UCAFANS.COM | GO UCA BEARS!

I havn't seen anything on the Texas-San Antonio football situation in a while, but tonight saw a report on footballscoop.com that Texas-San Antonio would like to hire a head coach as soon as possible and plans to play a I-AA schedule in 2011.

My bad guys, I should have put this under other schools.

there was a story ... I think in the Democrat-Gazette(?) about that today. Tons of money they're going to/have to come up with, but if/when they get that rolling it'll be something else. They've got the alumni base and the city with the corporate sponsorships available to really do something.

And I see that they plan to, in the not-so-distant future, move to FBS and find a conference affiliation with that in mind. So, they may not be long for the Southland.

They won't be in SLC...

SLC did not announce UTSA adding football on their web site (check for yourself) and UTSA has apparently not asked the SLC about being added to the conference schedule...

Hmmm...

TT, where do you think this is headed ?

a couple of different threads from Katfans.com

Stadium rendering:
http://katfans.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9391

Other UTSA rumblings:
http://katfans.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9385

UTSA will likely go to the WAC or C-USA, if you ask me. They have a few years to get all their ducks in a row. No definite timeline for football has been set just yet, which also plays into everything (both SLC and otherwise).

This article says they want to play a full SLC schedule in 2012.

http://utsa.edu/today/2008/12/football.cfm

Highly unlikely. You don't jump right into D1 unless you already have a conference affilliation there and those conferences make little sense, especially if they don't suffer numerous departures. C-USA has shown no interest in La. Tech. or UNT (back when there were several TX teams in that conference). THe WAC would be the same horrible fit for UTSA as it is for La. Tech with all the travel.

UTSA will likely be SLC bound.

1) UTSA is already Division I. FYI - so is UCA.

2) The moratorium ends soon and with it, we are bound to see another conference realignment shift. UTSA, based on market and athletic commitment becomes the most attractive school for a jump in conference, whether it C-USA, Sun Belt or WAC.

3) Why has the SLC been so non-committal to UTSA having football in this league? And the Commish being very clear on what he thinks on them being a member?

"I don't know what interest we would have in (a program) being in our conference a few years on their way to I-A," Burnett said. (Nov. 30, 2006)

As the quote in you post suggests, I think you know what I meant by D1. I don't know if I will ever get in the habit of FBS and FCS.

Wanna wager on UTSA jumping straight into an "FBS" conference?

Didn't FAU or FIU jump straight into the SBC?

Correct.

FAU - three years FCS. A transitional year (half I-A/half I-AA). Year five, Sun Belt.
FIU - two years FCS. Transitional year. Year four, Sun Belt.

Believe FAU had to wait an additional year as they were a partner deal with FIU.

FIU has stated they will no longer due guarantee games past 2010, just home-and-home agreements. They claim to be the first Sun Belt school to commit to this.

FIU was already a member of the Sun Belt and FAU and Troy had unique situations. The three far flung members of the Belt had gone to the WAC to replace the teams they lost and the Belt needed to add some regional teams to maintain enough teams for D1 status as a conference. Now, the Belt will be at 10 teams with WKU and USA coming to D1 football.

Absent another major shift in conferences, there is no way that C-USA or the WAC take UTSA right out of the gate. I could see the WAC losing Boise and another team or two to the MWC some day if Boise decides they want to start playing a tougher schedule and risk losing more games. That is the one scenario I see that could cause a D1 conference to take someone with a startup football program.

The WAC would really suck for UTSA unless there was such a shift and they added some more regional teams.

The logical thing for the WAC would be to ditch La. Tech and add a D1AA team from out west. UTSA does not fit in the WAC and that conference is on very shaky ground if things start moving.

C-USA is at 12 teams so they won't be looking to add unless someone bolts.

I guess the domino effect could come into play but there would likely be other potential players looking to move up. The MWC may decide to add 1-3 teams and take 1-3 teams from the WAC which would leave them scrambling. The PAC-10 might alos decide to add 2 teams to have a championship game, but I don't see it happening soon.

The wager offer still stands.

That's their "plan" but we'll see how it works out. They have the advantage of location in attracting such deals but I don't believe they can forego guarantee games unless they either:

1. Get someone to go to games. They have the worst attendance in the conference by far.
2. Raise athletic fees on students. Like FAU they have something like 30K studektns or more if memory serves me.
3. Find some big donor to offset the loss.

That being said, I am a big advocate of playing one guarantee game a year at the most and I wouldn't mind seeing ASU play one guarantee game, UAPB and UCA (later in the year).