Toledo Blade: Why Dropping to FCS Isn't Worth It

[DFW HOYA]

https://www.toledoblade.com/sports/college/2020/05/23/briggs-why-toledo-and-bg-football-dropping-to-fcs-is-absolute-non-starter/stories/20200523086

[lionsrking2]

https://www.toledoblade.com/sports/college/2020/05/23/briggs-why-toledo-and-bg-football-dropping-to-fcs-is-absolute-non-starter/stories/20200523086

Every argument made against it, the exact opposite case can be made for it. If they could get over the perceived embarrassment of dropping down as being a failure, they would find FCS to be a good place. Ultimately, alumni and students gravitate to success, winning, and goals that are both aspirational and attainable. Though as far as career advancement is concerned, I reckon I might not wanna be the AD that ushered a program from FBS to FCS. I get that part of it.

[citdog]

Dude called out JMU for funding the football program off of the backs of the students but nary a word about the FBS in name only schools doing the same....

[lionsrking2]

Dude called out JMU for funding the football program off of the backs of the students but nary a word about the FBS in name only schools doing the same....

I bet he secretly wishes Toledo could generate 38 million in student fees. He conveniently neglects to mention Toledo spends 7 million more than JMU in direct school funds. Additionally, JMU generates twice as much ticket revenue.

[Laker]

That 15,000 attendance requirement for FBS is a joke. Enforcing that alone would cause several MAC teams to go FCS or drop football altogether. Several of those schools would be way better off in FCS.

[DFW HOYA]

One of the underdiscussed reasons why these schools want to stay in I-A is the perception of the university in state funding.

Can't speak for Ohio, but in many states the appropriations favor larger schools. It's, in part, why a North Texas and a Texas State (formerly SW Texas St.) wanted to move up so they could get a seat at the big kid's table with UT, A&M, Houston, and Texas Tech. A seat at the FCS table with Stephen F Austin, Sam Houston, Prairie View and Lamar simply won't get the funding push in the legislature for non-athletic issues that a presumed "major college" will.

No one assumes Toledo is Ohio State, of course, but do they want to be considered with Youngstown State when the state assesses cutbacks in higher ed? Does Illinois cut back first at the I-A level (UIUC) or the directional schools? Who's going to fund the next renovation at Toledo when they're playing against Dayton and a crowd of 4,000?

[citdog]

One of the underdiscussed reasons why these schools want to stay in I-A is the perception of the university in state funding.

Can't speak for Ohio, but in many states the appropriations favor larger schools. It's, in part, why a North Texas and a Texas State (formerly SW Texas St.) wanted to move up so they could get a seat at the big kid's table with UT, A&M, Houston, and Texas Tech. A seat at the FCS table with Stephen F Austin, Sam Houston, Prairie View and Lamar simply won't get the funding push in the legislature for non-athletic issues that a presumed "major college" will.

No one assumes Toledo is Ohio State, of course, but do they want to be considered with Youngstown State when the state assesses cutbacks in higher ed? Does Illinois cut back first at the I-A level (UIUC) or the directional schools? Who's going to fund the next renovation at Toledo when they're playing against Dayton and a crowd of 4,000?

No State funds one penny of any schools athletic budget.

[DFW HOYA]

No State funds one penny of any schools athletic budget.

This is not about athletic funds.

Want a new dorm? A new science building? How about a few more faculty positions? Visibility in athletics can help drive visibility in state funding.

[citdog]

This is not about athletic funds.

Want a new dorm? A new science building? How about a few more faculty positions? Visibility in athletics can help drive visibility in state funding.

That's ridiculous. But expected by someone who went to a school that is run by the Jesuits and then cries poverty.

[DFW HOYA]

That's ridiculous. But expected by someone who went to a school that is run by the Jesuits and then cries poverty.

Hmmm...Georgetown hasn't been run by a Jesuit in almost 20 years.

[citdog]

Hmmm...Georgetown hasn't been run by a Jesuit in almost 20 years.

Your own website describes your school as "a Jesuit university".

[citdog]

Which is why it's hilarious when your athletic dept says you have no money to replace the "multi sport field". Who has more money than the Jesuits?

[favorite football fan]

Which is why it's hilarious when your athletic dept says you have no money to replace the "multi sport field". Who has more money than the Jesuits?

The Vatican?

[citdog]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSSY-lQ5l9vuQwdOw8GtN08ZIlFYd-JiESDyAFKA0YjCLfnE5LX&usqp=CAU

This is a DI football stadium.

[cx500d]

Which is why it's hilarious when your athletic dept says you have no money to replace the "multi sport field". Who has more money than the Jesuits?

The Jews


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cx500d]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSSY-lQ5l9vuQwdOw8GtN08ZIlFYd-JiESDyAFKA0YjCLfnE5LX&usqp=CAU

This is a DI football stadium.

The near side of the pic was closed last year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[citdog]

The Jews


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let me know when Brandeis starts playing DI football.

[grayghost06]

Which is why it's hilarious when your athletic dept says you have no money to replace the "multi sport field". Who has more money than the Jesuits?


The Jews


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Does Yeshiva have a football team?

[cx500d]

Let me know when Brandeis starts playing DI football.

You asked who has more money than The jesuits, not who funded a football team better. Of course the Jews are too cheap to fund a D1 football team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Laker]

Does Yeshiva have a football team?

Nope

[citdog]

You asked who has more money than The jesuits, not who funded a football team better. Of course the Jews are too cheap to fund a D1 football team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Too busy having our own country.

[OhioHen]

Does Yeshiva have a football team?

No, but they sure do cook a mean brisket!

