UTSA approved for Football

[chrisattsu]

The University of Texas System Board of Regents approved a plan for UT-San Antonio.

The plan calls for UTSA to develop an $84 million competitive athletic complex over the next several years and add an NCAA Football Championship Subdivision (FCS / formerly Division I-AA) football program with the intent to advance the athletics department’s existing 16 intercollegiate sports programs plus football to an NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS / formerly Division I-A) conference.

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

[DFW HOYA]

Congratulations.

(OK, UTA, you're on the clock...)

[Tod]

Is it just me, or are football helmets slowly evolving into Darth Vader masks?

But, congrats to UTSA!

[TexasTerror]

Congratulations.

(OK, UTA, you're on the clock...)

UT-Arlington, you mean? They don't like being referred to as UTA.

This will be interesting. If UTSA comes out and makes it pretty clear that they will go FBS pretty quickly out of the shoot, the SLC has no reason to let them even join the conference for two years or what not for football. We should not be a 'stepping stone' for someone who will not have a somewhat extended stay.

[El Gato]

UT-Arlington, you mean? They don't like being referred to as UTA.

This will be interesting. If UTSA comes out and makes it pretty clear that they will go FBS pretty quickly out of the shoot, the SLC has no reason to let them even join the conference for two years or what not for football. We should not be a 'stepping stone' for someone who will not have a somewhat extended stay.

Thought about that. Why would the SLC even consider them if they'll be gone just as quickly as they appeared? Along these lines, they have mentioned in their press releases that they plan on playing a full SLC slate by 2012. However, has the SLC approved of this move yet, considering they will start recruiting next year?

[Franks Tanks]

Thought about that. Why would the SLC even consider them if they'll be gone just as quickly as they appeared? Along these lines, they have mentioned in their press releases that they plan on playing a full SLC slate by 2012. However, has the SLC approved of this move yet, considering they will start recruiting next year?

Very true-- I highly doubt the SLC would let a team in when their intentions are clearly to move to FBS in 2-3 years.

[McTailGator]

Thought about that. Why would the SLC even consider them if they'll be gone just as quickly as they appeared? Along these lines, they have mentioned in their press releases that they plan on playing a full SLC slate by 2012. However, has the SLC approved of this move yet, considering they will start recruiting next year?

The SLC has not approved it and in fact the Commish has expressed his personal reservations about including them as a conference win or loss.

I personnaly have no problem with letting them be a part of the scheduling rotation. But why should we reward them and make them feel apart of something they clearly do not respect?

[texcap]

UT-Arlington, you mean? They don't like being referred to as UTA.

"They" don't?

Since when?

I am a graduate of UTA and all it is ever referred to by the students and community is UTA. And before you say they don't like it because it creates confusion with UT Austin, how many people have you heard call UT-Austin, UTA?

For that matter how often do you hear it called UT Austin unless you are referring to it and another UT campus in the same system? It is UT, and then the rest of the UT(insert your letter or city here) campuses.

[TexasTerror]

"They" don't? Since when? I am a graduate of UTA and all it is ever referred to by the students and community is UTA. And before you say they don't like it because it creates confusion with UT Austin, how many people have you heard call UT-Austin, UTA?

For that matter how often do you hear it called UT Austin unless you are referring to it and another UT campus in the same system? It is UT, and then the rest of the UT(insert your letter or city here) campuses.

This was a big push from them awhile back, part of their marketing campaign and rebranding, if I am not mistaken. They asked to be referred to as UT-Arlington. Heck, go to their main web site, you'll note that "Arlington" is pretty bold and strong (http://www.uta.edu/). On the left side, it's "About UT-Arlington" and "Support UT-Arlington". They've gone crazy with it (http://www.uta.edu/uta/overview). Guess you did not get the memo.

Does this do anything to Texas State plans? Both schools have huge enrollments (TxSt being the flagship of it's university system).

We've batted that around. FYI -- TXST is not the flagship of their university system. There is no flagship in the TSUS and the Board of Regents has clearly stated they have no intentions of doing such. If there was a flagship school in the system, I'd suspect SHSU and Lamar would bail out. Angelo State already did to the Texas Tech system because of the neglect they received.

FYI, NDSU is coming to Huntsville next year.

[texcap]

This was a big push from them awhile back, part of their marketing campaign and rebranding, if I am not mistaken. They asked to be referred to as UT-Arlington. Heck, go to their main web site, you'll note that "Arlington" is pretty bold and strong (http://www.uta.edu/). On the left side, it's "About UT-Arlington" and "Support UT-Arlington". They've gone crazy with it (http://www.uta.edu/uta/overview). Guess you did not get the memo.

I guess I didn't get the memo, and neither did the other 25,000 students that continue to call it UTA.

Speaking of using websites as proof, how many Texas State's do you find on these two without the mandated "San Marcos" with the reference?

http://www.txstate.edu/

http://txstatebobcats.cstv.com/

If it's on the internets, and their own websites it must be true, right?