Risk of not being in the "Tier 2" of college football (next 5-10 years)

[MplsBison]

I'm seeing some AD's voice a concern that they're not so sure FCS conferences are going to be included in the new "Tier 2" of college football, when BCS conference eventually create a Tier 1 via new NCAA division or a new association altogether.

This is one concern that the Idaho AD has and lists as a reason for not wanting to move back to the Big Sky. He's not so sure the Big sky will be included in the new Tier 2.


Do you guys buy that or not? Will it just be the lower half of FBS teams or will the top quarter (or so) of FCS also be included?


I'm skeptical myself. It would be one reason that I favor NDSU making a move up sooner rather than later, if the opportunity comes.

[NHwildEcat]

I would think that FCS would then be deemed tier 3...as it really has to do with the scholly limits...the future tier 1 & 2 will still have more schoolly's than FCS but the new tier 1 will be of the power conferences who make all the $$$...

[aceinthehole]

I'm seeing some AD's voice a concern that they're not so sure FCS conferences are going to be included in the new "Tier 2" of college football, when BCS conference eventually create a Tier 1 via new NCAA division or a new association altogether.

This is one concern that the Idaho AD has and lists as a reason for not wanting to move back to the Big Sky. He's not so sure the Big sky will be included in the new Tier 2.


Do you guys buy that or not? Will it just be the lower half of FBS teams or will the top quarter (or so) of FCS also be included?


I'm skeptical myself. It would be one reason that I favor NDSU making a move up sooner rather than later, if the opportunity comes.

Geography and Media markets matter and everyone is trying to keep their current spot in line.

Now that there are really only 3 football conferences in the West - Pac 12, MWC, and Big Sky - the Big Sky is pretty assured to remain in "Tier II" (although likely not a strong as the MWC). Sure, the Big Sky is 3rd in this hierarchy, but they will be in the conversation and perception for non-conference games and the like.

In the East it is much more crowded. As the Big East tumbles from BCS status, every league has the potential to drop a notch in 'perception.' As C-USA and the Sun Belt try to inch closer to the Big East, it creates a larger “perceived” gap between any FBS conference and the CAA/SoCon.

This is just the latest evolution form University/College Division, to D-I/D-II/D-III, to I-A/I-AA, to BCS/FBS/FCS, etc. It is still very hard to break outside of your place in the pecking order. Georgia State isn’t passing Georgia Tech, ODU isn’t going to pass Virginia Tech, etc. Everyone is just keeping up with the changing times

[Cocky]

FCS is tier 3 today

BCS
FBS
FCS

[MplsBison]

Geography and Media markets matter and everyone is trying to keep their current spot in line.

Now that there are really only 3 football conferences in the West - Pac 12, MWC, and Big Sky - the Big Sky is pretty assured to remain in "Tier II" (although likely not a strong as the MWC). Sure, the Big Sky is 3rd in this hierarchy, but they will be in the conversation and perception for non-conference games and the like.

In the East it is much more crowded. As the Big East tumbles from BCS status, every league has the potential to drop a notch in 'perception.' As C-USA and the Sun Belt try to inch closer to the Big East, it creates a larger “perceived” gap between any FBS conference and the CAA/SoCon.

This is just the latest evolution form University/College Division, to D-I/D-II/D-III, to I-A/I-AA, to BCS/FBS/FCS, etc. It is still very hard to break outside of your place in the pecking order. Georgia State isn’t passing Georgia Tech, ODU isn’t going to pass Virginia Tech, etc. Everyone is just keeping up with the changing times

Nor would I expect that. GT and VT will very clearly be in the new Tier I of college football.


The issue I'm trying to discuss is if the top FCS conferences will be included in the new Tier II of college football. In other words, is it going to end up mattering that GA St and ODU moved up to FBS now when Tier II is created in 5-10 years?

One argument is: no it won't matter because the CAA will definitely be included in the new Tier II anyway.

The other side is: yes it matters because the CAA will not be included in the new Tier II and will instead be in the new Tier III.


Which do you think is correct?

