FBS Schools Dropping "Down" to FCS?

[TexasTerror]

This thread has been all the rage on several message boards as there is some serious belief that some, if not all of the MAC will drop to FCS in the next 5-10 years after comments made by the Commissioner.

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=373975

I just have a hard time believing that, but that is what a few of the MAC fans read from it. Thoughts?

[andy7171]

If some of the MAC teams drop, who moves up to take their place?

JMU, UD and ASU fans UNITE!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I read the interview, and I see NOTHING to fuel that speculation. He basically said he's tailing onto what the Mountain West is doing in terms of BC$ access, that the BC$ is out of the NCAA process (true), that midweek scheduling is "out of the barn" and can't be put back (true), that the MAC is a bus league (true) and that schools need to think about containing athletics costs (also true). It takes a gargantuan leap of faith to look at those comments and get "we're dropping to FCS".

I think it speaks volumes about the insecurities and fears of the MAC fans commenting on the interview rather than about the new MAC commish. xtwocentsx

[GannonFan]

I don't see it happening. The MAC schools would just have a terrible time trying to recruit if they did that, considering that the real saving grace they have now is that they can sell recruits on the fact that they are playing FBS level football. And they would kiss those TV deals with ESPN goodbye as well if they dropped. While I wouldn't like playing on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, a lot of MAC fans have resigned themselves to that and they have a niche in the market. I would be shocked if they ever voluntarily decided to drop down, and if they did, they would find the competition at this level to be much more than they would expect - I think they would struggle to be a top 3 conference at this level once they are scholarship limited to 63.

[PaladinFan]

This thread has been all the rage on several message boards as there is some serious belief that some, if not all of the MAC will drop to FCS in the next 5-10 years after comments made by the Commissioner.

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=373975

I just have a hard time believing that, but that is what a few of the MAC fans read from it. Thoughts?

I hope they do.

I am a firm believer that the FBS has too many teams to begin with.

[darell1976]

If some of the MAC teams drop, who moves up to take their place?

JMU, UD and ASU fans UNITE!


NDSUxlolxxlolxxlolx

[jstate83]

If the NCAA ever put any teeth into their own rules, they could start here.
Here are 9 teams that could be dropped TODAY after years of not meeting the basic FBS standard.
I'll give FIU a break since they just started playing football in 2002.
The rest need to drop the FBS experiment. xnodx
They been around long enough to be established by now on any level as for fan base.

Teams that have not met the standard for attendance since 2005
Utah State: 10,896, 11,360, 13,131
Eastern Michigan: 5,219, 14,734, 6,910

Teams that have not met the standard since 2006
Rice: 14,760, 13,353
Idaho: 14,543, 11,479

Teams that did not meet the standard in 2007
Ball State: 13,085
Kent State: 8,999
Buffalo: 13,658
New Mexico State: 14,412
Florida International: 7,982

[Saint3333]

I hope they do.

I am a firm believer that the FBS has too many teams to begin with.

What does that say about the FCS?

[BearsCountry]

What does that say about the FCS?

Thats what I was wondering as well.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

What does that say about the FCS?

Agreed. Too many schools in FBS? There are more schools in FCS than FBS? And even without the BCS, the remaining FBS schools are making more/losing less money than FCS.

So perhaps the initial comment should have been "there are too many schools playing football".

[89Hen]

I hope they do.

I am a firm believer that the FBS has too many teams to begin with.
Too many I-AA teams too. xwhistlex

[DFW HOYA]

If the NCAA ever put any teeth into their own rules, they could start here.
Here are 9 teams that could be dropped TODAY after years of not meeting the basic FBS standard.
I'll give FIU a break since they just started playing football in 2002.
The rest need to drop the FBS experiment. xnodx
They been around long enough to be established by now on any level as for fan base.