[Go Green]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSSY-lQ5l9vuQwdOw8GtN08ZIlFYd-JiESDyAFKA0YjCLfnE5LX&usqp=CAU

This is a DI football stadium.

That *was* a DI football stadium. Georgetown was making good progress of Cooper Field renovations, but I'm not sure where things stand now with COVID-19.

[walliver]

The article that started this thread has a number of logical issues, frequently cherry picking select numbers and making invalid comparisons.

I suspect most MAC schools would drop football well before moving to FCS. Idaho was a unique situation - school which should never have played FBS football which was geographically isolated from just about every other FBVS school (other than Boise State). The Phio MAC schools spend too much time looking down on Youngstown State to ever play them on a football field.

[Sader87]

Brandeis once actually had a decent program in the 1950s....roughly at the level of the then Yankee Conference. They also played D1 BU and BC at that time.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2013/10/05/brandeis-football-team-gathers-for-hall-fame-inductions/XNfhrPaPRX6Sua0uVVtemM/story.html

[Lehigh Engineer]

You asked who has more money than The jesuits, not who funded a football team better. Of course the Jews are too cheap to fund a D1 football team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Way to propagate a stereotype - NOT COOL.

[smallcollegefbfan]

That 15,000 attendance requirement for FBS is a joke. Enforcing that alone would cause several MAC teams to go FCS or drop football altogether. Several of those schools would be way better off in FCS.

That is what I have been thinking. I really think they should bump the requirement to 17,000 and say you have to average it over 3 years with no less than 15,000 in any given year. That would really push a lot of these schools down. A few in the CUSA, all but about 3 SBC, most of the MAC, and some in the MWC. That would then allow for a really smart realignment that allows better geographically friendly G5 conferences.

[mvfcfan]

The MAC should probably be FCS, but there are probably 5 FCS conferences that should be Division 2. As far as the MVFC is concerned we don't really consider wins against MAC, CUSA, and Suck Belt teams as "upsets". After all we are usually ranked higher as a conference despite their 22 extra scholarships.

[cx500d]

No, but they sure do cook a mean brisket!
corned beef does not = brisket.

[bonarae]

The MAC should probably be FCS, but there are probably 5 FCS conferences that should be Division 2. As far as the MVFC is concerned we don't really consider wins against MAC, CUSA, and Suck Belt teams as "upsets". After all we are usually ranked higher as a conference despite their 22 extra scholarships.

Which conferences are those, then?

On topic: Seems that the MAC is lost ATM regarding their status in the FBS. But are there teams there that are willingly committed to drop down to the FCS?

Youngstown State seems to be past its prime, so the MAC schools should accept their fate. xtwocentsx

[grayghost06]

Which is why it's hilarious when your athletic dept says you have no money to replace the "multi sport field". Who has more money than the Jesuits?


That is what I have been thinking. I really think they should bump the requirement to 17,000 and say you have to average it over 3 years with no less than 15,000 in any given year. That would really push a lot of these schools down. A few in the CUSA, all but about 3 SBC, most of the MAC, and some in the MWC. That would think allow for a really smart realignment that allows better geographically friendly G5 conferences.

The 17k threshold was part of the initial requirements in the separation of I-A and I-AA. Not sure when it dropped to 15k. Doesn't really matter since it's not enforced.

[favorite football fan]

In the background you will hear two guitars and a horn in the background playing in the background and the haunting lyrics of Zager and Evans:
In the year 2525 (https://genius.com/Zager-and-evans-in-the-year-2525-lyrics#note-3295657)
If man is still alive
If woman can survive (https://genius.com/Zager-and-evans-in-the-year-2525-lyrics#note-3295556)
They may find- (https://genius.com/Zager-and-evans-in-the-year-2525-lyrics#note-3296582)A MAC school claims the conference's first national title after defeating the University of New Orleans who just re-introduced football 100 years ago after the New Orleans Saint's moved their franchise to Naples, Florida in what was then the NFL (National Florida League). In a stunning upset 36-30, the MAC school had to face withering criticism of a weak schedule by defeating D3 Notre Dame 45-32 and D2 Ohio State 14-3. The decision by MAC schools to not drop to the sub-division known as FCS proved to be right during the First Great Modern Day Pandemic back in 2020 and is now looked upon historically as great foresight. Even the Fifth Great Modern Day Pandemic of 2312 and the Near Earth Extinction Event of 2406 did not hamper their motivation for playing at the highest level of college football.


Now, we will all sing along to Mungo Jerry's In The Summer Time:
In the summertime when the weather is hot....

[Bisonator]

Lmao isn't "a large segment of their fanbase disappointed" every year anyway?

[Bisonator]

That is what I have been thinking. I really think they should bump the requirement to 17,000 and say you have to average it over 3 years with no less than 15,000 in any given year. That would really push a lot of these schools down. A few in the CUSA, all but about 3 SBC, most of the MAC, and some in the MWC. That would think allow for a really smart realignment that allows better geographically friendly G5 conferences.
It should be $25K and enforced strictly, will never happen......

[lionsrking2]

It should be $25K and enforced strictly, will never happen......

I think it should be tied more to minimal budget requirements than attendance requirements. Not sure what the minimum should be but I can tell you that UL-Monroe should not be FBS with a $15 million budget. I'm thinking somewhere in the $30-35 million range. Attendance numbers can be fudged, and honestly, if a school wants to spend the money, they should have the right to compete, regardless of attendance. It will take care of itself if they step up, or don't. There's only so much fudging that can be done with budgets.

[mvfcfan]

Which conferences are those, then?

On topic: Seems that the MAC is lost ATM regarding their status in the FBS. But are there teams there that are willingly committed to drop down to the FCS?

