Why didn't the MAC go to I-AA?

[IndianaAppMan]

As I understand it, the SoCon, Southland, and Ivy League were the only conferences forced to 1-AA in 1982, after most of the other current conferences & teams went 1-AA in '78. If any others were, please explain the history.

This makes me curious why the MAC wasn't forced as well. I'm a new graduate student at Ball State, and their stadium doesn't look much larger or more impressive than any of the top FCS programs. For that matter, about half of the MAC averages under 20,000, some of which are averaging less than the non-enforced NCAA minimum of 15,000 (hardly comparable to what most of us know as the classic super-sized attendance of most BCS teams).

What I'm getting at is that 26 years ago, it seems like the MAC couldn't have been drawing many more people than these other conferences. They also weren't that much better, and still aren't. So why'd the MAC stay 1-A while other conferences didn't?




Side note: Last year, NDSU blew MAC champion Central Michigan out of the water by about 30 at CMU's house. Ball State, which was 3rd or 4th in the MAC, supposedly is big-time college football, yet there's no doubt in my mind that my college alma mater could march in and win easily in Muncie, as would much of the FCS top 10 or so. This isn't to put down the home of my graduate program; I'm merely pointing out that typical college football fans, BSU students included, don't understand how good the upper crest of the FCS is (i.e., MUCH better than their conference), and that's with 22 fewer schollies.

[Husky Alum]

Are you going to the Ball State/Northeastern game next week?

Where can a Husky fan making the roadie hang out before the game?

I think I'm staying in some town called Anderson, IN since I couldn't get a hotel in Muncie for the game.

[Herdman]

The MAC, C-USA (excluding Memphis), the WAC and the three academies should all be FCS.

Memphis, Louisville, Cinncinati, Vanderbelt, Duke, Northwestern, Baylor, the Catholic School in South Bend, IN, and Miami should all be in the same conference. Add Marquette, DePaul for basketball season.

[aztecjim]

I don't have all the details(I'll look it up if no one else does) but the MAC did drop for about five minutes. What "saved" them was a rule back then that if a majority of your conference was I-A then the whole conference could be I-A. I wish I could remember exactly but even a few bigger schools would have been forced down but stayed because of their conference.

[TexasTerror]

Some schools in the SLC actually had a choice to go I-A or I-AA in 1982. La-Lafayette stayed at the I-A level.

[DFW HOYA]

The Ivy League had as many as four teams which met the I-A attendance guidelines in 1982: Yale, Penn, Princeton, and Harvard, but they opted not to leave the other four behind.

The move down did not help Columbia. After four straight one win seasons from 1980-83, the Lions did not win another game until 1988.

Since the reclassification, Holy Cross is the only I-A school to have voluntarily moved down.

[appfan2008]

very interesting... Wouldnt it be something if it was like the EPL where the best fcs teams each year move up and the worst fbs schools move DOWN!

[elcid96]

very interesting... Wouldnt it be something if it was like the EPL where the best fcs teams each year move up and the worst fbs schools move DOWN!

Very cool concept. Earn your place in the big league.

[Model Citizen]

The Ivy League had as many as four teams which met the I-A attendance guidelines in 1982: Yale, Penn, Princeton, and Harvard, but they opted not to leave the other four behind.

I believe only Yale met the requirement. That is also the way it was reported at the time.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03EED71F38F930A35751C0A9649482 60


Since the reclassification, Holy Cross is the only I-A school to have voluntarily moved down.

Are you sure about that? The NCAA's football records book (pg. 186) says HC moved to I-AA in 1982, just like the Ivies.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/football_records_book/2007/2007_d1_football_records_book.pdf

Whether or not the Crusaders met the attendance standard, wasn't their 1982 schedule entirely composed of I-AAs? I was under the impression I-As had to play other I-As.

[McNeese72]

Some schools in the SLC actually had a choice to go I-A or I-AA in 1982. La-Lafayette stayed at the I-A level.

McNeese, along with La-Lafayette (or USL then), both met the requirements for I-A back then. McNeese, the attendance requirement, and USL, the stadium size requirement.

USL decided to break away from the conference and go I-A as and independent back then. McNeese opted to move down with the conference as a whole.

In my opinion, it has worked out for McNeese better than it did USL. At least, the McNeese fans have more fun than the ULL (USL) fans do.

Doc

[DFW HOYA]

I believe only Yale met the requirement. That is also the way it was reported at the time.

I stand corrected. I was at a D-III program at the time.... xlolx



Are you sure about that? The NCAA's football records book (pg. 186) says HC moved to I-AA in 1982, just like the Ivies.

This is one where I've seen different interpretations, namely, that HC's president opted to move down after turning down the Big East offer and perhaps the NCAA was going to send them down anyway. I think it was a mistake how HC turned down the offer to join the Big East in 1979--the impact on football (and basketball) is something that is not coming back again.

[UAalum72]

Even if the Ivies had stayed I-A at the time, they would have had to leave when the NCAA began to require I-A schools to fill 90% of the available scholarships - or else there would have been further torturing of the definition of what is or isn't athletic aid under the Ivy model.

[Sycamore51]

The MAC, C-USA (excluding Memphis), the WAC and the three academies should all be FCS.

Memphis, Louisville, Cinncinati, Vanderbelt, Duke, Northwestern, Baylor, the Catholic School in South Bend, IN, and Miami should all be in the same conference. Add Marquette, DePaul for basketball season.

I'm not sure I see your reasoning for putting these schools together? You've got 3 public schools and the rest private, not close in location, some can play football and some are awful. I'm not being a pain, I just don't see why they're grouped together.

[IndianaAppMan]

I'm not sure I see your reasoning for putting these schools together? You've got 3 public schools and the rest private, not close in location, some can play football and some are awful. I'm not being a pain, I just don't see why they're grouped together.

For what it's worth, I think he meant Miami, Ohio, not Miami, Florida. You have a valid point, though.



I don't count myself among those who believe that any team that has mostly losing seasons should be forced to FCS. Vanderbilt, for instance, hardly ever wins, but they certainly compete well within the SEC. Likewise, Northwestern, Maryland, Washington State, Kansas, Oregon State, and others may have losing seasons more often than not, but that does not mean they're not competitive.

I also would not include much of C-USA since many of their teams routinely defeat or at least compete closely with BCS conference programs. They are able to draw crowds that resemble other FBS programs, which also differentiates them from the programs that really should be FCS. Also, I certainly would not include much of the Mountain West. Contrary to what many people would say, the Mountain West overall is not far off from the strength of the ACC or Big East, wins-wise or attendance-wise.

Having said that, there are some programs which just seem like they'd fit better in the FCS. Temple comes to mind immediately. They've been atrocious for so long; logic tells me that FCS would give them a fresh start. Forgetting for a moment how the CAA will soon be bigger than it may want to be, Temple would be a punching bag for a year or two in that conference but soon could be a contender. They'd have a GREAT rivalry waiting for them at Villanova, plus Georgetown would make a good OOC rival. With a better chance to win games, they could probably recruit better athletes in FCS than they could in the FBS, where players just know they're destined for 1-11 seasons. Now that they're in the MAC and still not winning, they can't even get bowl money from the Big East's BCS contract.

