HERE is what we need.

[jmufan999]

this is long, but think about it this way: what else are you going to read on this site about FCS football?

let me start with an assumption. i assume we're all on the same page that we FCS fans would like more media exposure (no, AGS doesn't count. i'm talking TV, radio, print media, etc.). i have never heard anyone resist this. if you don't think we need more exposure, i'd like to know why.

lack of media exposure does several things. first, it means most of us only have access to our own teams/conferences. so those of us on the East Coast can't watch Cameron Higgins and those in the West can't watch Terrell Hudgins. insert whatever players you want there. it means that the playoff selection show is on ESPNU, which very few people get... and even then it gets bumped by the end of a college bball game. it means that when "experts" TRY to talk about FCS, they usually screw up something... player's position, his attributes, name pronunciation, how the playoffs work... and if you're like me, these things can drive you nuts. and finally, it means that the announcers they DO provide are the D-list or worse. although i like Brock Huard for some reason. he's WAY down on ESPN's priority list, as far as commentators. in other words, he's the anti-Kirk Herbstreit.

what does this lack of exposure do? it leads us to these boards, where we make all kinds of bold statements about players we've never even seen. ever. if we HAVE seen a player, it's maybe for one game (playoffs, high profile FBS team/ESPN, something like that). for instance, i made all kinds of comments about Wofford last year based on the one game i had seen, where they tanked. trust me, they were NOT that team. looked TOTALLY different in the playoffs and were extremely disciplined. probably the most disciplined team i've ever seen. i don't think they had one penalty the entire game. but because there was no other exposure, the ESPN Halloween game was my one and only chance to see them play before the playoffs.

so i've been thinking about it. WHAT is the factor that would change this? the answer... we need a "champion".

we need someone FAMOUS to get really excited about FCS and do something about it. here's what i'm specifically thinking of.... a feature film.

it's what Rounders did for No Limit Texas Hold 'Em and the World Series of Poker. in 1998, when the film was released, the WSOP had 350 participants. 6 years later in 2004, it was up to 2,576. 2008 saw 6,844 players make the trip to Vegas. yes, other shows like World Poker Tour have helped (as well as "common men" like Chris Moneymaker winning the WSOP), but it was Rounders that put poker "out there" for the first time, at least in such a high profile.

we need something like that. or a Hard Knocks kind of thing. maybe some documentary that describes the playoffs.... and that's the other point. whatever film or show would have to showcase the playoffs.... THAT'S our big selling point.

but we need a "champion" for this to happen. we need SOMEONE to show the networks that FCS football is popular. another way would be to get a TON of people to let a particular network (i.e.- ESPN) know that we want MORE COVERAGE. problem is, we're horribly outnumbered by FBS fans (and most of us also watch FBS, if not all of us... but they don't necessarily watch us). it would take a colossal effort to make a dent in programming. i don't really have the ability to organize something like that.

how did NASCAR do what they did? in the past 10 years, NASCAR has gone from a sport followed closely by few (relative numbers here) to one of the most popular sports today. like NASCAR or hate it, they have done a HELL of a job marketing and are reaping the rewards for it.

one final thought: it's very easy to say that players like Joe Flacco, Marques Colston, and Tim Hightower (all former CAA players, by the way) will be good NFL players and therefore raise "our" profile. not happening. the reason is because it's the NFL that people love, NOT where the kid came from. plus, these players never really do anything to "champion" our cause. you never see Brian Westbrook (another CAA player... had to do it, i'm proud!) waving the FCS flag.

ok, ONE more thing. upsets against FBS teams won't do it either. whenever it happens, you hear commentators say that the FBS team "choked" or didn't come to play. they don't give the FCS team credit. and they probably never will, at least until the culture of non-caring is changed.

[jmufan999]

"OH MY GOD THAT WAS LONG!".... "GEEZ, JMUFAN, THAT WAS LONG"

ok, i got that out of the way. yes, i realize it's long. now we can focus on relevant comments.