Youngstown State seems to be past its prime, so the MAC schools should accept their fate. xtwocentsx


Anything outside of the MVFC, BSKY, CAA, OVC, SOCON, SLAND, and BSOUTH is not real FCS football in my opinion. Anything outside of those 7 are FCS in name only. The SWAC and MEAC should definitely be D2 purely based on the quality of all of their programs. I think I heard the Patriot and NEC don't even give out 63 scholarships. Then the Ivy and PFL don't give out any.

[DFW HOYA]

I think I heard the Patriot and NEC don't even give out 63 scholarships.

The Patriot League number is 60.

[Go Green]

I think I heard the Patriot and NEC don't even give out 63 scholarships. Then the Ivy and PFL don't give out any.

Strictly speaking, neither do the military academies.

Many have suggested that (several) Ivies are effectively doing what the military academies do for their student bodies.

[mvfcfan]

The Patriot League number is 60.

60 is reasonable. I thought one of the two only allowed 40 scholarships so that must be the NEC. I think I read one time that one of these conferences also doesn't allow redshirts.

[walliver]

I occasionally watch a few MACtion games. I always find it interesting how ESPN controls the camera angles so that the stands are almost never shown.

[Bisonator]

I think it should be tied more to minimal budget requirements than attendance requirements. Not sure what the minimum should be but I can tell you that UL-Monroe should not be FBS with a $15 million budget. I'm thinking somewhere in the $30-35 million range. Attendance numbers can be fudged, and honestly, if a school wants to spend the money, they should have the right to compete, regardless of attendance. It will take care of itself if they step up, or don't. There's only so much fudging that can be done with budgets.
I agree that would be an even better way of separating them.

[UAalum72]

60 is reasonable. I thought one of the two only allowed 40 scholarships so that must be the NEC. I think I read one time that one of these conferences also doesn't allow redshirts.
The NEC allows 40, but also uses need-based grants to fill out the roster, which is why they’re able to be counters and get FBS games.

[Wildcats]

I occasionally watch a few MACtion games. I always find it interesting how ESPN controls the camera angles so that the stands are almost never shown.

Unfortunately that goes for a lot of non P5 game and even some P5 games. Not just the MAC. Id say they have a pretty good excuse though.

[smallcollegefbfan]

The MAC should probably be FCS, but there are probably 5 FCS conferences that should be Division 2. As far as the MVFC is concerned we don't really consider wins against MAC, CUSA, and Suck Belt teams as "upsets". After all we are usually ranked higher as a conference despite their 22 extra scholarships.

100% with you here. There are probably 40 FCS teams who truly belong in D2.

[ElCid]

I think it should be tied more to minimal budget requirements than attendance requirements. Not sure what the minimum should be but I can tell you that UL-Monroe should not be FBS with a $15 million budget. I'm thinking somewhere in the $30-35 million range. Attendance numbers can be fudged, and honestly, if a school wants to spend the money, they should have the right to compete, regardless of attendance. It will take care of itself if they step up, or don't. There's only so much fudging that can be done with budgets.

No. Budget is irrelevant. Attendance and performance is key. Some people, in all things in life, regardless of budget, turn out good performances. I get where your coming from, and there is definitely a strong correlation, but budget is not as important as results at the ticket office and on the field. And how many examples do we have of big budgets and horrendous or at least poor attendance and performance. I wouldn't penalize for doing more with less. And that is the other half of the coin.

Attendance is a good dividing line that takes multiple aspects of commitment into account. It's just not enforced like other things are. It can be fixed with some will. There is no will.

[ElCid]

I occasionally watch a few MACtion games. I always find it interesting how ESPN controls the camera angles so that the stands are almost never shown.

Yup. It's hilarious every time I flip to one. Which isn't very often. But it isn't just the MAC. Most G5 and quite a few P5 suffer from the "strategically placed camera angle syndrome."

[DFW HOYA]

I think it should be tied more to minimal budget requirements than attendance requirements. Not sure what the minimum should be but I can tell you that UL-Monroe should not be FBS with a $15 million budget. I'm thinking somewhere in the $30-35 million range.

There are 64 schools outside the Power 5 with an athletics budget of $30 million or more. It's an interesting group, you can say that.

Akron
Alabama-Birmingham
Boise State
Bucknell
Buffalo
Cal Poly-SLO
Cal-Davis
Central Florida
Central Michigan
Charlotte
Cincinnati
Coastal Carolina
Colorado State
Columbia
Connecticut
Dartmouth
Delaware
East Carolina
Elon
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Fordham
Fresno St.
Georgetown
Georgia State
Hawaii
Holy Cross
Houston
James Madison
LA-Lafayette
Lehigh
Liberty
Marshall
Memphis
Miami OH
Middle Tennessee St.
Nevada-Reno
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Texas
Old Dominion
Pennsylvania
Princeton
Rice
Richmond
San Diego St.
San Jose St.
South Florida
Southern Methodist
Temple
Texas St.
Toledo
Troy
Tulane
Tulsa
UNLV
Utah State
UTEP
UTSA
Villanova
Western Michigan
William and Mary
Wyoming
Yale

[lionsrking2]

No. Budget is irrelevant. Attendance and performance is key. Some people, in all things in life, regardless of budget, turn out good performances. I get where your coming from, and there is definitely a strong correlation, but budget is not as important as results at the ticket office and on the field. And how many examples do we have of big budgets and horrendous or at least poor attendance and performance. I wouldn't penalize for doing more with less. And that is the other half of the coin.

Attendance is a good dividing line that takes multiple aspects of commitment into account. It's just not enforced like other things are. It can be fixed with some will. There is no will.