Others I would include as good candidates to move to FCS are most (not all) of the MAC, WAC, & Sun Belt. With some notable exceptions, these conferences are not FBS-quality, and some wouldn't make the FCS playoffs with their current rosters. Most teams' attendance is more FCS-like than FBS.

Also, contrary to a notion that seems popular on AGS, I wouldn't include Duke, either, as a candidate to move to FCS. Duke has no motivation to leave, as they reap millions from the ACC's contract with the BCS. The ACC would have to motive to kick Duke out, either. UNC, NC State, & Wake Forest love having them in there, plus they bring tons of prominence for the conference thanks to b-ball, not to mention academics. You can't expel them from the ACC for football alone. That's not how the ACC has ever or will ever work. Period.

[Bull Fan]

Temple is in a bad position. The campus is in a bad area, and anyone worth recruiting in-state is either headed to Pitt, Penn State or Maryland. The borderline players could opt for 'Nova or Delaware (who would both beat up on Temple...). Geographic rivalry with anyone else in the MAC doesn't exist.

Getting booted from the BE, I would guess they wanted conference affiliation to stabilize some semblance of an identity and to have a manageable travel budget for their various teams.

Hey, that's what you get when your biggest alum is Bill Cosby. Karma is having terrible athletic teams when such a racist old punk runs around wearing Temple hats and shirts.

"Hey, hey, hey!!!"

[DFW HOYA]

Having said that, there are some programs which just seem like they'd fit better in the FCS. Temple comes to mind immediately. They've been atrocious for so long; logic tells me that FCS would give them a fresh start.

Where would they play? They sold Temple Stadium a while back and the Linc isn't the place for CAA games.

(What's Temple Stadium?)
http://home.comcast.net/~ghostsofthegridiron/pic_Temple.jpg

[appfan2008]

no but the georgia dome isnt either and that is about to happen

[I-AA Fan]

Two things:

1. The rule was either 30,000 capacity or 15k average. Most stadiums in the MAC are at 30k total capacity. Back then most any MAC school also averaged 15k.

2. Around 1980, the MAC added a few teams in the majority of schools met the rules, so the remaining were "grandfathered".

I also think that most I-AA/FCS schools think they are more than they are in the eyes of the college football world. Back then, I am showing my age, there were the "big-6" and the rest ...just as it is in basketball even today. The remaining IA teams (what are call mid-major today), MAC & WAC winners played each other for what was known as a "IA championship". The big-6 schools were all called DI or Division-I. Fro some time it was called the "California raisin bowl" and came under a couple of other names as well. Also, MAC schools are IA/FBS, and can easily defeat the vast majority of I-AA/FCS teams ...sometimes people forget that. Just as those of you upset right now forget there are more that 25 I-AA schools in the country.

[IndianaAppMan]

The borderline players could opt for 'Nova or Delaware (who would both beat up on Temple...).
I completely agree. In fact, I would bet that the borderline players already go to 'Nova or UD, anyway, where they have a chance. Temple right now, even with their current 85 schollies, wouldn't even be in the top half of FCS, if you ranked them 1-122. But my argument is that if they became FCS, they could build their program up to compete with Nova, UD, Georgetown, & nearby Towson and have a much more realistic shot at respectability within a short period of time.

If any program is an exception to the notion that being FBS equals more respect than FCS, no matter what, it's Temple. I cannot imagine Temple being favored in a game against any of the top FCS programs. Any college football analyst, no matter how erroneously low the portray the FCS, wouldn't put the top FCS programs behind Temple.


Geographic rivalry with anyone else in the MAC doesn't exist. Getting booted from the BE, I would guess they wanted conference affiliation to stabilize some semblance of an identity and to have a manageable travel budget for their various teams.

The MAC was a quick fix for Temple, nothing more. Besides, the MAC has historically had a tendency to just take whoever. (Remember when UCF was in the MAC?) Every FBS team HAS to be in a conference these days or they'll never get on TV, because TV contracts are done with conferences, not individual schools. Army, Navy, & Notre Dame are the only exceptions because they have enough of a draw not to need one; each of them has special bowl tie-ins despite the lack of affiliation with a conference.

Anyway, I agree. Temple makes no sense in the MAC. Other than Temple & Buffalo (which still isn't too far from some of the Ohio schools) the MAC is a truly Midwestern , geographically-compact conference. Temple is east coast all the way. Besides, they're not winning much in the MAC. The CAA would be a much better fit.

[McNeese72]

Two things:

1. The rule was either 30,000 capacity or 15k average. Most stadiums in the MAC are at 30k total capacity.

I thought I remembered the attendance figure was 17K back then. Didn't the NCAA recently (in the last 10 years) do away with the 30K stadium thing and drop the attendance average figure to 15K?

Doc

[IndianaAppMan]

Two things:

1. The rule was either 30,000 capacity or 15k average. Most stadiums in the MAC are at 30k total capacity. Back then most any MAC school also averaged 15k.

2. Around 1980, the MAC added a few teams in the majority of schools met the rules, so the remaining were "grandfathered".

Great information! I've been looking for that answer on the internet and haven't been able to find it. The cut-off must have been close for the MAC. The Ivy League, SLC, & SWAC must have been close as well, since many of those schools had 15K attendance or 30K capacity.

For the record, Ball State's stadium is about 25K after their recent expansion, which puts them on par with Montana. The seats are rarely filled, though. I don't know the capacities of other MAC stadiums, but many of the teams are teetering around 15K attendance, which is more comparable to most FCS programs than to most FBS programs.


I also think that most I-AA/FCS schools think they are more than they are in the eyes of the college football world. Back then, I am showing my age, there were the "big-6" and the rest ...just as it is in basketball even today. The remaining IA teams (what are call mid-major today), MAC & WAC winners played each other for what was known as a "IA championship". The big-6 schools were all called DI or Division-I. Fro some time it was called the "California raisin bowl" and came under a couple of other names as well. Also, MAC schools are IA/FBS, and can easily defeat the vast majority of I-AA/FCS teams ...sometimes people forget that. Just as those of you upset right now forget there are more that 25 I-AA schools in the country.

Again, good info!

You're right. Most people would say the average MAC team is better than a top-quality FCS team, and certainly better than a mid- or lower-quality FCS team. I'm not sure how accurate that is, though. Central Michigan was last year's MAC champ. They came thisclose to beating Purdue in their bowl, yet they were blown out by a team that was DII not long ago.

[Model Citizen]

I thought I remembered the attendance figure was 17K back then. Didn't the NCAA recently (in the last 10 years) do away with the 30K stadium thing and drop the attendance average figure to 15K?

Doc

You are correct.

[IndianaAppMan]

A lot of this debate comes down to fundamental perspectives of how Division 1 football should be divided.

One camp says that much of the Sun Belt, MAC, WAC, & some others (I'll just call them "mid-major" for now) should enter the FCS. This camp points out their consistent losses (often blowouts) to BCS program. It highlights the marquee victories of FCS programs over these programs, and points out the victories of FCS programs over BCS teams as well. This camp also tends to overlook when mid-majors upset BCS teams. It ignores the fact that mid-majors still accrue much more money than do the vast majority of FCS teams, therefore having little motive to become FCS.