[Native]

this is long, but think about it this way: what else are you going to read on this site about FCS football?

let me start with an assumption. i assume we're all on the same page that we FCS fans would like more media exposure (no, AGS doesn't count. i'm talking TV, radio, print media, etc.). i have never heard anyone resist this. if you don't think we need more exposure, i'd like to know why.

lack of media exposure does several things. first, it means most of us only have access to our own teams/conferences. so those of us on the East Coast can't watch Cameron Higgins and those in the West can't watch Terrell Hudgins. insert whatever players you want there. it means that the playoff selection show is on ESPNU, which very few people get... and even then it gets bumped by the end of a college bball game. it means that when "experts" TRY to talk about FCS, they usually screw up something... player's position, his attributes, name pronunciation, how the playoffs work... and if you're like me, these things can drive you nuts. and finally, it means that the announcers they DO provide are the D-list or worse. although i like Brock Huard for some reason. he's WAY down on ESPN's priority list, as far as commentators. in other words, he's the anti-Kirk Herbstreit.

what does this lack of exposure do? it leads us to these boards, where we make all kinds of bold statements about players we've never even seen. ever. if we HAVE seen a player, it's maybe for one game (playoffs, high profile FBS team/ESPN, something like that). for instance, i made all kinds of comments about Wofford last year based on the one game i had seen, where they tanked. trust me, they were NOT that team. looked TOTALLY different in the playoffs and were extremely disciplined. probably the most disciplined team i've ever seen. i don't think they had one penalty the entire game. but because there was no other exposure, the ESPN Halloween game was my one and only chance to see them play before the playoffs.

so i've been thinking about it. WHAT is the factor that would change this? the answer... we need a "champion".

we need someone FAMOUS to get really excited about FCS and do something about it. here's what i'm specifically thinking of.... a feature film.

it's what Rounders did for No Limit Texas Hold 'Em and the World Series of Poker. in 1998, when the film was released, the WSOP had 350 participants. 6 years later in 2004, it was up to 2,576. 2008 saw 6,844 players make the trip to Vegas. yes, other shows like World Poker Tour have helped (as well as "common men" like Chris Moneymaker winning the WSOP), but it was Rounders that put poker "out there" for the first time, at least in such a high profile.

we need something like that. or a Hard Knocks kind of thing. maybe some documentary that describes the playoffs.... and that's the other point. whatever film or show would have to showcase the playoffs.... THAT'S our big selling point.

but we need a "champion" for this to happen. we need SOMEONE to show the networks that FCS football is popular. another way would be to get a TON of people to let a particular network (i.e.- ESPN) know that we want MORE COVERAGE. problem is, we're horribly outnumbered by FBS fans (and most of us also watch FBS, if not all of us... but they don't necessarily watch us). it would take a colossal effort to make a dent in programming. i don't really have the ability to organize something like that.

how did NASCAR do what they did? in the past 10 years, NASCAR has gone from a sport followed closely by few (relative numbers here) to one of the most popular sports today. like NASCAR or hate it, they have done a HELL of a job marketing and are reaping the rewards for it.

one final thought: it's very easy to say that players like Joe Flacco, Marques Colston, and Tim Hightower (all former CAA players, by the way) will be good NFL players and therefore raise "our" profile. not happening. the reason is because it's the NFL that people love, NOT where the kid came from. plus, these players never really do anything to "champion" our cause. you never see Brian Westbrook (another CAA player... had to do it, i'm proud!) waving the FCS flag.

ok, ONE more thing. upsets against FBS teams won't do it either. whenever it happens, you hear commentators say that the FBS team "choked" or didn't come to play. they don't give the FCS team credit. and they probably never will, at least until the culture of non-caring is changed.

Points well taken, but what will be our marketing niche to distinguish us from the FBS? "Our championships are earned" is great but has not gotten us the breakout exposure you discuss.

For the marketing gurus among us, what are some examples of success for great products in secondary markets (face it!) that are overshadowed by almost identical products with greater market share/exposure?

[Native]

JUMFan discusses, among other topics, the inability to get good information on great players and programs in distant parts of the country due to limited exposure.

To this, I say, THANK YOU AGS! xnodx

Among the greatest services provided by AGS are the links to local media posted by participants and, over time, the ability to begin to trust the observations and judgments of key AGS participants in their specific areas of expertise. xsmiley_wix

[89Hen]

I wish I could say I agree that there is a way we can get more media attention, but we are third in line for football fans behind the NFL and I-A. NASCAR was neck and neck with Indy, but Indy split and became a completely inferior product. NASCAR is the top level of auto racing in the US. I-AA football will never be in the top 2 of football in the US. Doesn't mean I don't like it, but I honestly don't care if more media picks it up. I like going to Newark with 21,996 of my closest friends each week, voting in the poll here and knowing we have a better way to determine our champion. xthumbsupx

[CollegeSportsInfo]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. The only way to remedy the media issue is to scrap FCS.

If the FCS schools want the same opportunity for exposure as the FBS schools, they all need to be at the same level. No FBS, No FCS: Just Division 1.