I respectfully disagree. Success on the field is usually a by-product of financial commitment. Attendance is usually a by-product of success on the field, and commitment to dedicating marketing resources. There are exceptions to everything -- many schools overachieve or underachieve, based on their budget -- but commitment to spend usually dictates who your peers are. If a school is willing to make the financial commitment, have at it. Schools with low attendance at the FBS level, typically have small budgets. Those are the schools that need to drop down. Again, I don't know where the line should be drawn, but I do know UL-Monroe has no business playing FBS football.

[ElCid]

I respectfully disagree. Success on the field is usually a by-product of financial commitment. Attendance is usually a by-product of success on the field, and commitment to dedicating marketing resources. There are exceptions to everything -- many schools overachieve or underachieve, based on their budget -- but commitment to spend usually dictates who your peers are. If a school is willing to make the financial commitment, have at it. Schools with low attendance at the FBS level, typically have small budgets. Those are the schools that need to drop down. Again, I don't know where the line should be drawn, but I do know UL-Monroe has no business playing FBS football.

Those three words above make my point. Usually isn't always. If it was always, granted. If a school has just below your hypothetical cutoff, but does gangbusters in attendance and on the field and generally does better than those with much bigger budgets, then they shouldn't be allowed at the higher level? Results matter, not intent via a big budget. Money is a tool among many tools. It is not a measure of success. Like I said the first time, it is closely correlated, but it isn't an absolute. Money isn't everything. But I don't disagree with the point that there are far too many schools that went FBS that had no business doing so. That's a given.

[grayghost06]

Wishful thinking, but would love promotion and relegation like English soccer. Some of the P5 schools are there purely by birthright rather than performance.

[VandalBasher]

I think it should be tied more to minimal budget requirements than attendance requirements. Not sure what the minimum should be but I can tell you that UL-Monroe should not be FBS with a $15 million budget. I'm thinking somewhere in the $30-35 million range. Attendance numbers can be fudged, and honestly, if a school wants to spend the money, they should have the right to compete, regardless of attendance. It will take care of itself if they step up, or don't. There's only so much fudging that can be done with budgets.

If I added into a Cost of Living Index, what would $15 million be in San Jose, CA vs. Monroe, LA? I think it is much like the $15 an hour minimum wage debate. It wouldn't make a dent in NYC but would be pretty good money in Mississippi.

[lionsrking2]

Those three words above make my point. Usually isn't always. If it was always, granted. If a school has just below your hypothetical cutoff, but does gangbusters in attendance and on the field and generally does better than those with much bigger budgets, then they shouldn't be allowed at the higher level? Results matter, not intent via a big budget. Money is a tool among many tools. It is not a measure of success. Like I said the first time, it is closely correlated, but it isn't an absolute. Money isn't everything. But I don't disagree with the point that there are far too many schools that went FBS that had no business doing so. That's a given.

We can agree to disagree. There are no absolutes in just about anything. You'll always find exceptions but being an FBS program should carry at least a minimal financial commitment. Again, I don't know where the number should fall, but I would start somewhere north of $30-35 million. Attendance requirements are fine and dandy but easily manipulated and haven't worked as intended. I suppose you could have both but programs on the borderline are subject to down cycles which can negatively affect attendance. But if they're willing to spend the money to improve play on the field and market their program, they shouldn't be penalized if they fall below attendance thresholds. If they're not willing to spend, it'll take care of itself. Down to FCS they go.

[lionsrking2]

If I added into a Cost of Living Index, what would $15 million be in San Jose, CA vs. Monroe, LA? I think it is much like the $15 an hour minimum wage debate. It wouldn't make a dent in NYC but would be pretty good money in Mississippi.

No question 15 million in Monroe gets you a lot further than 15 million in most developed communities around the nation; but even in Monroe, it doesn't get you very far relative to FBS football. Southland Conference budgets are comparatively low in relation to the CAA, Big Sky and MVFC, yet if ULM were in the Southland, they're budget would be in the middle tier. It's ridiculously rock-bottom low in the Sun Belt.

[FUBeAR]

This seems like an appropriate thread to drop this info...

https://twitter.com/appstatesports/status/1265368625973800962

[ST_Lawson]

We can agree to disagree. There are no absolutes in just about anything. You'll always find exceptions but being an FBS program should carry at least a minimal financial commitment. Again, I don't know where the number should fall, but I would start somewhere north of $30-35 million. Attendance requirements are fine and dandy but easily manipulated and haven't worked as intended. I suppose you could have both but programs on the borderline are subject to down cycles which can negatively affect attendance. But if they're willing to spend the money to improve play on the field and market their program, they shouldn't be penalized if they fall below attendance thresholds. If they're not willing to spend, it'll take care of itself. Down to FCS they go.

I think you'd also want "football-only budget" to be some component of that though, since we're talking about differences between two football-only subdivisions.

Some schools may have a comparatively high total athletics budget but low football-only budget. The Ivy League schools, for example...sponsor a lot of sports that most schools don't...fencing, lacrosse, rowing, sailing, crew, squash. They might meet the new "requirement" for FBS based on athletics budget because of the costs of all of those sports, but might not if we look at football-only budget.

On the other hand, you might have a school that wouldn't meet the overall budget requirements, but would meet the football-only budget. I don't know who might fit this description, but it'd be something like a school that only sponsors the minimum amount of sports that the NCAA and their conference requires, puts the minimum amount into all their non-football sports (based on NCAA and Title IX requirements), and puts everything else into football.

Not saying football-only budget would be the only criteria, but it'd be important to look at if we're talking about school's football programs.

[walliver]

This seems like an appropriate thread to drop this info...

https://twitter.com/appstatesports/status/1265368625973800962

App State will never bring football back to the SoCon and their olympic sports probably wouldn't be welcome back. But I can't imagine that flying non-revenue sports all across the southeast and Texas is a particularly effective use of resources.