Another camp says that many of the top FCS programs should become FBS programs. It points to their victories over FBS teams, especially teams in BCS conferences. They argue that Boise State, UConn, and to a lesser extent, Troy, Florida Atlantic, and Marshall prove that a successful transition can be done. They argue that the FBS would offer more exposure. This camp also tends to overlook the heavy costs of becoming FBS. They ignore how consistent winning in FBS is a lot less likely, and that ultimately fan interest & support can decrease because of that. (Ball State's lukewarm support thanks to mediocrity vs. NDSU's, Montana's, App State's, Ga. Southern's, etc.)

So which camp are you in? xeyebrowx

[MSU_77]

So which camp are you in? xeyebrowx

The more the NCAA screws around with the FCS playoffs and member schedules, the more I'm in the "move to FBS" camp.

[McTailGator]

Some schools in the SLC actually had a choice to go I-A or I-AA in 1982. La-Lafayette stayed at the I-A level.


McNeese met the I-A requirements (we were really the only ones that did without having to build a bigger stadium or sell tickets to corporations with no intention on using them). We chose to go along with the SLC to I-AA.

[yosef1969]

So which camp are you in? xeyebrowx

Given those options I'm in the move to FBS camp but in reality I'd like a third option, one where teams from non-BCS conferences and the Top FCS teams create a subdivision that requires minimum schollys set at around 75 with minimum attendence/capacity requirements.

Someone with more knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't ECU in the SoCon then and decided rather be moved down with the rest of the conference, went independent in order to stay I-A?

[IndianaAppMan]

Given those options I'm in the move to FBS camp but in reality I'd like a third option, one where teams from non-BCS conferences and the Top FCS teams create a subdivision that requires minimum schollys set at around 75 with minimum attendence/capacity requirements.

i think that's a great idea, actually. i've thought of similar scenarios myself. it would be quite a pickle to work out, though. for example, mid-major teams love getting paydays from the Big Ten and other BCS conferences, and those conferences love to use them in order to have 8 home games (vs. 4 away)

in addition, rivalries that have been around for a long time would be sure to split, as some would inevitably split. certainly the whole SoCon wouldn't be in the in-between division. BYU & Utah would likely stay in the upper division while Wyoming wouldn't.

clearly there's no easy answer, but it would be nice if there was a way that the playing field was leveled in all subdivisions. the current circumstances make it impossible for a non-BCS team to win the national title. that's one of the things i like about the NFL: every team has a realistic chance of winning a Super Bowl within 3-5 years.


Someone with more knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't ECU in the SoCon then and decided rather be moved down with the rest of the conference, went independent in order to stay I-A?
correct, and with that they lost pretty much every rivalry and what little relevance they had within the region. it's hard for them to grow their fanbase when their closest opponent is Marshall.

Contrast that to ASU in the SoCon, where all but one conference rival is in a bordering state, or to the ACC, where 8/12 teams are in NC or bordering states.

[yosef1969]

you got it righ! and with that they lost pretty much every rivalry and what little relevance they had within the region. it's hard for them to grow their fanbase when their closest opponent is Marshall.

Contrast that to ASU in the SoCon, where all but one conference rival is in a bordering state, or to the ACC, where 8/12 teams are in NC or bordering states.

Well I can understand your take on it but I would rather be in their position over the long haul. There fanbase is just fine. Their biggest rivals are non-conference (ACC schools), but they have a great schedule and draw consistent sellout crowds.

All comes down to what you value most, for me the schedule is the most important piece.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[I-AA Fan]

I thought I remembered the attendance figure was 17K back then. Didn't the NCAA recently (in the last 10 years) do away with the 30K stadium thing and drop the attendance average figure to 15K?

Doc

Yes they did drop the capacity. It may have been 17k at one point.

[IndianaAppMan]

Well I can understand your take on it but I would rather be in their position over the long haul. There fanbase is just fine. Their biggest rivals are non-conference (ACC schools), but they have a great schedule and draw consistent sellout crowds.

All comes down to what you value most, for me the schedule is the most important piece.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

i don't think we disagree. i can certainly understand that perspective.

ECU basically had to have the legislature force North Carolina teams to play them. any rivalry is only from ECU's perspective, regardless of how many times ECU beats UNC or State. it's hard to call it a rivalry when they don't play each other on a regular basis.

i agree that they do have a great schedule out-of-conference, especially this year. certainly, if the powers that be ever sent ASU to the FBS level, I would hope we'd get in a conference with ECU. The flatlands-versus-mountains would make for a great in-state rivalry, plus it would make both schools more appealing to schedule to the ACC schools.

[JetsLuvver]

Temple should build an on-campus stadium and join either the Patriot or NEC. Buffalo probably belongs in one of those two conferences also.

Idaho and Utah State should be Big Sky and the entire Sun Belt should be an FCS conference.

[IndianaAppMan]

the entire Sun Belt should be an FCS conference.

using that same logic, it would be pretty easy to say the Big South should be Division II. the sun belt is pretty new. i bet that in five years it will have much more of a national presence, just like the BSC will in 1-AA football.

[Bull Fan]

I'm a Buffalo alum from when they were still I-AA and mediocre / bad. Last year, improvement, this year hopefully further improvement. The real litmus test is going to be the UTEP game.

Buffalo belongs in the NEC or Patriot League like Bryant belongs in the Pac-10. Wrong fit for either league.

Buffalo (UB) is to the MAC the way Penn State is to the Big 10... somewhat nearby geographically, but not exactly part of the historical fabric of their respective conferences.

Ideally, you see the top I-AA teams move up to I-A on a yearly basis, where the crappier teams move down (and probably stay down) to I-AA, like the aforementioned Premier League. However that's completely unrealisitic given the stodgy and unwilling NCAA and the member conferences. Schedules being made up years in advance, traditional rivalries (which I love about college ball) and conference affiliations would be the obvious logistical hurdles.

And think of the logic where you see Appy State winning the NC in I-AA, and moving up to I-A the following year, unable to realistically defend their 'won-on-the-playing-field' championship. They'd move up to the MAC or C-USA, and land in limbo. Not exactly a reward for a great prior season....

I'm fine with the lay of the land. Just like in I-AA, not every team should be in line to play for the BCS national championship (********* Championship Series). In I-AA you have great football being played, and some good talent that's not over-exposed by the ESPN culture. So you don't have 90K at a game; am I the only one who finds these smaller stadiums as the essence of the collegiate game?

Football is football; you need 120 yards of property, 22 kids and a ball. Game on.

[I-AA Fan]

Great information! I've been looking for that answer on the internet and haven't been able to find it. The cut-off must have been close for the MAC. The Ivy League, SLC, & SWAC must have been close as well, since many of those schools had 15K attendance or 30K capacity.

For the record, Ball State's stadium is about 25K after their recent expansion, which puts them on par with Montana. The seats are rarely filled, though. I don't know the capacities of other MAC stadiums, but many of the teams are teetering around 15K attendance, which is more comparable to most FCS programs than to most FBS programs.