When the basketball postseason begins, the focus is on the Final Four Tourney. Not the NIT. Not the CBI. Not Division 2. If you're not competing on the same level as the top 120 teams, you can't expect the national media to glance your way. Period.

As FCS fans, would you expect more national news coverage for Division 2 schools? No.

When the then I-AA schools pushed for the changes from I-A and I-AA to FBS and FCS, the other option was to drop the "A" classifications. That's a path they should have gone down. But it needs to be more than that:

1) FCS schools need to push for the scholarship levels for classifications to be dropped.
2) FCS schools will then be on same level as FBS...back to a Division 1 classification for all
3) Division 1 football would then have MORE voting schools in favor of a playoff than against...and then the push for a playoff will be real.

There are a number of FCS schools that would move up to FBS if there was a playoff system. They don't want to upgrade an risk disappearing from ANY scene. But that day will not likely come. But the FCS schools COULD be proactive and force the change to a playoff.

[Eight Legger]

FCS is an interesting case study, because on the one hand, you can argue that it is the equivalent to Division II basketball....except that all of our schools play D-I basketball, and we have some big name schools in our ranks. That in and of itself ought to give us a leg up on the DIIs and DIIIs of the world.

I doubt this will ever happen, but I think one potential idea would be to sign a TV contract with someone like Versus that is more likely to actually give our games/playoffs higher billing than an ESPN ever will. The positive part of having the semis and title game on ESPN/ESPN2 is that they are on ESPN and ESPN2. The downside is that the network for the most part acts completely disinterested in promoting those games AT ALL -- even though its showing them on its own channels -- or even really delving into the storylines.

Give the whole playoff tourney to Versus and I bet you they take it more seriously and at least give those of us who are FCS fans the kind of coverage we want. Plus they'd hype it more because it would be a big deal to them.

I think we have to get over the idea that we are somehow going to convince FBS fans to pay close attention to FCS football. The strength of FCS is that we have a lot of DI schools with huge alumni bases and large followings who DO care about this level of football. We ought to focus on giving our own fans the kind of coverage and exposure that we all want and deserve and forget about trying to attract outsiders for now.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

I still think the ESPN deal beats anything you'd get from Versus. Remember the NHL? It used to be a league for this sport called hockey. Wait, my sources are telling me that hockey does indeed still exist as does the NHL, and the Stanley cup is on Versus. Alas, nobody watches it or even knows Versus exists.

But overall, I agree Eight Legger. FCS is what it is: something for a select few. We enjoy the games and we enjoy discussing it on sites like AGs and CS. And if you're a D2 football fan, you follow and discuss on D2football.com. As long as the FBS, with the national football powers exist in a division us FCS schools aren't in, we will never be on the same level in regards to media. Most of us just try to enjoy our little niche. But I for one, like my last post said, would like to see the FCS schools be more proactive by merging FBS and FCS and try to make the changes (playoffs) from within, not from the outside looking in. The only risk is the FBs schools all leaving the NCAA for all-sports, something that would ruin the basketball business.

[hippy@GSU]

I still think the ESPN deal beats anything you'd get from Versus. Remember the NHL? It used to be a league for this sport called hockey. Wait, my sources are telling me that hockey does indeed still exist as does the NHL, and the Stanley cup is on Versus. Alas, nobody watches it or even knows Versus exists.

But overall, I agree Eight Legger. FCS is what it is: something for a select few. We enjoy the games and we enjoy discussing it on sites like AGs and CS. And if you're a D2 football fan, you follow and discuss on D2football.com. As long as the FBS, with the national football powers exist in a division us FCS schools aren't in, we will never be on the same level in regards to media. Most of us just try to enjoy our little niche. But I for one, like my last post said, would like to see the FCS schools be more proactive by merging FBS and FCS and try to make the changes (playoffs) from within, not from the outside looking in. The only risk is the FBs schools all leaving the NCAA for all-sports, something that would ruin the basketball business.