The problem the NCAA never fully answered is what they would to do with them. For example, New Mexico State is in the WAC. If suddenly it couldn't play FB in the WAC, it could be ineligible, sure, but if forced to leave, where would it go? It would either have to move its entire athletic program to the closest I-AA conference (Southland? Great West?) or find a non-FB conference (Summit League?) Either way, schools will resist and "paper" the stadiums for a quick boost in attendance.

The larger answer is that EVERYONE should be in one Division I and conferences can select whether to participate as a bowl conference or a playoff one, regardless if there is a team drawing 5,000 or not. If the WAC doesn't like it, let them handle it.

[smallcollegefbfan]

What does that say about the FCS?

I agree there. There are too many in FBS and FCS. We need attendance requirements in the 5,000-7,000 average range. I would also be in favor of keeping teams who have larger stadiums that could host teams who travel well such as Ivy schools who have 20k stadiums.

[BearsCountry]

The problem the NCAA never fully answered is what they would to do with them. For example, New Mexico State is in the WAC. If suddenly it couldn't play FB in the WAC, it could be ineligible, sure, but if forced to leave, where would it go? It would either have to move its entire athletic program to the closest I-AA conference (Southland? Great West?) or find a non-FB conference (Summit League?) Either way, schools will resist and "paper" the stadiums for a quick boost in attendance.

The larger answer is that EVERYONE should be in one Division I and conferences can select whether to participate as a bowl conference or a playoff one, regardless if there is a team drawing 5,000 or not. If the WAC doesn't like it, let them handle it.

xthumbsupx This is the best way, attendance shouldn't be how you are judged IMO either. If somebody wants to spend the money to have the 85 schollys let them, if they dont and want to play in a playoff let them do that, if they dont want scholly's but still have football they can do that as well.

[UAalum72]

I agree there. There are too many in FBS and FCS. We need attendance requirements in the 5,000 average range.
5,000 would cut FCS to 79 teams (based on 2008 attendance), dropping 5 CAA and 4 Patriot League teams. About a dozen of the 79 are Ivy or SWAC so no doubt you'll advocate cutting the playoff field to eight or four.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/football_records/Attendance/2008.pdf

[yosef1969]

xthumbsupx This is the best way, attendance shouldn't be how you are judged IMO either. If somebody wants to spend the money to have the 85 schollys let them, if they dont and want to play in a playoff let them do that, if they dont want scholly's but still have football they can do that as well.

...or if you're willing to fund 63 you're FCS (or at least at a minimum 90-95% of the max). A third subdivision for D-I needs to be created to accomodate those programs not committed to funding the full allotment of scholarships.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

The problem the NCAA never fully answered is what they would to do with them. For example, New Mexico State is in the WAC. If suddenly it couldn't play FB in the WAC, it could be ineligible, sure, but if forced to leave, where would it go? It would either have to move its entire athletic program to the closest I-AA conference (Southland? Great West?) or find a non-FB conference (Summit League?) Either way, schools will resist and "paper" the stadiums for a quick boost in attendance.

The larger answer is that EVERYONE should be in one Division I and conferences can select whether to participate as a bowl conference or a playoff one, regardless if there is a team drawing 5,000 or not. If the WAC doesn't like it, let them handle it.


I never quite understood why people resisted merging both classifications. What made sense to me was to first eliminate I-AA and make it all "division 1". Instead they went with the FBS and FCS names. Way to go, NCAA! That makes it easy for the media!

Once merging to D-1, you can MAKE CHANGES from within. There would be roughly 230 D1 teams when all is said and done. So this large group would be able put pressure on the 65 BCS schools to force a playoff.

As for non-playoff schools, sure, you could still have Bowl games...they would be like the NIT is for basketball.

[smallcollegefbfan]

5,000 would cut FCS to 79 teams (based on 2008 attendance), dropping 5 CAA and 4 Patriot League teams. About a dozen of the 79 are Ivy or SWAC so no doubt you'll advocate cutting the playoff field to eight or four.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/football_records/Attendance/2008.pdf

I like a playoff field of 16. I think 20 or 24 is too much for sure.