[MplsBison]

FCS is tier 3 today

BCS
FBS
FCS

And in the future, there could be a new Tier I, II and III. If the very top schools "BCS" are the Tier I, will only the remaining FBS schools make up the Tier II or will some of the top FCS schools be in the Tier II as well?

[LakesBison]

NDSU is discussing FBS football, it was on wday last night with the NDSU president

FCS Football ‏@FCS_Football
NDSU feeling some pressure to at least explore a move to FBS http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/63709/

[Gil Dobie]

FCS is tier 3 today

BCS
FBS
FCS

BCS & FBS, move tier 2 into the playoff division :)

[MplsBison]

NDSU is discussing FBS football, it was on wday last night with the NDSU president

FCS Football ‏@FCS_Football
NDSU feeling some pressure to at least explore a move to FBS http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/63709/

They have to. This could be a once in a generation opportunity to guarantee a place at the table for NDSU in the 2nd tier of college football.

No one wants to get left in the dust, so to speak, again.

[DFW HOYA]

As the Big East tumbles from BCS status, every league has the potential to drop a notch in 'perception.'

The Big East retains BCS status, assuming there is a BCS. Same for the ACC. No one has an AQ.

[chattownmocs]

The top 8 or 10 SEC schools; the top 2 or 3 BIG 12, PAC 10 and ACC schools; and the top 4 or so BIG 10 schools are on a tier of their own as well regardless of how revenue is shared in those conferences.

After that is the other schools from the BCS leagues who get a large share of the revenue but have a very limited opportunity to play of a conference title let alone a national crown. Along with arguably the Boise State's and TCU(Although they are headed for BCS leagues) who are able to pop up and compete at the highest level or at least finish with great records year after year.

Then you have the rest of FBS.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

NDSU is discussing FBS football, it was on wday last night with the NDSU president

FCS Football ‏@FCS_Football
NDSU feeling some pressure to at least explore a move to FBS http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/63709/

Is there a link or transcript to the discussion to see or hear what the discussion was about?

[MplsBison]

The Big East retains BCS status, assuming there is a BCS. Same for the ACC. No one has an AQ.

Yeah but they have some pretty good football, right now.

Florida St, VT and Clemson I believe all average 80k a game at least. North Carolina, NC St, Virginia, Rutgers and Maryland all have potential to be good in any given year and have pretty good facilities, all can seat at least 60k I believe.

[LakesBison]

there now urses! sorry man!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

there now urses! sorry man!

I hadn't seen your other thread when I typed that. Thanks for linky.

[dmksioux]

I'm seeing some AD's voice a concern that they're not so sure FCS conferences are going to be included in the new "Tier 2" of college football, when BCS conference eventually create a Tier 1 via new NCAA division or a new association altogether.

This is one concern that the Idaho AD has and lists as a reason for not wanting to move back to the Big Sky. He's not so sure the Big sky will be included in the new Tier 2.


Do you guys buy that or not? Will it just be the lower half of FBS teams or will the top quarter (or so) of FCS also be included?


I'm skeptical myself. It would be one reason that I favor NDSU making a move up sooner rather than later, if the opportunity comes.

If this whole College football reclassification does take place, my guess is, it will depend on how the NCAA sets the scholarship levels. I doubt they would remain as they are. BCS schools may increase scholarships and/or include a player stipend, FBS schools/Tier 2 may stay the same without the stipends or decrease a few scholarships, and FCS would remain the same or drop a few. Then it would be up to the conferences to decide which level they would aspire to and then the individual schools would have to decide which level they are able to fund/cash flow at. Just my xtwocentsx

[MplsBison]

If this whole College football reclassification does take place, my guess is, it will depend on how the NCAA sets the scholarship levels. I doubt they would remain as they are. BCS schools may increase scholarships and/or include a player stipend, FBS schools/Tier 2 may stay the same without the stipends or decrease a few scholarships, and FCS would remain the same or drop a few. Then it would be up to the conferences to decide which level they would aspire to and then the individual schools would have to decide which level they are able to fund/cash flow at. Just my xtwocentsx

Fair enough. I just don't think the tier levels will so "accessible" as you describe. IE, the CAA or MVFC will not be able to simply decide "we aspire to be tier II, let's make it so!". It's going to be an invitation type deal, as FBS is now.