Could that happen? I know the BCS is a totally different organization than the NCAA (weird scenario), but how could the schools completely pull out of the NCAA. Is the NCAA like the UN in that it is more advisory in nature and holds little power over sovereign states? I am just mixed up :(

[SideLine Shooter]

this is long, but think about it this way: what else are you going to read on this site about FCS football?

let me start with an assumption. i assume we're all on the same page that we FCS fans would like more media exposure (no, AGS doesn't count. i'm talking TV, radio, print media, etc.). i have never heard anyone resist this. if you don't think we need more exposure, i'd like to know why.

lack of media exposure does several things. first, it means most of us only have access to our own teams/conferences. so those of us on the East Coast can't watch Cameron Higgins and those in the West can't watch Terrell Hudgins. insert whatever players you want there. it means that the playoff selection show is on ESPNU, which very few people get... and even then it gets bumped by the end of a college bball game. it means that when "experts" TRY to talk about FCS, they usually screw up something... player's position, his attributes, name pronunciation, how the playoffs work... and if you're like me, these things can drive you nuts. and finally, it means that the announcers they DO provide are the D-list or worse. although i like Brock Huard for some reason. he's WAY down on ESPN's priority list, as far as commentators. in other words, he's the anti-Kirk Herbstreit.

what does this lack of exposure do? it leads us to these boards, where we make all kinds of bold statements about players we've never even seen. ever. if we HAVE seen a player, it's maybe for one game (playoffs, high profile FBS team/ESPN, something like that). for instance, i made all kinds of comments about Wofford last year based on the one game i had seen, where they tanked. trust me, they were NOT that team. looked TOTALLY different in the playoffs and were extremely disciplined. probably the most disciplined team i've ever seen. i don't think they had one penalty the entire game. but because there was no other exposure, the ESPN Halloween game was my one and only chance to see them play before the playoffs.

so i've been thinking about it. WHAT is the factor that would change this? the answer... we need a "champion".

we need someone FAMOUS to get really excited about FCS and do something about it. here's what i'm specifically thinking of.... a feature film.

it's what Rounders did for No Limit Texas Hold 'Em and the World Series of Poker. in 1998, when the film was released, the WSOP had 350 participants. 6 years later in 2004, it was up to 2,576. 2008 saw 6,844 players make the trip to Vegas. yes, other shows like World Poker Tour have helped (as well as "common men" like Chris Moneymaker winning the WSOP), but it was Rounders that put poker "out there" for the first time, at least in such a high profile.

we need something like that. or a Hard Knocks kind of thing. maybe some documentary that describes the playoffs.... and that's the other point. whatever film or show would have to showcase the playoffs.... THAT'S our big selling point.

but we need a "champion" for this to happen. we need SOMEONE to show the networks that FCS football is popular. another way would be to get a TON of people to let a particular network (i.e.- ESPN) know that we want MORE COVERAGE. problem is, we're horribly outnumbered by FBS fans (and most of us also watch FBS, if not all of us... but they don't necessarily watch us). it would take a colossal effort to make a dent in programming. i don't really have the ability to organize something like that.

how did NASCAR do what they did? in the past 10 years, NASCAR has gone from a sport followed closely by few (relative numbers here) to one of the most popular sports today. like NASCAR or hate it, they have done a HELL of a job marketing and are reaping the rewards for it.

one final thought: it's very easy to say that players like Joe Flacco, Marques Colston, and Tim Hightower (all former CAA players, by the way) will be good NFL players and therefore raise "our" profile. not happening. the reason is because it's the NFL that people love, NOT where the kid came from. plus, these players never really do anything to "champion" our cause. you never see Brian Westbrook (another CAA player... had to do it, i'm proud!) waving the FCS flag.

ok, ONE more thing. upsets against FBS teams won't do it either. whenever it happens, you hear commentators say that the FBS team "choked" or didn't come to play. they don't give the FCS team credit. and they probably never will, at least until the culture of non-caring is changed.



I would like to nominate Kirk "CUPCAKE" Herbstreet as our Champion for FCS Football.xbowxxbowx

[Wildcat80]

Here on the East coast we actually have decent TV exposure on Comcast, YES & NESN cable systems. If you are an FCS fan you can expect to have your team on TV a couple times a year. Unfortunately there are related issues here...until our own fan bases support our teams with booming attendance and our televised playoffs draw more casual fans we will not get or deserve broader media exposure. We know FCS is a great product but it is not BCS caliber--yet. All we can do is keep winning FBS crossover games & play exciting football. True FCS fans will keep noticing & enjoying.

[89Hen]

I think what we really need is more threads about NAU football.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

lack of media exposure does several things. first, it means most of us only have access to our own teams/conferences. so those of us on the East Coast can't watch Cameron Higgins and those in the West can't watch Terrell Hudgins. insert whatever players you want there. it means that the playoff selection show is on ESPNU, which very few people get... and even then it gets bumped by the end of a college bball game. it means that when "experts" TRY to talk about FCS, they usually screw up something... player's position, his attributes, name pronunciation, how the playoffs work... and if you're like me, these things can drive you nuts. and finally, it means that the announcers they DO provide are the D-list or worse. although i like Brock Huard for some reason. he's WAY down on ESPN's priority list, as far as commentators. in other words, he's the anti-Kirk Herbstreit.