Again, good info!

You're right. Most people would say the average MAC team is better than a top-quality FCS team, and certainly better than a mid- or lower-quality FCS team. I'm not sure how accurate that is, though. Central Michigan was last year's MAC champ. They came thisclose to beating Purdue in their bowl, yet they were blown out by a team that was DII not long ago.

I could be wrong on this, but I seem to remember when Kent state only won a single game in 1994 ..it was eventual I-AA champs YSU. They also played Boise State & BSU won by just a couple of points. Those were your two finalists in I-AA that year. That was the second worst team in the MAC ...probably the worst. Although YSU and Kent are minutes apart and rivals ...so I will cut them some slack. Now the I-AA game is so much improved, but I would still say that very few teams outside of the top-25 could win a MAC game. Continuing with Kent as the example; since 2000, the last three I-AA/FCS teams to face Kent State were Cal-Poly, New Hampshire, and SeMS ...all fairly good to very good teams. Kent went 3-0 in those three games; yet Kent's overall record combined in same years was 9-24.

[IndianaAppMan]

Just like in I-AA, not every team should be in line to play for the BCS national championship (********* Championship Series).

Here's the difference: In I-AA, if you win 8-9 games, you WILL go to the playoffs and you WILL have a chance to win the national championship. SWAC, Ivy League, and Pioneer League teams don't go to the playoffs because they CHOOSE not to go. Among the other leagues, if they don't win, it's because their program just didn't have what it takes.

In 1-A, if you win all your games, but you're not in one of the power-controlling conferences, you'll be darn lucky to finish in the Top 12 and go to a BCS bowl, but you'll never have a shot at the national championship. Unlike the SWAC, Ivy, & Pioneerthere's no choice for these teams. All they can do is jockey for position and hope (in vain) that one day they'll get invited to a BCS conference.

In 1-AA, every team has a fair chance at winning the national championship if they (1) qualify for the playoffs and (2) choose to accept an invitation to the playoffs. In 1-A, only BCS teams (plus Notre Dame) can even bother having the national championship as a goal, ever.

[OSBF]

Today the reality is we have a 3 class system. We have FCS, FBS, and BCS. The gap between a BCS school and a FBS school is nearly as large as the FBS/FCS gap. I like FCS and BCS, because both have the oportunity to play for a national Championship. If your a kid at a run of the mill FBS program, the absolute best you can hope for is to play in the Ratt Feces Bowl brought to you by the New York City Street, Sewer, and Sanitation Employees Union played at 900 in the morning on Wed on ESPN64. NO BODY CARES!!!!!! It doesn't mean or prove anything at all.

Non BCS FBS is like purgatory. You're trapped in a situation where "THEY" won't let you even have a chance to play for anything meaningful let alone win anything that anybody gives a rip about and you have no way out.

[IndianaAppMan]

I could be wrong on this, but I seem to remember when Kent state only won a single game in 1994 ..it was eventual I-AA champs YSU. They also played Boise State & BSU won by just a couple of points. Those were your two finalists in I-AA that year. That was the second worst team in the MAC ...probably the worst. Although YSU and Kent are minutes apart and rivals ...so I will cut them some slack. Now the I-AA game is so much improved, but I would still say that very few teams outside of the top-25 could win a MAC game. Continuing with Kent as the example; since 2000, the last three I-AA/FCS teams to face Kent State were Cal-Poly, New Hampshire, and SeMS ...all fairly good to very good teams. Kent went 3-0 in those three games; yet Kent's overall record combined in same years was 9-24.

I'd be interested in what the scores of those games were. Kent State does have a full 22 more schollies than 1-AA teams. They won't be affected by fatigue the way 1-A teams will.

[Bull Fan]

In 1-AA, every team has a fair chance at winning the national championship if they (1) qualify for the playoffs and (2) choose to accept an invitation to the playoffs. In 1-A, only BCS teams (plus Notre Dame) can even bother having the national championship as a goal, ever.

Yes, I probably should have qualified my statement that "beyond the field of 16", you have no place to think about greatness. 8 wins? HUUGE "if"; 9 wins? That's still a maybe ;)

[PantherRob82]

Also, MAC schools are IA/FBS, and can easily defeat the vast majority of I-AA/FCS teams ...sometimes people forget that. Just as those of you upset right now forget there are more that 25 I-AA schools in the country.

UNI was regularly beating MAC teams. How many MAC teams fell to FCS opponents last year? I can think of at least 2. (CMU and NIU)

[KAUMASS]

Here is Harvard's take....Makes me laugh when the Harvard President is talking about other schools being greedy and wanting all the money. What is Harvard's annual endowment? 50 Billion or some crazy number like that...? Some interesting stuff in this article about the CFA back in the 80's...

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=345707

[pwbnd]

Side note: Last year, NDSU blew MAC champion Central Michigan out of the water by about 30 at CMU's house. Ball State, which was 3rd or 4th in the MAC, supposedly is big-time college football, yet there's no doubt in my mind that my college alma mater could march in and win easily in Muncie, as would much of the FCS top 10 or so. This isn't to put down the home of my graduate program; I'm merely pointing out that typical college football fans, BSU students included, don't understand how good the upper crest of the FCS is (i.e., MUCH better than their conference), and that's with 22 fewer schollies.

Just for the record...NDSU went into Muncie in 2006 and beat Ball St. 29-24. We love playing MAC teams.

[DFW HOYA]

Here's the difference: In I-AA, if you win 8-9 games, you WILL go to the playoffs and you WILL have a chance to win the national championship. SWAC, Ivy League, and Pioneer League teams don't go to the playoffs because they CHOOSE not to go. Among the other leagues, if they don't win, it's because their program just didn't have what it takes.


Oh, not this again.

SWAC and Ivy teams choose not to go. Pioneer teams are ignored.

So were NEC and MAAC teams, too. On the former MAAC, recalling Georgetown's 9 win seasons in 1998 and 1999 that merited not a whiff of interest from the I-AA playoff committee, or Duquesne's 10-1 mark in 2000 and undefeated regular season in 2002. NEC teams can tell similar stories.

Bottom line, unfair as it may be, non-scholarship teams are simply not welcome at the playoff table by the committee, regardless of record.

[WCU81]

The MAC was re-classified to I-AA for the 1982 season. They returned to I-A classification in 1983.

East Carolina which had left the Southern Conference following the 1976 season was re-classified to I-AA in 1982 but appealed and were returned to I-A status immeadiately.

[IndianaAppMan]

Oh, not this again.

SWAC and Ivy teams choose not to go. Pioneer teams are ignored.

So were NEC and MAAC teams, too. On the former MAAC, recalling Georgetown's 9 win seasons in 1998 and 1999 that merited not a whiff of interest from the I-AA playoff committee, or Duquesne's 10-1 mark in 2000 and undefeated regular season in 2002. NEC teams can tell similar stories.