[WileECoyote06]

My theory. . if the division subdivides, then the BCS schools will only choose FBS teams to play guarantee games. FCS schools left in the third/fourth tier are going to be left out in the cold. This is why many prominent FCS teams are hell-bent on getting out of the division now.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

My theory. . if the division subdivides, then the BCS schools will only choose FBS teams to play guarantee games. FCS schools left in the third/fourth tier are going to be left out in the cold. This is why many prominent FCS teams are hell-bent on getting out of the division now.

Why would they do that without a rule change? If there is a fix coming in on the divisions then there will be forewarning on what is coming so that the schools that could fill in the 2nd tier would have time to do so. The conferences in the 2nd tier would still be able to add teams they deem appropriate to their conferences that meet the tier 2 requirements.

Doesn't make any sense that you have to rush in to something now that you don't have any idea what the commitment level that it will require or what the expected revenues will be for those tier 2 teams cuz that is sure to retract a little for the most part with the cream of the crop leaving some of those current conferences.

[WileECoyote06]

Why would they do that without a rule change? If there is a fix coming in on the divisions then there will be forewarning on what is coming so that the schools that could fill in the 2nd tier would have time to do so. The conferences in the 2nd tier would still be able to add teams they deem appropriate to their conferences that meet the tier 2 requirements.

Doesn't make any sense that you have to rush in to something now that you don't have any idea what the commitment level that it will require or what the expected revenues will be for those tier 2 teams cuz that is sure to retract a little for the most part with the cream of the crop leaving some of those current conferences.

It would be a part of a rule change. Similar to how FBS teams do not play Division II schools. I'm just worried because so many prominent schools have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct feasibility studies. A little bit over 10% of the FCS membership is considering leaving or has already left, with more considering it every day. That ought to be alarming.

[MplsBison]

Why would they do that without a rule change? If there is a fix coming in on the divisions then there will be forewarning on what is coming so that the schools that could fill in the 2nd tier would have time to do so. The conferences in the 2nd tier would still be able to add teams they deem appropriate to their conferences that meet the tier 2 requirements.

Doesn't make any sense that you have to rush in to something now that you don't have any idea what the commitment level that it will require or what the expected revenues will be for those tier 2 teams cuz that is sure to retract a little for the most part with the cream of the crop leaving some of those current conferences.

Maybe because the schools in FBS now don't want to open the flood gates to FCS schools who are scared about getting left behind?

Indeed, why should Wyoming or Idaho give Montana any inclination that the Big Sky is essentially going to be pushed back to a DII level of today in the next 5 or 10 years? That would just make Montana want to move up to FBS in preparation.

[BucBisonAtLarge]

Changes in Division I in the NCAA need to be approved by the entire division, and the BCS schools have nowhere near the votes, and I am lacking imagination for what sort of incentive could be hung in front of the FCS and/or non-football schools to permit more exorbitant spending and exclusion by the BCS elite. They already made the gambit for stipends earlier this year and the new prez badly misjudged his mandate and failed.

Any threat to withdraw from the NCAA would be an embarrassing submission to the "bread and circus" media market. In the original IA-1AA split the Ivy League and the Academies were initially allowed into the club on 'technicalities' (# of varsity sports, I believe--), but a lot of water has run under all bridges since then. The president at Yale is grousing at the number of varsity athletes in the undergraduate population, and such a stat is now a factor in these campaigns.The BCS conferences have yet to find the set of levers to manipulate to carve anyone out of the Division I pie, post moratorium. Schools only move in one direction on the NCAA table. Relegation is impossible.

[MplsBison]

Changes in Division I in the NCAA need to be approved by the entire division, and the BCS schools have nowhere near the votes, and I am lacking imagination for what sort of incentive could be hung in front of the FCS and/or non-football schools to permit more exorbitant spending and exclusion by the BCS elite. They already made the gambit for stipends earlier this year and the new prez badly misjudged his mandate and failed.