They may try to blame COVID, but these were cuts already in the pipeline.

These schools are burning lots of cash trying to pretend they are at the same level as Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio State.

[Bisonator]

I think you'd also want "football-only budget" to be some component of that though, since we're talking about differences between two football-only subdivisions.

Some schools may have a comparatively high total athletics budget but low football-only budget. The Ivy League schools, for example...sponsor a lot of sports that most schools don't...fencing, lacrosse, rowing, sailing, crew, squash. They might meet the new "requirement" for FBS based on athletics budget because of the costs of all of those sports, but might not if we look at football-only budget.

On the other hand, you might have a school that wouldn't meet the overall budget requirements, but would meet the football-only budget. I don't know who might fit this description, but it'd be something like a school that only sponsors the minimum amount of sports that the NCAA and their conference requires, puts the minimum amount into all their non-football sports (based on NCAA and Title IX requirements), and puts everything else into football.

Not saying football-only budget would be the only criteria, but it'd be important to look at if we're talking about school's football programs.
Yep agree with this too. The NCAA should have minimum budget requirements to be considered D1 in FB, MB and WB. Those are the 3 main sports that schools want to compete in and the schools should be grouped with like minded programs. Not sure what those minimums should be but you can probably go by the current numbers in P5, G5 and FCS. If your not willing to invest in the sport then you shouldn't be at the same level as the schools that are.

[Nor Eastern]

App State will never bring football back to the SoCon and their olympic sports probably wouldn't be welcome back. But I can't imagine that flying non-revenue sports all across the southeast and Texas is a particularly effective use of resources.

They may try to blame COVID, but these were cuts already in the pipeline.

These schools are burning lots of cash trying to pretend they are at the same level as Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Ohio State.


App State had 20 varsity teams. More than most of the G5. Now App has 17 sports. Still higher than the required number. App's Athletic Department doesn't run in the red so this cut is quite shocking and I know members of the Yosef Club that were flabbergasted by the news as both Tennis and Soccer were recruiting well into March of this year. Word is none of the 3 sports are gone forever, but it'd take a reorganization of conferences to bring them back.

[mvfcfan]

No one cares about women's basketball. I seriously hope ISU and the rest of the MVC is funding it at a bare minimum.

[lionsrking2]

I think you'd also want "football-only budget" to be some component of that though, since we're talking about differences between two football-only subdivisions.

Some schools may have a comparatively high total athletics budget but low football-only budget. The Ivy League schools, for example...sponsor a lot of sports that most schools don't...fencing, lacrosse, rowing, sailing, crew, squash. They might meet the new "requirement" for FBS based on athletics budget because of the costs of all of those sports, but might not if we look at football-only budget.

On the other hand, you might have a school that wouldn't meet the overall budget requirements, but would meet the football-only budget. I don't know who might fit this description, but it'd be something like a school that only sponsors the minimum amount of sports that the NCAA and their conference requires, puts the minimum amount into all their non-football sports (based on NCAA and Title IX requirements), and puts everything else into football.

Not saying football-only budget would be the only criteria, but it'd be important to look at if we're talking about school's football programs.

Good point, makes sense, though scholarship costs vary greatly from school to school. I used UL-Monroe as an example of an FBS school with an FCS budget, but it costs less for them to fund 85 scholarships than it does for UC-Davis to fund 63. Again, I don't know where the sweet spot is as far as total budget, but if you're capable of funding 85 FB scholarships, investing at least near the average G5 pay scale for coaching staff, support staff, recruiting budget, etc.; and still properly fund the minimal number of sports required to be FBS, then that's probably where it needs to be on the low end. But I fully recognize there are logistical holes in most ideas and the amounts would have be adjusted from time to time similar to how pro sports adjust salary caps.

[ST_Lawson]

More from the "reshaping of athletics departments" department:

Brown University is dropping men's & women's fencing, golf, squash, women's skiing, women's equestrian, and men's track, field and cross country. They are also moving their women's and coed sailing programs from club to varsity status.

https://twitter.com/RedditCFB/status/1266088557573267458

[Professor]

No one cares about women's basketball. I seriously hope ISU and the rest of the MVC is funding it at a bare minimum.

well damn

[DFW HOYA]

Not accurate--they are moving to club status, not being dropped.

Why would this be the case? A hint: "In the decade ending in 2018, Brown earned 2.8% of Ivy League titles, the lowest among member schools."

[ST_Lawson]

No one cares about women's basketball. I seriously hope ISU and the rest of the MVC is funding it at a bare minimum.

Not that it's a huge number either way, but the last few years our women's team has had higher attendance than the men's team. That'll happen when the women's team is in the "decent" to "pretty good" range and the men's team is an embarrassment to the game of basketball.

[Go Green]

Not accurate--they are moving to club status, not being dropped.

Why would this be the case? A hint: "In the decade ending in 2018, Brown earned 2.8% of Ivy League titles, the lowest among member schools."

Lack of success is certainly part of the equation.

I think a better guess is that Brown is in some financial trouble. The school's president was screaming loudly early on about reopening in the Fall.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/opinion/coronavirus-colleges-universities.html

[DFW HOYA]

I think a better guess is that Brown is in some financial trouble. The school's president was screaming loudly early on about reopening in the Fall.


It's all relative (Brown's endowment is last in the Ivy but still in the top 30 nationwide) but the type of sports cut were lower cost than football or hockey. Also, adding sailing (with its unusual multiple national championships structure) allows Bruno to claim more titles in a sport with far fewer rivals than, say, golf.

[Sitting Bull]

Sorry, but playing weekday night games in November just for the money to say, we are FBS, is ridiculous. They aren't doing this for the students or fans - so you really have to wonder.