Bottom line, unfair as it may be, non-scholarship teams are simply not welcome at the playoff table by the committee, regardless of record.

good point. i guess i just misunderstood something. i've assumed that any conference composed of 6 or more teams that has been together for 5 or more years will get an auto berth for its champion (i.e., the "6/5 rule"). Since the pioneer has been together for many years now, i assumed they chose not to go to the playoffs b/c they weren't given new auto berths with the Big South & NEC. the reasoning, as i understood it, was that these schools felt it wasn't right academically for the players to play so many games through finals (hypocritical when baseball & basketball schedules are considered, but that's another matter).

so why was the NEC able to garner auto bids while the Pioneer was not? xeyebrowx

[Herdman]

I'm not sure I see your reasoning for putting these schools together? You've got 3 public schools and the rest private, not close in location, some can play football and some are awful. I'm not being a pain, I just don't see why they're grouped together.
A) Travel doesn't matter in today's NCAA BCS/FBS sports.
B) Miami and Duke are the only ones that belongs in the conference they are currently in, but it makes it much more interesting have them in this conference verses the ACC.
C) Public/Private doesn't matter in confernece alignment...more over, these schools don't belong in the conference they participate in currently.

[Herdman]

For what it's worth, I think he meant Miami, Ohio, not Miami, Florida. You have a valid point, though.



I don't count myself among those who believe that any team that has mostly losing seasons should be forced to FCS. Vanderbilt, for instance, hardly ever wins, but they certainly compete well within the SEC. Likewise, Northwestern, Maryland, Washington State, Kansas, Oregon State, and others may have losing seasons more often than not, but that does not mean they're not competitive.

I also would not include much of C-USA since many of their teams routinely defeat or at least compete closely with BCS conference programs. They are able to draw crowds that resemble other FBS programs, which also differentiates them from the programs that really should be FCS. Also, I certainly would not include much of the Mountain West. Contrary to what many people would say, the Mountain West overall is not far off from the strength of the ACC or Big East, wins-wise or attendance-wise.

Having said that, there are some programs which just seem like they'd fit better in the FCS. Temple comes to mind immediately. They've been atrocious for so long; logic tells me that FCS would give them a fresh start. Forgetting for a moment how the CAA will soon be bigger than it may want to be, Temple would be a punching bag for a year or two in that conference but soon could be a contender. They'd have a GREAT rivalry waiting for them at Villanova, plus Georgetown would make a good OOC rival. With a better chance to win games, they could probably recruit better athletes in FCS than they could in the FBS, where players just know they're destined for 1-11 seasons. Now that they're in the MAC and still not winning, they can't even get bowl money from the Big East's BCS contract.

Others I would include as good candidates to move to FCS are most (not all) of the MAC, WAC, & Sun Belt. With some notable exceptions, these conferences are not FBS-quality, and some wouldn't make the FCS playoffs with their current rosters. Most teams' attendance is more FCS-like than FBS.

Also, contrary to a notion that seems popular on AGS, I wouldn't include Duke, either, as a candidate to move to FCS. Duke has no motivation to leave, as they reap millions from the ACC's contract with the BCS. The ACC would have to motive to kick Duke out, either. UNC, NC State, & Wake Forest love having them in there, plus they bring tons of prominence for the conference thanks to b-ball, not to mention academics. You can't expel them from the ACC for football alone. That's not how the ACC has ever or will ever work. Period.No I meant Miami, FLA. Why would I want to see Miami of Ohio in the same conference with Duke, Vanderbelt and the Catholic School in South Bend, IN?

[IndianaAppMan]

No I meant Miami, FLA. Why would I want to see Miami of Ohio in the same conference with Duke, Vanderbelt and the Catholic School in South Bend, IN?

I don't know. Why would you want those schools in the same conference as Louisville, Cincinnati, and Memphis? Why should Miami, Fla be in the same conference as Baylor or Vanderbilt?

The reason I thought you meant Miami of Ohio was because of proximity to L'Ville, Cincy, Notre Dame, & Northwestern, but that was before I read your A-B-C post.

[IndianaAppMan]

Just for the record...NDSU went into Muncie in 2006 and beat Ball St. 29-24. We love playing MAC teams.

I've got to admit that NDSU deserves a lot more credit than they get for knocking off FBS teams.

I'm still not sure if this is an example of why the MAC really should be FBS or why NDSU, App & others should be FBS.

[UAalum72]

good point. i guess i just misunderstood something. i've assumed that any conference composed of 6 or more teams that has been together for 5 or more years will get an auto berth for its champion (i.e., the "6/5 rule"). Since the pioneer has been together for many years now, i assumed they chose not to go to the playoffs b/c they weren't given new auto berths with the Big South & NEC. the reasoning, as i understood it, was that these schools felt it wasn't right academically for the players to play so many games through finals (hypocritical when baseball & basketball schedules are considered, but that's another matter).

so why was the NEC able to garner auto bids while the Pioneer was not? xeyebrowx
Because a conference also has to actually ask for an autobid. The Pioneer League, by a decision of its university presidents and thru its moonlighting, conflicted-of-interest commissioner Patty Viverito, has never applied for a bid. I don't think academics and finals are really a factor in their decision, only some idealized concept of 'true student-athletes' without athletic scholarships and without a post-season travel budget

[813Jag]

A) Travel doesn't matter in today's NCAA BCS/FBS sports.
B) Miami and Duke are the only ones that belongs in the conference they are currently in, but it makes it much more interesting have them in this conference verses the ACC.
C) Public/Private doesn't matter in confernece alignment...more over, these schools don't belong in the conference they participate in currently.
Why don't Miami and Duke belong in the ACC? xconfusedx

[Bull Fan]

Good point about the travel budget issue. In I-AA, getting to the playoffs could be a money-losing endeavor. Bidding for playoff home games and travel expenses could break the bank for the lesser-funded programs out there.

[I-AA Fan]

I'd be interested in what the scores of those games were. Kent State does have a full 22 more schollies than 1-AA teams. They won't be affected by fatigue the way 1-A teams will.

Not that I am a Golden Flash fan, but here are their last 5 I-AA games ...all at home & all wins. Kent did not have a winning record in any of these years:

W 09-08-2001 38 Bucknell (PA) 17 Kent, OH
W 08-29-2002 34 New Hampshire 7 Kent, OH
W 09-13-2003 16 Youngstown St. (OH) 13 Kent, OH
W 09-11-2004 38 Liberty (VA) 10 Kent, OH
W 09-10-2005 33 Southeast Missouri St. 12 Kent, OH

Ironically, the last time Kent State had a winning record was in the year 2000, and they lost their I-AA game:

L 09-16-2000 20 Youngstown St. (OH) 26 Kent, OH

My point is just to remind people that we need to look at things in perspective. I would like to see my team join any IA conference. Good point on the scholarships. Although something else that many fans do not realize ...is that many colleges (although they have 63 or 85 to give) cannot afford to fund all of their available scholarships ...more so in the past then present.

[FiniteMan]

I'm a Buffalo alum from when they were still I-AA and mediocre / bad. Last year, improvement, this year hopefully further improvement. The real litmus test is going to be the UTEP game.

Buffalo belongs in the NEC or Patriot League like Bryant belongs in the Pac-10. Wrong fit for either league.