Any threat to withdraw from the NCAA would be an embarrassing submission to the "bread and circus" media market. In the original IA-1AA split the Ivy League and the Academies were initially allowed into the club on 'technicalities' (# of varsity sports, I believe--), but a lot of water has run under all bridges since then. The president at Yale is grousing at the number of varsity athletes in the undergraduate population, and such a stat is now a factor in these campaigns.The BCS conferences have yet to find the set of levers to manipulate to carve anyone out of the Division I pie, post moratorium. Schools only move in one direction on the NCAA table. Relegation is impossible.

Then the B1G, Pac 12, Big XII, SEC and maybe the ACC leave the NCAA. Simple as that.

They are not going to sit there and let FCS and non-football schools (for cripes sake) dictate to them how the top level of college football is going to be run. It's absurd.


Then you have the new Tier 1 being the new association. That leaves the NCAA to redefine college football as simply Division I (the new Tier 2), Division II (the new Tier 3) and Division III (the new Tier 4). And that goes right back to my question for FCS schools: do you stay in FCS and hope you'll be included in the NCAA's new Division I or do you make a move up to FBS now and ensure your seat at the table?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It would be a part of a rule change. Similar to how FBS teams do not play Division II schools. I'm just worried because so many prominent schools have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct feasibility studies. A little bit over 10% of the FCS membership is considering leaving or has already left, with more considering it every day. That ought to be alarming.

Not really, as was sort of alluded to before the prohibition of moving up took something away that was there before and couldn't be done. Now that it can be done it creates a false hysteria that "Oh my god this is gonna be our last opportunity to get in on this sale!" and the fans that want it anyway are vocal to the leadership which may have already been hoping for something like this anyhow.

Nothing has changed. The costs are the same or higher, the revenues are the same or lower and this is not gonna be the one chance to make the move if you grow into it naturally and wanted to do so.

If you are counting GaSt. or UNCC or UTSA as programs that are looking to move from FCS to FBS then I think you are being a little mislead.

As I said all of that ain't even gonna matter in a short period of time anyway if it goes as projected. They ain't gonna have 60 tier 1, another 60 tier 2, and then say "Hey we're locking the door forever and those that got in through the back door were the last ones in the room. You have Idaho that's in and they make they cut but Montana and MSU would be told "no" because they didn't jump right now?

I'm pretty sure it's gonna be based a lot more on merit than that. If they have ****ty bowl games as the postseason then good for all and enjoy cuz I still won't want to see that crap of pretending like one more game means you did something.

I just can not imagine that they won't come up with something better than that as a plan for a speculated tier 2.

If the money don't change, the players don't change.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Maybe because the schools in FBS now don't want to open the flood gates to FCS schools who are scared about getting left behind?

Indeed, why should Wyoming or Idaho give Montana any inclination that the Big Sky is essentially going to be pushed back to a DII level of today in the next 5 or 10 years? That would just make Montana want to move up to FBS in preparation.

Sure thing, oh except...they can't do that and don't have that kind of power. Of course, it wouldn't bother me if another level is manufactured and the product remains the same. You can call it whatever you want to. It's gonna be the same thing it is now.

[MplsBison]

Not exactly. Today we have FBS and FCS, officially.

In 5-10 years that could be split into three official tiers. Montana, by not moving up now, risks being in the third tier instead of the second.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Not exactly. Today we have FBS and FCS, officially.

In 5-10 years that could be split into three official tiers. Montana, by not moving up now, risks being in the third tier instead of the second.

Doesn't matter what you officially call it. It is still the same 3 divisions. BCS, Non BCS, FCS. Nothing has changed. If they do that in 5 to 10 yrs. there is not gonna be some "ha-ha you didn't move when we did" type of **** to keep eligible teams that can meet the new requirements and want to move to that 2nd tier.

You are a terrible salesman if that is your pitch cuz it's completely see through.

And no, I don't want your god damn trucoat either.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gwc4UizUc

[darell1976]

Doesn't matter what you officially call it. It is still the same 3 divisions. BCS, Non BCS, FCS. Nothing has changed. If they do that in 5 to 10 yrs. there is not gonna be some "ha-ha you didn't move when we did" type of **** to keep eligible teams that can meet the new requirements and want to move to that 2nd tier.

You are a terrible salesman if that is your pitch cuz it's completely see through.