The average fan thinks the MAC is FCS anyway.

[NY Crusader 2010]

Mush article. Reminds me one I read 10 years ago cheer-leading move-up efforts at UMASS.

Effectively, the reason for the MAC to remain FBS is revenue driven. However, the Catch-22 is that the extra revenue you gain by remaining FBS simply exists just for the purpose of spending more money just to remain FBS. And all the while you compete for nothing relevant nationally. Sorry but more people know about North Dakota State and JMU's programs than know that Miami (Ohio) and Central Michigan played for the MAC title last year. Couple other points that people like to bring up when arguing FOR FBS membership:

1) Bowl Games -- so much more exciting than cold-weather FCS playoff games in front of <10,000 fans, right? IMO, I'll take the playoffs. You get potentially 4-5 epic games where everything is on the line. The win-or-go-home mentality beats IMO, going to a dead-end bowl game against another team from a crappy G5 conference -- also in front of <10,000 fans. And the bowl system is rigged where the games have conference tie-ins where the P5 all play each other and the G5 all play each other. So the whole, "we might get into a bowl game and play somebody like Michigan or Penn State" factor is moot. Case in point: App State had a season for the ages last year at 11-1 and got rewarded with a bowl game against....Louisiana-Lafayette.

2) Guarantee Games -- Sure, G5 teams command larger guarantees than FCS opponents. But again, that extra coin only goes back into having to sustain higher expenses in order to stay on the power-college football hamster wheel. Another point -- as major conferences have expanded to 14 teams almost across the board, the P5 schools are playing MORE conference games and LESS out-of-conference games. This means if you're Troy or Toledo, your dream opportunities to go toe-to-toe against the big boys in the regular season are less abundant. The Big Ten, Pac 12 and even 10-team Big 12 all play nine-game conference schedules now if I'm not mistaken.

I guess I understand the sentiment of the Toledo Blade newspaper. The paper and the city are proud of their team, which has been a historically strong program for decades. Toledo has longtime major-college football roots -- if I'm not mistaken their 1970 team that won the Tangerine Bowl finished in the Top 10. They've also been the MAC's flagship program during my lifetime as a fan. So of all the schools in the MAC, a drop-down to FCS would be a major blow to their pride. But from my viewpoint, competing for national titles with North Dakota State and Montana would still keep the Toledo Rockets as relevant as they are now, if not more so.

[DFW HOYA]

I disagree with nearly every point above. here's why.


1) Bowl Games -- so much more exciting than cold-weather FCS playoff games in front of <10,000 fans, right? IMO, I'll take the playoffs. You get potentially 4-5 epic games where everything is on the line. The win-or-go-home mentality beats IMO, going to a dead-end bowl game against another team from a crappy G5 conference -- also in front of <10,000 fans.

Unless you live in Fargo, the average Eastern Michigan fan does not care about the playoffs. But they do care that EMU can sell its fan tickets to a bowl game in Detroit against a recognizable opponent (Pitt) before 34,765, ESPN, and a share of $2 million. That same fan would not trade this to play on a Saturday afternoon before 3,274 in Cape Girardeau. A team can sell a bowl appearance for recruiting, for season tickets, and it's a banner on their stadium. "NCAA Playoffs 2nd Round!" doesn't cut it.


Another point -- as major conferences have expanded to 14 teams almost across the board, the P5 schools are playing MORE conference games and LESS out-of-conference games.

Except many MAC teams are prized in non-conference games because they are a better quality win than dipping into the Sun Belt or to I-AA. The aforementioned EMU team got two SEC schools and Army on the schedule last year. Akron gets two Big 10 teams and BYU. Three games a year drops to one in I-AA..and so do the checks.


competing for national titles with North Dakota State and Montana would still keep the Toledo Rockets as relevant as they are now, if not more so. Outside of this board, who remembers the teams NDSU beat every year? Very, very few. Many football fans hear "North Dakota State" and still think it's the Division II championship. The MAC has 60 years at the major college level and are not well served by taking the same step back Holy Cross did, and never returned. Is Holy Cross as relevant today as in 1986?

Father Brooks said it best: "We have built a model for others to follow...and no one has followed."

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Some of the MAC schools should absolutely remain FBS imo. Toledo has a very good FBS program; far superior to numerous P5 programs. I was in Toledo in 2018 when they hosted "The U". The city was definitely jazzed up for the game. There were lots of cars with Rocket window flags driving around town. I drove by campus before heading to Ann Arbor for a Michigan game to check things out. It was pretty obvious the tailgating scene was awesome for that one big time game.

Ohio U, Northern Illinois, WMU, CMU and to some extent Buffalo can recruit and field solid to fringe Top 25 FBS teams imo. The problem is the bottom of the MAC (usually Akron, Kent State, Ball State, EMU) is at a middling FCS level.

Originally ESPN's weeknight "MACtion" deal gave the conference a big time boost and created sort of a cult like respect. However, in recent years the empty stadiums and random weeknight schedule has taken its toll. I feel like the conference "soldout" for TV money and once it started to dry up there was no plan B. Had the MAC stayed with the traditional Saturday scheduling I wonder if they would have peaked with 2 major bowl invites? Maybe no but the conference would be healthier?

[NY Crusader 2010]

I disagree with nearly every point above. here's why.



Unless you live in Fargo, the average Eastern Michigan fan does not care about the playoffs. But they do care that EMU can sell its fan tickets to a bowl game in Detroit against a recognizable opponent (Pitt) before 34,765, ESPN, and a share of $2 million. That same fan would not trade this to play on a Saturday afternoon before 3,274 in Cape Girardeau. A team can sell a bowl appearance for recruiting, for season tickets, and it's a banner on their stadium. "NCAA Playoffs 2nd Round!" doesn't cut it.



