year or two, and the MWC to be crowned a BCS AQ conference shortly. That will make the Utah politicians (Hatch) happy. After all, don't think for a minute that Hatch is looking out for the SBC, MAC, CUSA, and other non-AQ conferences. He's looking out for Utah, BYU, and the MWC.

So......when the WAC loses Boise State, I predict the conference will snap up UTSA. San Antonio is a big market, no NFL team, and no college football team to compete with. Sure, the evil empire is right down the road, but SA would welcome their own team to root for.

[NT80]

Legend500, on 31 January 2010 - 01:45 AM, said:

UTSA's AD says independent is the way to get into the FBS...


San Antonio Express-News

So, it sounds like UTSA is currently without a home in the FBS, and might be without one in the FCS. Are they either 1) the next USF or 2) setting themselves up for failure?

Sounds like the other Southland Conference members aren't liking the idea and could boot UTSA's whole athletic program out into the street. North Texas went this route in 1995 as a 1-A independent once we exited the SLC and before the Big West opened in 1996. It was our toughest football schedule ever! I cannot see UTSA maintaining that kind of Indy schedule for 4+ years. I wonder if UNT would seek to sponsor UTSA into the SBC? I could do San Antonio as a road game.

[Mo Green]

utsa does have city leaders with deep pockets that REALLY SUPPORT college football like Benson did in financing ICU's football program last yeat. They as well pushed for utsa to have a d1 team, so unlike us they will come up with the $$$$ support (i.e. their business's buying blocks of tickets tickets etc.)

[Chrisattsu]

NT80, on 31 January 2010 - 11:37 AM, said:

Sounds like the other Southland Conference members aren't liking the idea and could boot UTSA's whole athletic program out into the street. North Texas went this route in 1995 as a 1-A independent once we exited the SLC and before the Big West opened in 1996. It was our toughest football schedule ever! I cannot see UTSA maintaining that kind of Indy schedule for 4+ years. I wonder if UNT would seek to sponsor UTSA into the SBC? I could do San Antonio as a road game.

ULM was the last team to play all sports (save football) in the SLC. After that, some bylaws were created that it wouldn't happen again. Once an official declaration has been made, it starts a two-year time table at which point the SLC can kick you out.

There has been some arguments about Texas State's route (and whether or we are on the two-year time table). Texas State has stated that we are raising funds for something called "The Drive to FBS". Ideally, this is where we see ourselves, but we are not stupid enough to go the D-I Indy route. What UTSA is doing is a pure gamble. If the conference has balls, they will kick them out in 2013 leaving them with no home, and no chances for a conference title.

That being said, I don't see Hickey (UTSA AD) doing this willy-nilly. Either she has been contacted by someone, or she knows something about 2012 (the year they originally played to join SLC play anyways). OR the donors said that they would not support the crawl, and she was forced into this walk

[untbowler]

I would think the Sun
Belt would take a serious look at UTSA with UNO dropping out and if another teams gets picked-off (MTSU or Troy) the 12 team league would remain.
They have good sports all around.

[VideoEagle]

UTSA needs to actually field a football team before we talk about expanding the SBC to include them. First a club team, then a FCS team then a FBS team, then we talk. They still haven't gotten all the way through stage one.

[Go_UTA]

Within the Southland, I doubt UT Arlington would make any trouble for UTSA. UTA would probably be cooperative. Of course, UTA is just one member, and the rest of the membership could have a different approach.

[GrandGreen]

I think both TSU and UTSA are going to find the going much tougher than they expect. Many dislike or hate the ponies for their lack of support for UNT, however I have never faulted them for their approach only their stupid responses to deny their intent. College football is a business and most business's are not going to support their competition. Unless it is in the best interest of UNT to support these schools, why should they? Yes it would be good to have more games with Texas rivals but is it worth the cost of having another competitor for recruits and sports coverage. Both of these schools have very large student bodies and have had successful elections to provide great funding for their athletic programs. Other than that, neither program has a great athletic history or has gathered a lot of support.

UTSA because it is located in a huge city with no pro football competition and is twice as far from the all everything Texas Longhorns is IMO far more likely to be successful than TSU despite having no football history. TSU's main asset is a name that is some how propelled them above much more successful Southland programs such as SFA. UTSA is currently a better academic university and with the backing of the second largest city in the state seems a much better candidate for a conference than TSU. So if UNT supports either I would prefer UTSA, but I would wait until they establish themselves to be a viable fb division team before I would schedule them or lend any overt support.

[FirefightnRick]

Here's ULM's schedule their first year back in 1-A Independant status in 1994.

1994 Louisiana-Monroe (Independent)
9/3 @ Colorado (11-1) L 13 48
9/10 @ Auburn (9-1-1) L 12 44
9/17 @ Georgia (6-4-1) L 6 70
9/24 @ Nevada (9-2) L 22 34
10/1 vsWeber State (non-IA) W 62 37
10/8 @ Wyoming (6-6) L 14 28
10/15 vs.C. Florida (non-IA) L 16 33
10/22 vs.JacksonvilleSt(non-IA)L 28 32
11/5 @Brigham Young (10-3) L 10 24
11/12 @ Kentucky (1-10) W 21 14
11/19 vs.North Texas (non-IA) W 38 20


I don't think UTSA will have a problem at all filling a schedule as a 1-A independant. The AQ schools will stumbled all over themselves to bring in some fresh kill.