And no, I don't want your god damn trucoat either.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gwc4UizUc

xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx

[MplsBison]

Doesn't matter what you officially call it. It is still the same 3 divisions. BCS, Non BCS, FCS. Nothing has changed. If they do that in 5 to 10 yrs. there is not gonna be some "ha-ha you didn't move when we did" type of **** to keep eligible teams that can meet the new requirements and want to move to that 2nd tier.

You are a terrible salesman if that is your pitch cuz it's completely see through.

And no, I don't want your god damn trucoat either.


There are two things that could really hurt Montana being in Tier 3 that you simply don't have any way to say if they'll hold true or not.

1) being able to move up to Tier 2 without an invitation from a Tier 2 conference. That's how it is today, no FCS team can move up to FBS without an invitation. No reason to think such a rule won't be in place.

So what Tier 2 conference is going to invite Montana? Mountain West?


2) the ability for Tier 2 schools to schedule Tier 3 schools and pay them large (relatively speaking) guarantees. It happens now for FCS schools that have 90% of the scholarship equivalencies of the FBS minimum, only because those FBS schools can count one FCS win per year toward bowl eligibility.

The playoffs in Tier 2 or the bowls, whatever exists, could be completely different and eliminate that rule.

Not that Montana often plays FBS games, but the option could be off the table completely.



But I guess you would rather throw your temper tantrum out of hatred for the FBS sub division and put Montana at risk of these two things. I'm sure yourself and all the other Montana season ticket holders will be completely content with Montana playing only Tier 3 teams and winning the Tier 3 national championship against the Northwestern Louisiana State's and Central Connecticut's of that world. More power to you!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

There are two things that could really hurt Montana being in Tier 3 that you simply don't have any way to say if they'll hold true or not.

1) being able to move up to Tier 2 without an invitation from a Tier 2 conference. That's how it is today, no FCS team can move up to FBS without an invitation. No reason to think such a rule won't be in place.

So what Tier 2 conference is going to invite Montana? Mountain West?


2) the ability for Tier 2 schools to schedule Tier 3 schools and pay them large (relatively speaking) guarantees. It happens now for FCS schools that have 90% of the scholarship equivalencies of the FBS minimum, only because those FBS schools can count 1 FCS win per year toward bowl eligibility.

The playoffs in Tier 2 or the bowls, whatever exists, could be completely different and eliminate that rule.

Not that Montana often plays FBS games, but the option could be off the table all together.



But I guess you would rather throw your temper tantrum out of hatred for the FBS sub division and put Montana at risk of these two things.xlolx

Awesome.

There are about 250 teams in the three tiers that are currently in place. There will be that same number of teams in anything new that comes along. Those teams will need to schedule pretty closely to what they do now.

There are already zero conferences that make sense and would be financially viable for a lot of FCS teams and that ain't gonna change much either.

Hell the one thing that is coming to light is that people are starting to realize or maybe admit that the good FCS are equivalent in most cases to the lower tier of FBS despite the lack of gratis from the budget.

[MplsBison]

xlolx

Awesome.

There are about 250 teams in the three tiers that are currently in place. There will be that same number of teams in anything new that comes along. Those teams will need to schedule pretty closely to what they do now.

There are already zero conferences that make sense and would be financially viable for a lot of FCS teams and that ain't gonna change much either.

Hell the one thing that is coming to light is that people are starting to realize or maybe admit that the good FCS are equivalent in most cases to the lower tier of FBS despite the lack of gratis from the budget.

Equal on the field, yes. And as you already know, that's not what matters.

If the new Tier 1 ends up being an entirely independent association from the NCAA, those schools aren't going to schedule any NCAA schools. In other words, Montana will never get to play Oregon, Washington, etc. Now that wouldn't be any different than if Montana was in Tier 2. But the point is that Tier 2 schools (Mountain West...) might not have any incentive to schedule any Tier 3 schools.


Like I say, you just go right on ahead pretending that nothing is changing. Luckily for Montana, you have nothing to do with the decision making process.

[boogereagle]

xlolx

Awesome.

There are about 250 teams in the three tiers that are currently in place. There will be that same number of teams in anything new that comes along. Those teams will need to schedule pretty closely to what they do now.