Except many MAC teams are prized in non-conference games because they are a better quality win than dipping into the Sun Belt or to I-AA. The aforementioned EMU team got two SEC schools and Army on the schedule last year. Akron gets two Big 10 teams and BYU. Three games a year drops to one in I-AA..and so do the checks.

Outside of this board, who remembers the teams NDSU beat every year? Very, very few. Many football fans hear "North Dakota State" and still think it's the Division II championship. The MAC has 60 years at the major college level and are not well served by taking the same step back Holy Cross did, and never returned. Is Holy Cross as relevant today as in 1986?

Father Brooks said it best: "We have built a model for others to follow...and no one has followed."



You made some great point DFW -- you're knowledge of the business of college football is second to few. However, as of 2020 the Sun Belt is a slightly better conference than the MAC. If you could buy stock in G5 conferences, the Sun Belt would definitely be a BUY, C-USA a SELL, the MAC a HOLD.

As far as EMU getting their dream match-up with Pitt in the Quick Lane Bowl, if everything you work for from the beginning of training camp culminates in a December bowl game against a 6-6 ACC team, I'll take the FCS Playoffs 10 times out of 10. It's extremely rare that the MAC will find it's champ in the position to get the ONE G5 New Year's Bowl slot.

And I like the MAC. I think it's a league with great passion, history and rivalries. Rock solid unlike the hodge-podge that other G5 conferences seem to be. I enjoyed watching the MAC Championship on ESPN2 last year. Both those teams would've been KILLED by NDSU or JMU FWIW.

[Panther88]

There are 64 schools outside the Power 5 with an athletics budget of $30 million or more. It's an interesting group, you can say that.

Akron
Alabama-Birmingham
Boise State
Bucknell
Buffalo
Cal Poly-SLO
Cal-Davis
Central Florida
Central Michigan
Charlotte
Cincinnati
Coastal Carolina
Colorado State
Columbia
Connecticut
Dartmouth
Delaware
East Carolina
Elon
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Fordham
Fresno St.
Georgetown
Georgia State
Hawaii
Holy Cross
Houston
James Madison
LA-Lafayette
Lehigh
Liberty
Marshall
Memphis
Miami OH
Middle Tennessee St.
Nevada-Reno
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Texas
Old Dominion
Pennsylvania
Princeton
Rice
Richmond
San Diego St.
San Jose St.
South Florida
Southern Methodist
Temple
Texas St.
Toledo
Troy
Tulane
Tulsa
UNLV
Utah State
UTEP
UTSA
Villanova
Western Michigan
William and Mary
Wyoming
Yale

Good info and good strong list.

I've seen Boise St, UNLV, Troy, and Houston very closely. Factually, BoiseSt & uofh have enough physical talent and coaching where they would instantly dominate fcs, imho.

I helped behind the scenes w/ $$$ corp/fin donations when UNT-Denton transitioned from Iaa to then Ia. Interesting promises forecasted & interesting results that came to fruition. The land purchase where the current stadium sits was also something I took part in. Odd times w/ the then LCS purchase/move.

[favorite football fan]

I am curious about a few things.

1. why did NDSU and Montana move to Div 1 in the first place if there is no significant advantage to being FBS? I mean NDSU could have won 16 D2 titles instead of just settling for 8 in D2. D2 has a rigorous playoff system. What was the overall advantage? Ohhh, you were better than Minnesota-Mankato or Augustana or Minnesota-Moorhead? Ohhh, you wanted to compete with the "big boys" of college football and college basketball? hmmmm, maybe these MAC schools are thinking the same thing.

2. do these comments here about staying FCS mean that any talk on this board about NDSU (or any team for that matter in FCS) moving up to FBS be considered "dumb" and "come on, we have gone over this a 1000 times"?

3. let's look at this from recruiting: would a potential recruit take the FBS route or FCS route if offered? Let's put this another way: does a recruit forego an offer from an FCS school and decide to go to D2? Let's carry this on: would I take an NAIA offer or go D2?

4. Overall and statistically speaking (and I am not talking about your N=1 anecdote i.e. my team picked up a guy from an FBS) but overall statistically, how many of these FBS transfers or grad transfers are going to FCS?

5. If given the chance, would NDSU move to the FBS if invited by an FBS conference or romanced by an FBS conference? I am not talking about the institution making the overtures but the conference trying to woo them in. Do you say no?

[Sitting Bull]

Well, not sure about NDSU, but Montana did say no when a group was trying to resurrect the WAC for FBS.

Montana didn’t independently move up to D1, their conference became D1AA when the ncaa reclassified in the early 80s, similar to the Ohio Valley.

NDSU saw a chance to upgrade at limited cost. I don’t think economics are such a big deal going D2 to FCS. It’s more a matter of who you want to play.

if NDSU were FBS, they would soon become the next Idaho. I think they like the pool they are swimming in and why not? They are winners and champions. They don’t give out national championship participation trophy’s for crappy G5 leagues.

[citdog]

Well, not sure about NDSU, but Montana did say no when a group was trying to resurrect the WAC for FBS.

Montana didn’t independently move up to D1, their conference became D1AA when the ncaa reclassified in the early 80s, similar to the Ohio Valley.

NDSU saw a chance to upgrade at limited cost. I don’t think economics are such a big deal going D2 to FCS. It’s more a matter of who you want to play.

if NDSU were FBS, they would soon become the next Idaho. I think they like the pool they are swimming in and why not? They are winners and champions. They don’t give out national championship participation trophy’s for crappy G5 leagues.

But they do give out crappy bowl game "champions" rings which are way better than national championship rings. xsmiley_wix

[cx500d]

I am curious about a few things.