Buffalo (UB) is to the MAC the way Penn State is to the Big 10... somewhat nearby geographically, but not exactly part of the historical fabric of their respective conferences.

Ideally, you see the top I-AA teams move up to I-A on a yearly basis, where the crappier teams move down (and probably stay down) to I-AA, like the aforementioned Premier League. However that's completely unrealisitic given the stodgy and unwilling NCAA and the member conferences. Schedules being made up years in advance, traditional rivalries (which I love about college ball) and conference affiliations would be the obvious logistical hurdles.

And think of the logic where you see Appy State winning the NC in I-AA, and moving up to I-A the following year, unable to realistically defend their 'won-on-the-playing-field' championship. They'd move up to the MAC or C-USA, and land in limbo. Not exactly a reward for a great prior season....

I'm fine with the lay of the land. Just like in I-AA, not every team should be in line to play for the BCS national championship (********* Championship Series). In I-AA you have great football being played, and some good talent that's not over-exposed by the ESPN culture. So you don't have 90K at a game; am I the only one who finds these smaller stadiums as the essence of the collegiate game?

Football is football; you need 120 yards of property, 22 kids and a ball. Game on.

Really this is the attitude we all should have.

I think what gets lost in the upgrade moritorium is that the NCAA is almost certainly looking at ways to make playing football less of a money pit. Almost all football schools at all levels are losing money on it and I think you'll see the next round of rules specifically aimed at that. What might they be? Dunno, But I'll take a stab at what I think might work and possibly be accepted.

I think the idea of a 3rd level was floated and shot down by the universities, but frankly that does seem to be where the NCAA needs to try to take the universities. I'd lasso in DII football and make it 4 tiers.

I also think dislocating football from everything else ---like Hockey --- is probably a good idea. Especially below FBS level. That way whatever your classification and affiliation is in football, all you have to do to qualify as D1 is sponsor enough sports. That simplifies the fight of dropping conferences like the Pioneer, Patriot, Ivy to DII. At that point they have no leg to stand on anyway -- the Ivy and patriot aren't losing their tourney bids. Frankly it is an easy out for them as their programs have twice as many athletes participating in them as most FBS schools. That is expensive even without scholarships. Like in the 80's the path of least resistance will probably hold. The Ivy can still play FCS schools if they want, claim amateurism, and can be a power at DII. Regardless of level, when you figure in participants and equipment, with the possible exception of Hockey in certain areas, football is the most expensive sport you can start. I would make any DII or higher football program (regardless of whether they give scholarships or not) count towards the total scholarship sports count. Afterall, the cost of running a non-scholarship football program is far more expensive than running a full scholarship D1 Tennis program.

Maybe 85 full Scholarships at the BCS level, 65 full at the FBS level, 30-50 full at the FCS level and up to 50 partial at the Div II level. I would say you only allow partial scholarships at the DII level. Let every tier be able to play schools from the tier just lower.

Schools like the upper half of the Lone Star Conference who's communities only REALLY care about football could scrape up 30 full scholarships and play FCS, but keep their costs down by being a D2 member in everything else. They could play an occasional game against Southern Illinois, New Mexico State, or Houston that would make their fans ecstatic. Having that kind of flexibility in scheduling combined with the lower scholarship costs a FCS/DII scholarship load would have, could make all of those schools athletic programs self-sufficient.

Schools that don't really support football could do just the opposite and drop to non-scholarship DII to save money and still give scholarships in other sports to satisfy their D1 membership. I am thinking a lot of the Northeastern schools here. If you draw less than 4000 per game, I think the school might draw just as well as at the DII level as a partial scholarship school. When you consider matching scholarships, that is quite a savings that would offset any loss in attendance. (Logically, FCS/BCS schools would not have those options to protect the BCS system as the BCS schools envision it.) I think the NCAA is frankly screwing their lower tier membership unneccessarilly. I recognize the NCAA has to back the BCS schools or risk them leaving, but you can still protect the BCS deathgrip on TV revenue without crushing the VIABILITY out of lower tier schools athletic programs.

I'd also argue to structure the rules to prevent large schools in lower divisions from being playoff eligible. I find it distateful that a school with a 15K enrollment like UTD can leverage their student body size to whip up on a 2K school in DIII. As that is non-scholarship, can't do much about that, but I think any school with an enrollment of say 7K should not be eligible for any D2 postseason and any school with an enrollment larger than 15K should not be eligible for FCS postseason play. Regular season play is fine, but use that as a lever to encourage alumni into pushing schools into appropriate competition levels.

I'd say put a severe restrictions on what revenue, excluding alumni contributions, a school at each tier can spend on non-stadia facilities and coach's salaries. (So if SMU wants to have 20 alumni contribute 100K each every year to pay a coach's $2M salary they can, but a school that has not yet shown to have deep pocketed alumni --- like say a Texas State where the student fees are largely funding their program ---would only be able to pay their coach within a certain pay band --- say $100K to $200K --- forcing the money where the students would want it to go --- arenas, stadiums, feilds, equipment, etc.)

And maybe a softening of the football conference rules to allow a 2-3 year restructuring period of FBS & FCS conferences -- waiving the upgrade periods for playoff eligibility -- to be small regionally compact conferences --- with say a simple 6 member minimum. Stadiums would still need to be in the 17-25K range to allow FBS upgrades to hit the 15K minimum range, but the "core" rules needn't apply for football.

Make it a big revamp ala the early 1980's.

I think if you left EVERYTHING else (upgrade rules) the same, it might fly. (I.E. FBS schools who go 11-0 and are high enough ranked can still make the BCS series bowls and are still considered equal members of BCS/FBS overall. BCS schools aren't really giving up anything and frankly it makes it a lot harder to try to move up, if FBS schools cannot be as reliant on student fees to fuel facility upgrades as they have been.)

I am not saying that all of these rules are likely (the NCAA hits me as unwilling to attempt many of these fights), but these hit me as changes that might actually be accepted by the universities' PRESIDENTS as they would correct much of the financial bleeding occurring at the vast majority of the D1 football schools.

Sub BCS FBS 2012-4?

SWC
TCU
Memphis
Tulsa
Southern Methodist
UTEP
Tulane
Rice
Houston

MWC
Brigham Young
Air Force
Utah
New Mexico
San Diego State
Wyoming
Colorado State
UNLV

CUSA
UCF
East Carolina
Southern Miss
Marshall
UAB
Troy
Florida Atlantic

WAC
Hawaii
Boise State
Fresno State
Nevada
San Jose State
Utah State
Idaho

MAC
EAST
Western Kentucky
Middle Tennessee
Youngstown State
Bowling Green
Akron
Kent State
WEST
Central Michigan
Ball State
Western Michigan
Eastern Michigan
Northern Illinois
Toledo

Southland FBS
North Texas
New Mexico State
Louisiana Tech
SHSU
Texas State
UTSA
Lamar

Atlantic
Miami (OH)
Buffalo
Ohio
Temple
Delaware
UMASS
Navy
Army

Sunbelt
Louisiana-Monroe
Arkansas State
Louisiana-Lafayette
Florida International
Georgia Southern
Jacksonville State

[I-AA Fan]

Atlantic
Miami (OH)
Buffalo
Ohio
Temple
Delaware
UMASS
Navy
Army

Miami and Ohio in a conference without the other MAC schools???? That will never happen. The MAC is an Ohio/Michigan conference by tradition ...Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, Miami, Akron, and Kent State are all Buckeye state colleges and would not want to split. As long as the Ohio MAC schools beat the Michigan schools, I am happy.