FCS media exposure is a broad subject that can go in a bunch of different directions. Basically, though, some networks (early ESPN, CSTV) tried to make a national "I-AA/FCS game of the week", and it never really worked. The patchwork network of local broadcasts have expanded coverage a little, but have always been short on funding (and the largest such local network, again, is put into question after this year with CN8 folding and getting "repurposed").

Without getting into too much detail, there are a lot of questions even up at the FBS level. Is a national FCS (or FBS show) worth it? What about just conferences? What about just teams? All these shows exist nationally and locally, and nobody has a "true answer" yet. So while your criticisms are valid, it's not like FBS has all the answers and FCS needs to emulate them.


so i've been thinking about it. WHAT is the factor that would change this? the answer... we need a "champion".

we need someone FAMOUS to get really excited about FCS and do something about it. here's what i'm specifically thinking of.... a feature film.

it's what Rounders did for No Limit Texas Hold 'Em and the World Series of Poker. in 1998, when the film was released, the WSOP had 350 participants. 6 years later in 2004, it was up to 2,576. 2008 saw 6,844 players make the trip to Vegas. yes, other shows like World Poker Tour have helped (as well as "common men" like Chris Moneymaker winning the WSOP), but it was Rounders that put poker "out there" for the first time, at least in such a high profile.

we need something like that. or a Hard Knocks kind of thing. maybe some documentary that describes the playoffs.... and that's the other point. whatever film or show would have to showcase the playoffs.... THAT'S our big selling point.

"We are Marshall" was sort-of like that, but I think you severely overestimate the effect of "Rounders" on Texas Hold'em Poker, which had been growing for years before 1998 and really took off with poker sites on the Internet. I don't think movies make the interest, I think movies just follow the flow and try to capitalize on trends.

Even if you buy that a movie would give FCS a better impression nationally - which I'm not convinced is true - you'd need to write a screenplay, sell it to MGM, etc. Why would they want to make a movie about, say Wofford? I don't bring up the Terriers to smack Woffy around, but my point is there has to be a compelling reason to that question that relates to a larger audience. That may be difficult to do.


but we need a "champion" for this to happen. we need SOMEONE to show the networks that FCS football is popular. another way would be to get a TON of people to let a particular network (i.e.- ESPN) know that we want MORE COVERAGE. problem is, we're horribly outnumbered by FBS fans (and most of us also watch FBS, if not all of us... but they don't necessarily watch us). it would take a colossal effort to make a dent in programming. i don't really have the ability to organize something like that.

how did NASCAR do what they did? in the past 10 years, NASCAR has gone from a sport followed closely by few (relative numbers here) to one of the most popular sports today. like NASCAR or hate it, they have done a HELL of a job marketing and are reaping the rewards for it.

NASCAR is not only a special case, they are a pro sports league who have scores of marketing people devoted solely to their cause. FCS is a subdivision of NCAA Division I, which is a very different situation.


one final thought: it's very easy to say that players like Joe Flacco, Marques Colston, and Tim Hightower (all former CAA players, by the way) will be good NFL players and therefore raise "our" profile. not happening. the reason is because it's the NFL that people love, NOT where the kid came from. plus, these players never really do anything to "champion" our cause. you never see Brian Westbrook (another CAA player... had to do it, i'm proud!) waving the FCS flag.

ok, ONE more thing. upsets against FBS teams won't do it either. whenever it happens, you hear commentators say that the FBS team "choked" or didn't come to play. they don't give the FCS team credit. and they probably never will, at least until the culture of non-caring is changed.

I disagree. Flacco, Rice, Colston, Hightower et. al. don't always raise the FCS flag, but fans of that team know they're from Delaware, Mississippi Valley State, Hofstra, Richmond. Once a broadcast their college is flashed up there. It's not always made a big deal, but it matters.

And FBS upsets do matter. Who says "who's Appalachian State" anymore?

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Could that happen? I know the BCS is a totally different organization than the NCAA (weird scenario), but how could the schools completely pull out of the NCAA. Is the NCAA like the UN in that it is more advisory in nature and holds little power over sovereign states? I am just mixed up :(

It's still a business. The reason the BCS exists and the NCAA does not have nay say in the postseason is that threat. The 6 BCS football conferences could get up and walk away and form a new league. There would likely be some schools brought along from other conferences to increase the numbers a bit, like the MWC (which would likely have Boise St. included).