1. why did NDSU and Montana move to Div 1 in the first place if there is no significant advantage to being FBS? I mean NDSU could have won 16 D2 titles instead of just settling for 8 in D2. D2 has a rigorous playoff system. What was the overall advantage? Ohhh, you were better than Minnesota-Mankato or Augustana or Minnesota-Moorhead? Ohhh, you wanted to compete with the "big boys" of college football and college basketball? hmmmm, maybe these MAC schools are thinking the same thing.

2. do these comments here about staying FCS mean that any talk on this board about NDSU (or any team for that matter in FCS) moving up to FBS be considered "dumb" and "come on, we have gone over this a 1000 times"?

3. let's look at this from recruiting: would a potential recruit take the FBS route or FCS route if offered? Let's put this another way: does a recruit forego an offer from an FCS school and decide to go to D2? Let's carry this on: would I take an NAIA offer or go D2?

4. Overall and statistically speaking (and I am not talking about your N=1 anecdote i.e. my team picked up a guy from an FBS) but overall statistically, how many of these FBS transfers or grad transfers are going to FCS?

5. If given the chance, would NDSU move to the FBS if invited by an FBS conference or romanced by an FBS conference? I am not talking about the institution making the overtures but the conference trying to woo them in. Do you say no?
We hadn’t won a div2 title since 1990, so I was a little surprised by the move myself.

[Bisonator]

I am curious about a few things.

1. why did NDSU and Montana move to Div 1 in the first place if there is no significant advantage to being FBS? I mean NDSU could have won 16 D2 titles instead of just settling for 8 in D2. D2 has a rigorous playoff system. What was the overall advantage? Ohhh, you were better than Minnesota-Mankato or Augustana or Minnesota-Moorhead? Ohhh, you wanted to compete with the "big boys" of college football and college basketball? hmmmm, maybe these MAC schools are thinking the same thing. NDSU moved to FCS because D2 lowered scholarship numbers and the better schools were all moving up like Northern Colorado, Cal-Poly, Cal-Davis, etc. In essence NDSU and much of the North Central Conference should have went D1AA when the initial division realignment occurred.

2. do these comments here about staying FCS mean that any talk on this board about NDSU (or any team for that matter in FCS) moving up to FBS be considered "dumb" and "come on, we have gone over this a 1000 times"? It depends, some of those discussion are dumb and have been beaten to death. There's a lot that goes into a decision to move up and it's up to each institution to make those decisions not some fans on a message board.

3. let's look at this from recruiting: would a potential recruit take the FBS route or FCS route if offered? Let's put this another way: does a recruit forego an offer from an FCS school and decide to go to D2? Let's carry this on: would I take an NAIA offer or go D2? Several of our recruits have indeed taken the FCS route over FBS offers. It really comes down to the best fit for each individual I suppose. If that person prefers a D2 school so be it, it doesn't make them a lesser person in the grand scheme of things.

4. Overall and statistically speaking (and I am not talking about your N=1 anecdote i.e. my team picked up a guy from an FBS) but overall statistically, how many of these FBS transfers or grad transfers are going to FCS? No idea on exact figures on this and really don't care anyway.

5. If given the chance, would NDSU move to the FBS if invited by an FBS conference or romanced by an FBS conference? I am not talking about the institution making the overtures but the conference trying to woo them in. Do you say no? That would depend on the conference and whether it's a good move for NDSU.
My answers to your questions are in red.

[DFW HOYA]

The only likely I-A invite NDSU would consider would be the Mountain West, but that would involve a new stadium of at least 40,000 seats, indoor or outdoor, to replace the Fargodome. It's a chicken-and-egg question because without it, the MWC will not look their way and with it, it's a considerable cost ($150-$300 million) that may not actually land an invite.

These are decisions bigger than football.

[Sader87]

I doubt anybody is moving up to FBS anytime soon given the state of the country/economy right now.

[NY Crusader 2010]

We hadn’t won a div2 title since 1990, so I was a little surprised by the move myself.

I remember when NDSU and SDSU moved up and transitioned to I-AA -- 2003 If I believe.

At the time, North Dakota and South Dakota were the only two states in the US besides Alaska to not have a Division I school (not counting DI hockey affiliates as UA-Fairbanks, UA-Anchorage and UND would've checked off those boxes).

As has been posted before, the Dakota schools and most of the North Central Conference, or whatever it's called, probably should have moved up to I-AA when the Montana's, Delaware's, Lehigh's and the UNH's of the world moved up from D-II. Had that happened in 1983, I wouldn't be surprised if North Dakota State had been part of the group that became I-A Big West Football members in the late 1990's. Some of these schools ended up in the WAC shortly after while the rest of the Big West re-badged as Sun Belt Football.

[cx500d]

I remember when NDSU and SDSU moved up and transitioned to I-AA -- 2003 If I believe.

At the time, North Dakota and South Dakota were the only two states in the US besides Alaska to not have a Division I school (not counting DI hockey affiliates as UA-Fairbanks, UA-Anchorage and UND would've checked off those boxes).

As has been posted before, the Dakota schools and most of the North Central Conference, or whatever it's called, probably should have moved up to I-AA when the Montana's, Delaware's, Lehigh's and the UNH's of the world moved up from D-II. Had that happened in 1983, I wouldn't be surprised if North Dakota State had been part of the group that became I-A Big West Football members in the late 1990's. Some of these schools ended up in the WAC shortly after while the rest of the Big West re-badged as Sun Belt Football.
Montana was too scared to allow ndsu into the big sky.

[citdog]

Montana was too scared to allow ndsu into the big sky.

Y'all were busy whipping cripples anyhow.