There are already zero conferences that make sense and would be financially viable for a lot of FCS teams and that ain't gonna change much either.

Hell the one thing that is coming to light is that people are starting to realize or maybe admit that the good FCS are equivalent in most cases to the lower tier of FBS despite the lack of gratis from the budget.

Excellent post. I would wager that the top FCS programs are as good if not better than those schools currently in FBS but not BCS. Expand that to include some of the BCS schools and you'd still be on target.

I can't for the life of me see one reasonable argument for Georgia Southern or any other FCS school to go FBS as it currently stands. All this hooey about changing landscapes and tiers and this that and the other skirt the fact that the BCS will still be dominated by major college football programs and whatever's left won't be much different than it is now. So why spend money you don't have to buy something you don't need?

[cpalum]

Excellent post. I would wager that the top FCS programs are as good if not better than those schools currently in FBS but not BCS. Expand that to include some of the BCS schools and you'd still be on target.

I can't for the life of me see one reasonable argument for Georgia Southern or any other FCS school to go FBS as it currently stands. All this hooey about changing landscapes and tiers and this that and the other skirt the fact that the BCS will still be dominated by major college football programs and whatever's left won't be much different than it is now. So why spend money you don't have to buy something you don't need?

Very well said .... I agree

[frozennorth]

current fbs will not be splitting. put down the crazy conspiracy theories

[ursus arctos horribilis]

current fbs will not be splitting. put down the crazy conspiracy theories

I would be able to buy into that except for the fact that the big boys are trying real hard to get the student stipend through for the schools that can afford it. The benefits to them for spending the extra money means it makes it way harder and more expensive for the already struggling teams outside of the big four or five.

[mufanatehc]

I would be able to buy into that except for the fact that the big boys are trying real hard to get the student stipend through for the schools that can afford it. The benefits to them for spending the extra money means it makes it way harder and more expensive for the already struggling teams outside of the big four or five.

CUSA has stated that they will pay a stipend if it comes about, and I think the MWC would follow.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

CUSA has stated that they will pay a stipend if it comes about, and I think the MWC would follow.

I have absolutely nothing against it either and if they can afford it then you gotta do it if you can and others are doing it. That's gonna make things even tougher on the middlin' teams.

[boogereagle]

This whole weird desire to go to FBS reminds me of the Dr. Suess story, "The Sneetches."

The FBS Sneetches are the original star bellied sneetches, who somehow think that they are special because they have a star on their belly.

The plain bellied sneetches are all those envious of the star belled sneetches who spend money to have stars put on their bellies ---

[MplsBison]

This whole weird desire to go to FBS reminds me of the Dr. Suess story, "The Sneetches."

The FBS Sneetches are the original star bellied sneetches, who somehow think that they are special because they have a star on their belly.

The plain bellied sneetches are all those envious of the star belled sneetches who spend money to have stars put on their bellies ---

It's a pretty cut and dried, plain and simple desire to keep improving the product on the field.

63 scholarship limit gives you a ceiling.

[DFW HOYA]

63 scholarship limit gives you a ceiling.

Prior to 1973, Div. I schools could give unlimited football scholarships. Would that be an answer?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It's a pretty cut and dried, plain and simple desire to keep improving the product on the field.

63 scholarship limit gives you a ceiling.

A lot of people have a pretty cut & dried, plain and simple desire to keep improving the house they live in, the car and boat and whatever else they could afford by digging into their house loans too.

What could go wrong right?xlolx

[MplsBison]

Prior to 1973, Div. I schools could give unlimited football scholarships. Would that be an answer?

The answer is that teams are looking to go from 63 to 85, so they can continue to improve their products and continue growing their football brands.

Obviously jumping directly to the SEC would be better, but you gotta take baby steps.

[MplsBison]

A lot of people have a pretty cut & dried, plain and simple desire to keep improving the house they live in, the car and boat and whatever else they could afford by digging into their house loans too.

What could go wrong right?xlolx

Do they have 10-20k students who are willing to vote themselves a student fee increase?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Do they have 10-20k students who are willing to vote themselves a student fee increase?

Yes, on a smaller scale of course. They are known as children that want sweet 16 birthday bashes and so forth.