Maybe make the requirement 4,500 but remember that several very good D2 teams would qualify. We could see very good teams like WTAMU, GVSU, Tuskegee, UNA, ACU, Pitt St, NWMSU, Delta St, etc. replace teams like Iona, St. Francis, Georgetown, Duquesne, Marist, Robert Morris and clearly upgrade this division at the middle and bottom. I must admit that I like to see teams who have the bigger stadiums, travel well, and win in the D2 level move up and upgrade the division. There is no doubt that Grand Valley State or NWMSU could move up and be top 40 FCS teams.

[smallcollegefbfan]

...or if you're willing to fund 63 you're FCS (or at least at a minimum 90-95% of the max). A third subdivision for D-I needs to be created to accomodate those programs not committed to funding the full allotment of scholarships.

Maybe say they have to fun 55-58 at least? There are some decent teams who don't give 63 but only give like 55 or 60.

[GannonFan]

...or if you're willing to fund 63 you're FCS (or at least at a minimum 90-95% of the max). A third subdivision for D-I needs to be created to accomodate those programs not committed to funding the full allotment of scholarships.


Why? What harm is it doing to have teams in FCS fund zero to 63 scholarships?

[Jackman]

It's just some silly blather from a handful of people on the MAC board. Most of them get it. Nothing in that interview suggests the slightest hint at a FCS move, and there is a 0% chance any of them would ever actually move to FCS. Why would they? FCS costs almost as much as how they operate their football programs now, only without the TV and guarantee game revenue streams. They'd sooner drop football entirely than move to FCS, there's no significant cost savings here unless you go completely non-scholarship (i.e. non-competitive).

[yosef1969]

Why? What harm is it doing to have teams in FCS fund zero to 63 scholarships?

From a strictly football point of view it creates a diluted, oversized subdivision of programs playing on uneven terms.

From an athletics program perspective it would help stem the tide of universities jumping from D-II just to grab the basketball dollars without committing fully to football.

[BearsCountry]

From an athletics program perspective it would help stem the tide of universities jumping from D-II just to grab the basketball dollars without committing fully to football.

What D2 schools have moved up and play non-scholly football?

[Dane96]

Albany, Stony Brook, CCSU....all of them moved up to DII and played non-scholly football at first.

[yosef1969]

What D2 schools have moved up and play non-scholly football?

Not only talking about non-schollies but programs that don't fund anywhere near the full 63 allotment.

[jmufan999]

If some of the MAC teams drop, who moves up to take their place?

JMU, UD and ASU fans UNITE!

i can't speak for UD or ASU (really, i guess i can't speak for JMU either, just one fan's opinion)..... but going to a non-BCS conference from FCS is pointless. ok, they might make more money, true. but as a fan, i don't care about that. to me, either we stay FCS or go to a BCS conference at some point in the future. i can't stand to watch what keeps happening to Utah (TWICE now they've been screwed in the past few years).

[GannonFan]

From a strictly football point of view it creates a diluted, oversized subdivision of programs playing on uneven terms.

From an athletics program perspective it would help stem the tide of universities jumping from D-II just to grab the basketball dollars without committing fully to football.

Asking again, why does that matter? From the strictly football standpoint, what does it matter to UD or ASU or anyone else who is in the FCS subdivision and that the division is diluted? Come playoff time, which is what really matters, the cream of the crop rises to the top and any dilution doesn't matter. And seriously, who except people who avidly follow FCS football even know who is in the FCS? The average guy on the street knows nothing about FCS football, nor the idea that it could be diluted.

