Ever since my Houston Cougars officially accepted the move to the Big East, I've been pulling for the UTSA Roadrunners to take UH's slot in Conference USA. I'm originally from San Antonio and while I never considered going to UTSA, I'd like to see their football program succeed. Better yet, with them playing rice annually, I hope the beat the ever living crap out of the owls every year.
The Roadrunners move up the football food chain has been incredibly quick. Within three years of their inaugural season , they will be playing in a NCAA Football Bowl Division conference.
Several obvious factors went into the quick rise up the ranks for the 'runners. First was timing. With the constant reshuffling of football conferences over the last several years, UTSA's program started at the right time. I seriously doubt the program ascends so quickly with out the chain reaction of realignments. The size of San Antonio also played a role as well as the location in Texas. Other than the Spurs, there is no competition for major sporting dollars. San Antonio also showed up in droves during the first season to support the home games.
Also on the plus side is that C-USA is a craptacular shitastic football conference. Houston, Southern Miss and Tulsa consistently field good teams with UH and So. Miss finishing the year ranked. Central Florida also had some ranked teams. Occasionally UTEP, East Carolina or Marshall put a decent product on the field. Outside of a one season, rice has been a joke along with Tulane, UAB and Memphis. If UTSA can recruit well and find a better coach than Larry Coker, they can compete in the next couple of years.
Now the downside.
How strong is the support if the Roadrunners don't succeed right away? Will San Antonio casual fans come out if they start can't compete? How long with the novelty last if winning isn't consistent?
Facilities is another issue. They currently play in the Alamodome. That place is a barn. An on campus better designed stadium needs to be built.
So far UTSA's vision for football and conference realignment goals have been spot on. If they continue on their current path, I see competitive and maybe ranked team in the next five years.
The BCS maybe Dead....But Only In Name?
The big driver in conference realignment has been nothing but the dollar sign. Traditional rivalries have been cast off. Regional conferences have given way to national conferences.
Schools left on the outside looking in have tried their best to get in to the Big Six (Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC, SEC & Big East). Why? Because that is where the TV money and access to the big money bowls are. In the Big Six and you have better and easier access to the money that the other conferences.
David Dodd, of CBS Sports, writes that the BCS may be dead only in name. In his article, Dodd writes that the proposed final football four may only increase the line of demarcation between the Big Six and what he calls the Group of Five (MAC, MWC, Sun Belt, C-USA, WAC).
The Group of Five will still have avenues to finish in the final football four play off with something along the lines of the current rules of the BCS.
Dodd quotes Sun Belt conference commissioner Karl Benson:
With TV money the driving force, teams like Houston, TCU, Utah and Boise St. strove for Big Six membership. They based their claim to the Big Six on either football success, TV market size or both. Houston and TCU bring the Houston and Dallas markets. Utah and Boise St. bring consistent football prowess. Their moves to the Big Six are now complete.
I believe with the latest TV contracts and the football final four playoffs kicking in soon that conference realignment and expansion of the Big Six is over. The only movement left will be in the Group of Five and some NCAA Football Championship Subdivision teams moving up to the Football Bowl Subdivision.
The Roadrunners move up the football food chain has been incredibly quick. Within three years of their inaugural season , they will be playing in a NCAA Football Bowl Division conference.
Several obvious factors went into the quick rise up the ranks for the 'runners. First was timing. With the constant reshuffling of football conferences over the last several years, UTSA's program started at the right time. I seriously doubt the program ascends so quickly with out the chain reaction of realignments. The size of San Antonio also played a role as well as the location in Texas. Other than the Spurs, there is no competition for major sporting dollars. San Antonio also showed up in droves during the first season to support the home games.
Also on the plus side is that C-USA is a craptacular shitastic football conference. Houston, Southern Miss and Tulsa consistently field good teams with UH and So. Miss finishing the year ranked. Central Florida also had some ranked teams. Occasionally UTEP, East Carolina or Marshall put a decent product on the field. Outside of a one season, rice has been a joke along with Tulane, UAB and Memphis. If UTSA can recruit well and find a better coach than Larry Coker, they can compete in the next couple of years.
Now the downside.
How strong is the support if the Roadrunners don't succeed right away? Will San Antonio casual fans come out if they start can't compete? How long with the novelty last if winning isn't consistent?
Facilities is another issue. They currently play in the Alamodome. That place is a barn. An on campus better designed stadium needs to be built.
So far UTSA's vision for football and conference realignment goals have been spot on. If they continue on their current path, I see competitive and maybe ranked team in the next five years.
The BCS maybe Dead....But Only In Name?
The big driver in conference realignment has been nothing but the dollar sign. Traditional rivalries have been cast off. Regional conferences have given way to national conferences.
Schools left on the outside looking in have tried their best to get in to the Big Six (Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC, SEC & Big East). Why? Because that is where the TV money and access to the big money bowls are. In the Big Six and you have better and easier access to the money that the other conferences.
David Dodd, of CBS Sports, writes that the BCS may be dead only in name. In his article, Dodd writes that the proposed final football four may only increase the line of demarcation between the Big Six and what he calls the Group of Five (MAC, MWC, Sun Belt, C-USA, WAC).
The Group of Five will still have avenues to finish in the final football four play off with something along the lines of the current rules of the BCS.
Dodd quotes Sun Belt conference commissioner Karl Benson:
"There are still going to be five conferences that are set aside,” said Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson said. “I don't have a problem with that."Based on Dodd's column, it appears that the Big Six will let the Group of Five tag along and keep the Football Subdivision title but still make it hard for those teams to earn a spot in the big money bowls or the proposed final football four. The Group of Five also seem to know there is nothing they can do about it.
With TV money the driving force, teams like Houston, TCU, Utah and Boise St. strove for Big Six membership. They based their claim to the Big Six on either football success, TV market size or both. Houston and TCU bring the Houston and Dallas markets. Utah and Boise St. bring consistent football prowess. Their moves to the Big Six are now complete.
I believe with the latest TV contracts and the football final four playoffs kicking in soon that conference realignment and expansion of the Big Six is over. The only movement left will be in the Group of Five and some NCAA Football Championship Subdivision teams moving up to the Football Bowl Subdivision.