[Bull Fan]

Miami and Ohio in a conference without the other MAC schools???? That will never happen. The MAC is an Ohio/Michigan conference by tradition ...Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, Miami, Akron, and Kent State are all Buckeye state colleges and would not want to split. As long as the Ohio MAC schools beat the Michigan schools, I am happy.


Agreed, I don't know that those schools want to separate from each other. Tradition and economics play a huge factor in the Ohio / Michigan segment of the MAC.

[FiniteMan]

Miami and Ohio in a conference without the other MAC schools???? That will never happen. The MAC is an Ohio/Michigan conference by tradition ...Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, Miami, Akron, and Kent State are all Buckeye state colleges and would not want to split...

I threw them in just to take it as far as it could likely go. Ohio and Miami academically are in a different tier than the other MAC schools and have the two largest endowments of the tradional MAC schools. The point I am making is that they may be interesting to conferences looking to add to their esteem when other MAC schools might not. When CUSA was considering options, Miami and Ohio were on the list, for example.

The conference I sugested there is a pretty good academic conference in a reasonable footprint. It is not just a simple lateral move.

Now that said, I certainly think the MAC is comfortable for them, but most top academic universities strongly consider affiliations with other top academic universities. Endowments are also a component universities use to measure each other.

Additionally, branding helps. In the MAC both schools are seen as equal peers with every other MAC school. If they were to partner with other good eastern academic schools, they would be identified as being part of an academic alighnment which not only would raise their percieved ACADEMIC stature among the rank and file in Ohio, but would also promote their academic standing outside of the state. Being a well known and familiar top academic school in NY, PA, New England, and the major eastern areas would likely be a very tempting thing for both schools as it might lead to more applications from top students allowing more institutional growth and an increase in national respect for their academics.

Taking it to a local level, How good was Cinnci in sports when the Big East came knocking? Admittedly, they had Bob Huggins, but his out of control program looked slightly precarious at the time. Their football program sucked. They weren't very good like Louisville or on the rise in attendance and competitiveness like USF. They got in because the BB big east pushed for their basketball program, their very solid and expanding TV market, and their huge endowment (for a public) which suggested a bright academic (and possibly athletic) future.

[Ronbo]

I don't have all the details(I'll look it up if no one else does) but the MAC did drop for about five minutes. What "saved" them was a rule back then that if a majority of your conference was I-A then the whole conference could be I-A. I wish I could remember exactly but even a few bigger schools would have been forced down but stayed because of their conference.

The WAC is BETTER than the MWC. So I guess your pitiful Aztecs should be FCS too.

[IndianaAppMan]

The WAC is BETTER than the MWC. So I guess your pitiful Aztecs should be FCS too.

Ronbo, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. The WAC has 3 good teams (Boise State, Hawaii, & Fresno State), and the other six are among the worst teams in the FBS. The past two years the WAC's champion has stood out more thanks to undefeated regular seasons. Boise State had a much stronger regular season and was validated in that classic Fiesta Bowl. Hawaii, on the other hand, had the easiest schedule in the country last year, thanks largely to the weak WAC. The WAC just has zero depth.

The Mountain West, on the other hand, has two teams (BYU & Utah) that should finish in the top 25. (Granted, it's pre-season.) From top to bottom, the MWC is stronger, both historically and currently. BYU, not Hawaii, finished higher than any other non-BCS team last year after the bowls had been played. The Mountain West has turned heads with many more teams this decade: BYU, Utah, TCU, San Diego State, & Air Force. Going back a little further, Colorado State & Wyoming were Top 25 teams on a consistent basis.

It's too bad the best teams from both conferences couldn't form a football-only conference, in which case it feasibly could jump the Big East or ACC to become on of the six best. There's NO WAY that will happen, though.

[813Jag]

Ronbo, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. The WAC has 3 good teams (Boise State, Hawaii, & Fresno State), and the other six are among the worst teams in the FBS. The past two years the WAC's champion has stood out more thanks to undefeated regular seasons. Boise State had a much stronger regular season and was validated in that classic Fiesta Bowl. Hawaii, on the other hand, had the easiest schedule in the country last year, thanks largely to the weak WAC. The WAC just has zero depth.

The Mountain West, on the other hand, has two teams (BYU & Utah) that should finish in the top 25. (Granted, it's pre-season.) From top to bottom, the MWC is stronger, both historically and currently. BYU, not Hawaii, finished higher than any other non-BCS team last year after the bowls had been played. The Mountain West has turned heads with many more teams this decade: BYU, Utah, TCU, San Diego State, & Air Force. Going back a little further, Colorado State & Wyoming were Top 25 teams on a consistent basis.

It's too bad the best teams from both conferences couldn't form a football-only conference, in which case it feasibly could jump the Big East or ACC to become on of the six best. There's NO WAY that will happen, though.
They had that before the WAC lost their minds. I read an article when I was in New Mexico about the MWC being 10 years old. It told about how and why the league was created. I'll see if I can find it.

[Bull Fan]

I loved the old WAC. The teams were stronger, and made the Pac-10 look strong on the defensive side of the ball.

[Go Green]

I believe only Yale met the requirement. That is also the way it was reported at the time.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03EED71F38F930A35751C0A9649482 60



THANK YOU!!!

I knew this article existed but couldn't find the ****ing thing. I've been having a debate for years with this guy on the Ivy Board over whether only Yale qualified for I-A status and decided to drop down, or whether several Ivy teams did.

I am in your debt!!

[Evolution Prime]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/EvolutionPrime/Mobile%20Uploads/thread_necromancer_card_3_zpsvbw3m2d8.jpg

[Anthony215]

For what it's worth, I think he meant Miami, Ohio, not Miami, Florida. You have a valid point, though.



I don't count myself among those who believe that any team that has mostly losing seasons should be forced to FCS. Vanderbilt, for instance, hardly ever wins, but they certainly compete well within the SEC. Likewise, Northwestern, Maryland, Washington State, Kansas, Oregon State, and others may have losing seasons more often than not, but that does not mean they're not competitive.

I also would not include much of C-USA since many of their teams routinely defeat or at least compete closely with BCS conference programs. They are able to draw crowds that resemble other FBS programs, which also differentiates them from the programs that really should be FCS. Also, I certainly would not include much of the Mountain West. Contrary to what many people would say, the Mountain West overall is not far off from the strength of the ACC or Big East, wins-wise or attendance-wise.