But it would be a new league across the board with roughly 75 schools.

If you're Fox, CBS, ABC, ESPN, Fox Sports and you have the option for the existing college football programs with the current bowl games...and a 64 team tournament for basketball with these same BCS schools, it's still a more attractive option than the NCAA. In basketball, you'd have the Baylor, the #9 school from the Big 12 and a tournament #14 seed as a Cinderella. The thrill of the underdog will be just as strong of time regardless of it the school is a #14 seed from the Big 12 instead of the MAAC or Patriot.

When people talk about the College Football champion they usually are referring to the BCS champion. And in this scenario, when people refer to the 2015 College Basketball Champion, they'd mean Florida or UCLA, the winner of this tourney, not the winner from the likes of Dayton, Siena, Richmond, Winthrop in what we call the NCAA Tournament.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If you're Fox, CBS, ABC, ESPN, Fox Sports and you have the option for the existing college football programs with the current bowl games...and a 64 team tournament for basketball with these same BCS schools, it's still a more attractive option than the NCAA. In basketball, you'd have the Baylor, the #9 school from the Big 12 and a tournament #14 seed as a Cinderella. The thrill of the underdog will be just as strong of time regardless of it the school is a #14 seed from the Big 12 instead of the MAAC or Patriot.

Baloney. And I, for one, would not watch such a perversion of the NCAA tournament.


When people talk about the College Football champion they usually are referring to the BCS champion.

And, of course, they'd be wrong. There is no FBS NCAA National Champion.


And in this scenario, when people refer to the 2015 College Basketball Champion, they'd mean Florida or UCLA, the winner of this tourney, not the winner from the likes of Dayton, Siena, Richmond, Winthrop in what we call the NCAA Tournament.

And in this scenario, sportswriters would constantly be bringing up the point: "Dayton went undefeated in the NCAA tournament - surely they could have beaten Indiana?" The major fallacy in your argument is that they are two hermetically sealed worlds, never to interact together again - as if folks would somehow forget they played together at one point.

[UAalum72]

And, of course, they'd be wrong. There is no FBS NCAA National Champion.




But most people wouldn't be making that distinction, or care that you think they're wrong. They'd only know that Florida or Southern Cal are colleges (or universities) and they've beaten another top team in the proclaimed 'championship game'.

[danefan]

The first step to any upward movement in terms of exposure is increased financial committments by the schools themselves.

There are very few FCS schools that have the money necessary to implement a marketing plan necessary to create greater exposure locally, let alone regionally or nationally.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Baloney. And I, for one, would not watch such a perversion of the NCAA tournament.



And, of course, they'd be wrong. There is no FBS NCAA National Champion.



And in this scenario, sportswriters would constantly be bringing up the point: "Dayton went undefeated in the NCAA tournament - surely they could have beaten Indiana?" The major fallacy in your argument is that they are two hermetically sealed worlds, never to interact together again - as if folks would somehow forget they played together at one point.



I understand as an FCS fan, you feel this way. But the point is you are the minority.

ALL of your points just prove the separation that would exist with the new BCS league being CLEARLY at the top. The Division 2 fans follow and appreciate their level of play. And if such an evolution by the BCS conferences happened, the "NCAA" would essentially be what FCS is to us.

Is it the best thing that could happen? No. Would I want to see it happen? No. But am I able to see that this new league would be the premiere league that would be the focus of the VAST majority of media and fans? Yes, it would be. Sadly. And my UMass basketball program would be left out with it's basketball program being in a league with the same coverage that FCS football gets.

Change happens. The NIT used to be the #1 post-season event. Not it's not as the NCAA took over. If the BCS conferences leave, they would be the new #1 and the NCAA tourney would be like the NIT. It's that simple if it happened. Which back to the original point...is why the NCAA has NOTHING to do with the BCS conferences for football.

Sad potential fact: those 5 BCS football games might very well generate more money than all of FCS football in a season. Someone probably has the revenue numbers to share.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

But most people wouldn't be making that distinction, or care that you think they're wrong. They'd only know that Florida or Southern Cal are colleges (or universities) and they've beaten another top team in the proclaimed 'championship game'.

