| UCAFANS.COM https://www.ucafans.com/forum/ |
|
| They're Gone... https://www.ucafans.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5511 |
Page 3 of 3 |
| Author: | UCABEARS75 [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: They're Gone... |
ULM should help everyone out and rejoin the SLC (mostly it would help ULM). |
|
| Author: | Beary Manilow [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: They're Gone... |
UCABEARS75 wrote: ULM should help everyone out and rejoin the SLC (mostly it would help ULM). I'd be all for that. Much easier trip than San Antonio or San Marcos - though maybe not as desirable a destination. |
|
| Author: | Honey Bear [ Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: They're Gone... |
I know some pretty good night spots around Monroe - for bass fishing that is. That's about the only highlights that I know of left around that area. |
|
| Author: | Bear Fan 101 [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 2:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: They're Gone... |
Dont be surprised if Houston Baptist Univ. doesnt get moderate to strong consideration to join the SLC either... |
|
| Author: | Honey Bear [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: They're Gone... |
I think the conference should spend their time looking at schools with a football program. |
|
| Author: | Bear Fan 101 [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: They're Gone... |
Honey Bear wrote: I think the conference should spend their time looking at schools with a football program. Who knows which way the SLC will look, or what they will look for when the time comes. I just have a strong feeling that HBU will be looked at and/or considered at some point during that process. |
|
| Author: | Beary Manilow [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: They're Gone... |
With Lamar coming in and Texas State on the way out, and UTSA having never been a football-playing member of the league, you're still at eight teams. I could go either way on whether a 12th member is a football school or not. If it is, then you've got 9 in the league and you play eight conference games. That means you usually get three non-conference ... which could be good, or bad. You have less flexibility, meaning it might be tougher to get FBS opponents on the schedule. But that's obviously a priority, so you probably end up losing a home game in there somewhere. Do you sacrifice a tune-up game against an easy opponent that is basically a rent-a-win and allows you to work on some plays/personnel packages, or do you sacrifice a quality FCS opponent that might be a better test and more appealing to more of your fans? I guess, ideally, you'd play an FBS game (always on the road), then have a rotation of home-and-home games with other FCS schools, and either a lower-level opponent or another home-and-home deal. If you go two home-and-homes with other FCS schools, then some years you're only playing one non-conference game at home and would have a total of five for the year. On the other hand, you get another team to play every year and build a rivalry and some name recognition for your fans, which gets them more interested in the game. And it's another meaningful game. So there are positives and negatives. I don't know that I have much of a preference either way. I do like the idea of having a 1-in-8 chance at a title better than a 1-in-9, though. |
|
| Author: | UCAMonkey [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: They're Gone... |
Honey Bear wrote: I think the conference should spend their time looking at schools with a football program. I agree. It seems like we as a conference are collectively having a difficult time filling our schedules with a non-conference FCS opponent. We've all had to schedule the Dakota schools and schools from the west. Not to mention the possibility of another SLC school moving up to FBS in the future. |
|
| Author: | Beary Manilow [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: They're Gone... |
Texas State is on the way out ... and Brad Wright is already gone. |
|
| Author: | Bear Fan 101 [ Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | They're gone, but to where now?... |
found this link on Katfans.com... http://katfans.com/newforum/index.php?topic=1210.0 which led to a 3 link article on the state of the WAC, isnt this fun to watch?... http://news.collegesportsinfo.com/2010/11/state-of-wac-wac-winners-and-losers.html Quote: No Other Place to Go, So Does It Matter?
UTSA & Texas St. If the WAC were to fold, it would be unfortunate for both schools. But there simply weren't any other options for them to join for FBS football. Sure, both schools want to join CUSA and would likely enjoy a Sunbelt invitation. But if those invitations existed, they wouldn't have joined the WAC. But neither schools had any choices. * Options: hope for a invitations from CUSA or the Sunbelt for all sports. * Possibilities: If WAC folds, either could participate as a football independents and join the Summit League for non-football sports. The Southland might even reconsider keeping both schools for non-football sports. The Southland might need some membership stability and if their options were Oral Roberts, UTPA, Houston Baptist and then UTSA and Texas St., it would appear that UTSA and Texas St. would have the advantage. Potential Sunbelt with UTSA, Texas St., LA Tech and NMSU: FIU, FAU, Troy, USA, WKU, MTSU, Arkansas St., *UALR (non-football) NMSU, Texas St., UTSA, No. Texas, LA Tech, ULL, ULM Potential Summit League with Denver, UTSA and Texas St.: Denver, UMKC, Oral Roberts, UTSA, Texas St., WIU NDSU, SDSU, USD, IPFW, IUPUI, Oakland Potential Southland with UTSA and Texas St. for non-football: same as current lineup |
|
| Page 3 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|