Having said that, there are some programs which just seem like they'd fit better in the FCS. Temple comes to mind immediately. They've been atrocious for so long; logic tells me that FCS would give them a fresh start. Forgetting for a moment how the CAA will soon be bigger than it may want to be, Temple would be a punching bag for a year or two in that conference but soon could be a contender. They'd have a GREAT rivalry waiting for them at Villanova, plus Georgetown would make a good OOC rival. With a better chance to win games, they could probably recruit better athletes in FCS than they could in the FBS, where players just know they're destined for 1-11 seasons. Now that they're in the MAC and still not winning, they can't even get bowl money from the Big East's BCS contract.

Others I would include as good candidates to move to FCS are most (not all) of the MAC, WAC, & Sun Belt. With some notable exceptions, these conferences are not FBS-quality, and some wouldn't make the FCS playoffs with their current rosters. Most teams' attendance is more FCS-like than FBS.

Also, contrary to a notion that seems popular on AGS, I wouldn't include Duke, either, as a candidate to move to FCS. Duke has no motivation to leave, as they reap millions from the ACC's contract with the BCS. The ACC would have to motive to kick Duke out, either. UNC, NC State, & Wake Forest love having them in there, plus they bring tons of prominence for the conference thanks to b-ball, not to mention academics. You can't expel them from the ACC for football alone. That's not how the ACC has ever or will ever work. Period.

Not sure what Temple program you speak of but since 2013 they've had a .500 season or better going to 3 Bowl games and winning 1 last year. 7-6 in 2017 (Won Bowl Game), 10-4 in both 2016/2015, 6-6 in 2013. Not to mention they did go 9-4 in both 2009 & 2011 (Won bowl game then also) while finishing 8-4 in 2010 and not receiving a bowl invite. Besides their first year in the Big East (now the AAC) they've done fairly well the last 10 years reviving the program. They'll never be an elite program but have a standing place in FBS football. While Temple campus is in the heart of North Philly they draw well at their basketball arena which is on campus when playing big name teams. Kansas, Wichita State, Villanova, UConn all have been played on campus. An on campus football stadium at the proposed site doesn't mean it'll be crime infested during and after the games, police presence would be in abundance and even commuting would be easier there than at the Linc where it's either take the Broad Street Line or drive. On campus there are multiple trains, buses and most importantly the resident students don't have to travel far on Saturday at noon for game days.

[Professor Chaos]

Not sure what Temple program you speak of but since 2013 they've had a .500 season or better going to 3 Bowl games and winning 1 last year. 7-6 in 2017 (Won Bowl Game), 10-4 in both 2016/2015, 6-6 in 2013. Not to mention they did go 9-4 in both 2009 & 2011 (Won bowl game then also) while finishing 8-4 in 2010 and not receiving a bowl invite. Besides their first year in the Big East (now the AAC) they've done fairly well the last 10 years reviving the program. They'll never be an elite program but have a standing place in FBS football. While Temple campus is in the heart of North Philly they draw well at their basketball arena which is on campus when playing big name teams. Kansas, Wichita State, Villanova, UConn all have been played on campus. An on campus football stadium at the proposed site doesn't mean it'll be crime infested during and after the games, police presence would be in abundance and even commuting would be easier there than at the Linc where it's either take the Broad Street Line or drive. On campus there are multiple trains, buses and most importantly the resident students don't have to travel far on Saturday at noon for game days.
Well, he wrote that post in 2008 so pretty much all of your argument is ex post facto. A lot can change in 10 years. Just for ****zengiggles this was the FBS top 25 in the 2008 preseason:

1. Georgia
2. Ohio State
3. USC
4. Oklahoma
5. Florida
6. Missouri
7. LSU
8. West Virginia
9. Clemson
10. Auburn
11. Texas
12. Texas Tech
13. Wisconsin
14. Kansas
15. Arizona State
16. BYU
17. Virginia Tech
18. Tennessee
19. South Florida
20. Illinois
21. Oregon
22. Penn State
23. Wake Forest
24. Alabama
25. Pittsburgh


Although the preseason 2008 AGS Top 25 was pretty comparable to today (minus the FBS defections of App, UMass, and GSU):

1. Appalachian State
2. James Madison
3. Richmond
5. North Dakota State
5. Northern Iowa
6. Massachusetts
7. Montana
8. McNeese State
9. Eastern Washington
10. Wofford
11. Delaware
12. Southern Illinois
13. Cal Poly
14. Youngstown State
15. Elon
16. Georgia Southern
17. Villanova
18. South Dakota State
19. Eastern Illinois
20. New Hampshire
21. The Citadel
22. Eastern Kentucky
23. Fordham
24. Yale
25. Furman

[VandalBasher]

The MAC is still better than two other FBS conferences: C-USA and the SBC.

[WileECoyote06]

Not sure what Temple program you speak of but since 2013 they've had a .500 season or better going to 3 Bowl games and winning 1 last year. 7-6 in 2017 (Won Bowl Game), 10-4 in both 2016/2015, 6-6 in 2013. Not to mention they did go 9-4 in both 2009 & 2011 (Won bowl game then also) while finishing 8-4 in 2010 and not receiving a bowl invite. Besides their first year in the Big East (now the AAC) they've done fairly well the last 10 years reviving the program. They'll never be an elite program but have a standing place in FBS football. While Temple campus is in the heart of North Philly they draw well at their basketball arena which is on campus when playing big name teams. Kansas, Wichita State, Villanova, UConn all have been played on campus. An on campus football stadium at the proposed site doesn't mean it'll be crime infested during and after the games, police presence would be in abundance and even commuting would be easier there than at the Linc where it's either take the Broad Street Line or drive. On campus there are multiple trains, buses and most importantly the resident students don't have to travel far on Saturday at noon for game days.

Don't feel bad. It got me too. Thread is so old, Bush Jr was still president.

[The Yo Show]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Evolution Prime again." A fellow MTG fan. Yeah I found this funny. Excellent stuff

[Go Green]

Thread is so old, Bush Jr was still president.

And Mrs. Go Green and I were still dating! :)

Sorry for the confusion! But I was just so happy to find that 1982 NYT article, I just wanted to kiss Model Citizen for posting it 10 years ago. For whatever reason, that danged article wasn't turning up in my searches....

And in my defense, the rest of the thread *was* a pretty good read!! I enjoyed going through it!!

[The Boogie Down]

Nice job on the bump. Aside from being fooled early on (shocked at how many were already using the "FCS" tag in 2008, especially since I still say "I-AA" today) I agree about this thread being a good read. Coincidentally, me and Mrs. Boogie Down were still dating back then too. This was also back during those oh-so-innocent times when we thought it couldn't get any worse than President Junior. As for the MAC, just wondering aloud here but...

Had the NCAA created the I-AA subdivision at the same time they created D-I/D-II/D-III, wouldn't the MAC have been placed in that I-AA grouping? Think about where the MAC was in the early '70s, probably still a notch below the Ivies, no? Also, since no conference has ever moved up from I-AA to I-A, chances are the MAC would have stayed in I-AA all these years later, no? Had I-AA been born 5/6 years earlier, maybe the MAC would be the MVFC of today.

[JacksFan40]

Don't feel bad. It got me too. Thread is so old, Bush Jr was still president.
Michael Jackson was still alive when this started.

[Laker]

Michael Jackson was still alive when this started.

Well, isn't Elvis still alive?