Rick

[Chrisattsu]

GrandGreen, on 01 February 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

I think both TSU and UTSA are going to find the going much tougher than they expect. Many dislike or hate the ponies for their lack of support for UNT, however I have never faulted them for their approach only their stupid responses to deny their intent. College football is a business and most business's are not going to support their competition. Unless it is in the best interest of UNT to support these schools, why should they? Yes it would be good to have more games with Texas rivals but is it worth the cost of having another competitor for recruits and sports coverage. Both of these schools have very large student bodies and have had successful elections to provide great funding for their athletic programs. Other than that, neither program has a great athletic history or has gathered a lot of support.

UTSA because it is located in a huge city with no pro football competition and is twice as far from the all everything Texas Longhorns is IMO far more likely to be successful than TSU despite having no football history. TSU's main asset is a name that is some how propelled them above much more successful Southland programs such as SFA. UTSA is currently a better academic university and with the backing of the second largest city in the state seems a much better candidate for a conference than TSU. So if UNT supports either I would prefer UTSA, but I would wait until they establish themselves to be a viable fb division team before I would schedule them or lend any overt support.

A few of points on your post-
1. Having another competitor for recruits and coverage. In terms of media coverage, it is only going to help. As it currently stands, UNT gets no media coverage in this area of the state. If the SBC picked up Texas State, conference scores (especially when you play us) are going to end up in the Austin-American Statesman and the SA Express News, and on local news outlets. The same will occur with UTSA, but only in the SA Media Market. If UTSA becomes THE team of the city, you will get more press there.
As for recruiting, while we do recruit the entire state, much of our recruiting comes from South and Central Texas. IMO, UTSA is going to be more of a threat to us than UNT. Also, UNT already competes with Texas State for recruits. We may not reach your high-end players, but many of the players that we are looking at are also getting looks from regional CUSA, SBC, and WAC teams.

2. San Antonio is farther from Austin. UTSA may be farther from Austin, but it will always have Hornfans. UTSA is still going to have to deal with Horn fans who drive to Austin or watch the game on TV (just as we do in SM). Rememeber, UTSA is still part of the CAP program which says come to UTSA for a year, get a 3.0 and you are automatically accepted to Austin.

3. UTSA has better academics. They offer more graduate programs than Texas State, but I would argue that our undergraduate education is better. We have higher admission standards, lower acceptance rates, higher retention and graduation rates. UTSA is backed by Austin, and they have the Emerging Research/Next Tier 1 Status. However, our new president has demanded an increase in research and PhD programs. Graduate programs are increasing every year.

4. Texas State has no athletic history. Our football team has struggled, but we have 11 more Conference Titles and 2 more National Championships under our belt than UTSA. From the time Wacker left until Matsakis (2004) should up (20 years) we struggled bad. However, we have clawed our way back into it. There is a new commitment to athletics through new facilities being built, student taxed themselves to commit to athletics, our attendance continues to increase every year.

5. UTSA does have the backing of San Antonio. Their on campus facilities are horrible, but they are inking deals with SA to get a new basketball arena built on the northside, they have use of the Dome, and while they have their own ball park, they play a couple of baseball games per year on the Southside at the Missions (minor league - AA) park. Those things are nice, but having to drive all over the city to get to a game is a blessing and a curse. It gives you outreach to different parts of the community, but it never gets people onto your campus.

[stebo]

FirefightnRick, on 01 February 2010 - 10:15 AM, said:

Here's ULM's schedule their first year back in 1-A Independant status in 1994.

1994 Louisiana-Monroe (Independent)
9/3 @ Colorado (11-1) L 13 48
9/10 @ Auburn (9-1-1) L 12 44
9/17 @ Georgia (6-4-1) L 6 70
9/24 @ Nevada (9-2) L 22 34
10/1 vsWeber State (non-IA) W 62 37
10/8 @ Wyoming (6-6) L 14 28
10/15 vs.C. Florida (non-IA) L 16 33
10/22 vs.JacksonvilleSt(non-IA)L 28 32
11/5 @Brigham Young (10-3) L 10 24
11/12 @ Kentucky (1-10) W 21 14
11/19 vs.North Texas (non-IA) W 38 20


I don't think UTSA will have a problem at all filling a schedule as a 1-A independant. The AQ schools will stumbled all over themselves to bring in some fresh kill.


Rick

The rules have changed since then - in order for UTSA to even qualify to become a IA Independent - they have to have 5 FBS home games for two consecutive years. They might be able to fudge the attendance - if FAU/FIU can fudge it than anyone can get away with it... but they can't get around the scheduling requirements. I think that the reason we see schools moving up with a conference now is because that is their only way to move up. There are conferences talking about moving up as a group because there is no other way to hit that requirement. It is a strict requirement and I suppose that UTSA could buy 10 home games with Div I schools... or somehow schedule 3 for 1's over a decade to come up with 10 games (and hope that nobody breaks the contracts). I just don't see how they can move up without a conference, the rules are much different than back in the mid 90's for a reason. Oh, and there is a moratorium on schools moving up without a conference... that could be a problem, too

[Legend500]

Another side question concerns the FBS moratorium now in effect. Does anybody think that the NCAA would be comfortable with 12 Texas FBS teams? It seems like they want to cap FBS at 120.