Exactly. The NCAA is just four letters that can be replaced. It's the schools that make up the image. You'll get over 100,000 fans at a game for some of these BCS schools and millions watch a given team on TV. Meanwhile, and FCS school will be lucky to have 20,000 at a game that likely won't even be on TV. FCS football to BCS football is Division 2 basketball to Division 1 basketball in fan bases, media, and revenue. People can argue semantics all they wish...it means absolutely nothing.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If you're Fox, CBS, ABC, ESPN, Fox Sports and you have the option for the existing college football programs with the current bowl games...and a 64 team tournament for basketball with these same BCS schools, it's still a more attractive option than the NCAA. In basketball, you'd have the Baylor, the #9 school from the Big 12 and a tournament #14 seed as a Cinderella. The thrill of the underdog will be just as strong of time regardless of it the school is a #14 seed from the Big 12 instead of the MAAC or Patriot.


But am I able to see that this new league would be the premiere league that would be the focus of the VAST majority of media and fans? Yes, it would be. Sadly. And my UMass basketball program would be left out with it's basketball program being in a league with the same coverage that FCS football gets.....

Glad to see your agenda is showing.

It's hardly a slam dunk that the casual basketball fan is going to tune into an 11-18 Indiana team get creamed by Oklahoma - and calling them "Cinderellas" is a joke. You can make a pretty damned good argument that non-football basketball schools (Marquette, Gonzaga) plus FCS basketball schools (Villanova, Georgetown) have a league equal to or better than this BC$ basketball conference. Again, you seem to think that these worlds never will be talked about, never compared.


FCS football to BCS football is Division 2 basketball to Division 1 basketball in fan bases, media, and revenue. People can argue semantics all they wish...it means absolutely nothing.

Last I checked, fan bases, media, and revenue had nothing to do with the quality of play on the field. And within BC$ there's a lot of variation of "revenues", too. Ask Rutgers, Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Glad to see your agenda is showing.

It's hardly a slam dunk that the casual basketball fan is going to tune into an 11-18 Indiana team get creamed by Oklahoma - and calling them "Cinderellas" is a joke. You can make a pretty damned good argument that non-football basketball schools (Marquette, Gonzaga) plus FCS basketball schools (Villanova, Georgetown) have a league equal to or better than this BC$ basketball conference. Again, you seem to think that these worlds never will be talked about, never compared.



Last I checked, fan bases, media, and revenue had nothing to do with the quality of play on the field. And within BC$ there's a lot of variation of "revenues", too. Ask Rutgers, Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.


I could not disagree more about non-BCS basketball compared. You can count how many non-BCS schools have made the final four the past 15+ years. Sure, there are some good programs, but not nearly the same level as the current BCS schools. This isn't breaking news. This has been discussed for the past decade as the BCS football schools took control of the basketball tournament. Sure, the occasional "outsider" like Gonzaga or Xavier might make the Sweet 16 (like any other upset school that wins a couple games) and a program like a Memphis or a Villanova has even greater success. But this is 2009, not 1989 when there was parity in the sport.

And you're Indiana example? An 11-18 Indiana team wouldn't be in a tournament. Why? Because they are 11-18. If you look at the current (6) BCS conferences, there are 73 schools. Only 14 of the 73 BCS schools had losing records. 14. If the MWC were part of the BCS, there would be 6 more schools that had winning records in 2008-2009.

As for the "agenda", issue. You lost me. People here know I'm a UMass alum. The same UMass that has one of the more successful programs represented on this forum. The same UMass that I got to see beat Montana in the playoffs live from Missoula. And the same UMass that I support regardless of their league, albeit D3, D2, FCS, or FBS. But I'm not afraid of REALITY: UCLA, Florida, Ohio St., USC...these schools have larger fanbases, more media attention, more revenue and more success than UMass.


I appreciate your passion for Lehigh sports. But there is a clear separation of powers in college sports. It exists. It's not hidden away, it's easy to see. And if you don't think that the BCS schools call the shots, and that a potential basketball tournament by them wouldn't be the end-all-be-all just like it is in football, then, well, bless your heart. FCS football matters to us and us alone...not the rest of the country. And if the basketball powers had their own league, like in football, those on the outside would be creating posts about what can be done to get more media exposure, etc, like this thread was about.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I could not disagree more about non-BCS basketball compared. You can count how many non-BCS schools have made the final four the past 15+ years.

Um, one non-BCS-football-playing team has made the Final Four in each of the last four years: Villanova (CAA), Memphis (C-USA), Georgetown (Patriot) and George Mason (none). Go back further, you have Marquette (2003, none), Utah (1998, WAC), UMass (1996, A-10, voided). You also have UConn's 1999 appearance, which happened when UConn was I-AA. That's eight, or averaging one every other year (and three of the last four).

Take out teams that haven't played a major bowl during that time (Duke, Stanford, UConn, Louisville in their C-USA days, Syracuse) and you have ten more appearances. Pretending that these schools have the same commitment to BCS football as schools like, say, UCLA and Oklahoma, is laughable. These schools are basketball-first.

That's 18 appearances in the last 15 years. And I'm not even counting UNC (who has had horrible football teams during this stretch), Maryland, or any of these SEC/ACC teams like Mississippi State or Georgia Tech that have played some minor bowls but haven't come close to sniffing the crystal ball.

Averaging more than one a year over the last 15 years. That's not dominance.

And no sportswriter would ever speculate, after Georgetown rolls through the non-BCS NCAA tournament and Oklahoma squeaks by Arizona State in the BCS tournament, that Georgetown is better? Riiiight. xrolleyesx

[henfan]

Any plan that would include voluntary withdraw of the Division I 'power' conferences from the NCAA for FB & mens' hoops would also necessarily have to include provisions for taking the 30+ other sports with them, most of them nonrevenue sports. Not only would Olympic sports scheduling become a complete nightmare, imagine how profits would dwindle once this new affiliation had to front the costs of compliance oversight, tournament sponsorship, promotions, and all of the other elements handled currently by the NCAA.

Sure, the 'power' conferences will continue to try to slant the scales in their favor so that they get to keep a majority of the money made from FB and MBB. I just don't see them separating from the NCAA altogether. They've got it too good as it is.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Um, one non-BCS-football-playing team has made the Final Four in each of the last four years: Villanova (CAA), Memphis (C-USA), Georgetown (Patriot) and George Mason (none). Go back further, you have Marquette (2003, none), Utah (1998, WAC), UMass (1996, A-10, voided). You also have UConn's 1999 appearance, which happened when UConn was I-AA. That's eight, or averaging one every other year (and three of the last four).

Take out teams that haven't played a major bowl during that time (Duke, Stanford, UConn, Louisville in their C-USA days, Syracuse) and you have ten more appearances. Pretending that these schools have the same commitment to BCS football as schools like, say, UCLA and Oklahoma, is laughable. These schools are basketball-first.

That's 18 appearances in the last 15 years. And I'm not even counting UNC (who has had horrible football teams during this stretch), Maryland, or any of these SEC/ACC teams like Mississippi State or Georgia Tech that have played some minor bowls but haven't come close to sniffing the crystal ball.

Averaging more than one a year over the last 15 years. That's not dominance.

And no sportswriter would ever speculate, after Georgetown rolls through the non-BCS NCAA tournament and Oklahoma squeaks by Arizona State in the BCS tournament, that Georgetown is better? Riiiight. xrolleyesx



There's apparently no desire to grasp simple logic from you, so there's no reason for me to even try to make sense anymore. It's as if you took a trip, listened to Kraftwerk all night, and think that the college sports landscape is and only is FCS.

It's amazing to see someone trying to work semantics when the numbers are as such over the past 15 years:

* Past 15 Champions: All have come from BCS conferences
* 56 of the past 60 Final Four teams have come from BCS conferences

Those are the numbers that matter.

Want to put your FCS-Is-The-Only-Relevant-Thing-In-My-Sports-World slant to it:
* Only 5 of the 60 Final Four teams over the past 15 years DON'T currently sponsor FBS football (meaning FCS or no football program).


You can keep this idea in your mind that BCS schools like Duke, Stanford, etc aren't really BCS schools because "they haven't had a major bowl appearance". Because it's apparent you don't understand how the revenue system works: these schools ARE IN BCS conferences, so they get their share of the TV contract. And even more, they get their SHARE OF THEIR CONFERENCES BCS PAYOUT. The money is first given by BCS CONFERENCE, not school. So Duke and Rutgers can sit at home and still make money to fund their programs, just by having Florida St. or WVU going to a BCS or "Major" bowl. It's the system. Say what you want about it, that's fine. But being BCS is 100% binary: you are a BCS school or you aren't. There is no room for argument.

There have been some other good posts by people in this thread, most recently by henfen about the cost of other sports (with ya 100%). But Lehigh, I have little reason to continue in this thread when someone is obviously trying to spin things when 56 of 60 Final Four schools over the past 15 years (including all champions) have come from BCS conferences, and they're trying to say that it's not dominance.