And as for schools moving up from DII to cash in on basketball dollars, that doesn't happen much anymore. When the DIII schools (PFL, etc) moved up, that was about basketball money. Now, though, if you want basketball money, you just drop your football program (LaSalle) and then you just focus on basketball. The recent crop of teams moving up to FCS are schools clearly devoted to football and are a boon to the division - are you really upset with the emergence of NDSU, SDSU, UC-Davis, Central Arkansas and the like? Those are great schools and quality football programs - North Alabama takes football very seriously too so they'll be another good add. Don't see the problem with those schools coming into the fold.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

i can't speak for UD or ASU (really, i guess i can't speak for JMU either, just one fan's opinion)..... but going to a non-BCS conference from FCS is pointless. ok, they might make more money, true. but as a fan, i don't care about that. to me, either we stay FCS or go to a BCS conference at some point in the future. i can't stand to watch what keeps happening to Utah (TWICE now they've been screwed in the past few years).

I know what you're saying, but how does a FCS school get to a BCS conference without going to a low level FBS conference first? The path UConn took is not the norm.

A question for JMU fans, would a low level FBS league with:

App State
Old Dominion
Marshall
East Carolina (if they don't parlay entry into the Big East)
GA State
GA Southern
Jax State
Middle Tenn

float your boat? That would be nine teams for the four home and four away scheduling. If you wanted twelve, you could add YSU, Temple and UMass OR add more Southern schools (Troy, Western KY, Charlotte (assuming they get it going)). I look at those schools being more "like minded" with JMU especially if JMU continues to grow as has been proposed. It's not BCS, but it is FBS and you'd be with other Southern public, non-flagship, larger institutions.

BTW, I omitted Delaware by design. Based on comments I've read on this forum over many years, I don't think they would be interested in this league.

Oh yeah, my opinion is that BCS would separate themselves from the rest of college football if they could. They don't want to divvy that big pie up with any schools other than their own. Then the $64K question would be whether the D-I playoffs would be increased by the low level FBS schools or would there be a third classification with D-I Football?

[yosef1969]

Asking again, why does that matter? From the strictly football standpoint, what does it matter to UD or ASU or anyone else who is in the FCS subdivision and that the division is diluted? Come playoff time, which is what really matters, the cream of the crop rises to the top and any dilution doesn't matter. And seriously, who except people who avidly follow FCS football even know who is in the FCS? The average guy on the street knows nothing about FCS football, nor the idea that it could be diluted.

And as for schools moving up from DII to cash in on basketball dollars, that doesn't happen much anymore. When the DIII schools (PFL, etc) moved up, that was about basketball money. Now, though, if you want basketball money, you just drop your football program (LaSalle) and then you just focus on basketball. The recent crop of teams moving up to FCS are schools clearly devoted to football and are a boon to the division - are you really upset with the emergence of NDSU, SDSU, UC-Davis, Central Arkansas and the like? Those are great schools and quality football programs - North Alabama takes football very seriously too so they'll be another good add. Don't see the problem with those schools coming into the fold.

I see your point but still think both subdivisions would benefit from further delineation. In my view it would make FCS more cohesive and seem less of a hogpodge of football programs that are there simply because they don't fit in FBS. Most competitive FCS schools have far more in common with the FBS than they do with the under funded programs in their own subdivision. If it doesn't matter then why not just one big D-I. If it makes sense for for a division from 85-63 then why does it not make sense to have a 40 and and under.

Just a difference in perspectives.

[GannonFan]

I see your point but still think both subdivisions would benefit from further delineation. In my view it would make FCS more cohesive and seem less of a hogpodge of football programs that are there simply because they don't fit in FBS. Most competitive FCS schools have far more in common with the FBS than they do with the under funded programs in their own subdivision. If it doesn't matter then why not just one big D-I. If it makes sense for for a division from 85-63 then why does it not make sense to have a 40 and and under.

Just a difference in perspectives.

I agree that on one level, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have such major differences, my question was what harm does it do? I don't think it has any effect, so while it's philosphically weird, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter.

[The Moody1]

I agree that on one level, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have such major differences, my question was what harm does it do? I don't think it has any effect, so while it's philosphically weird, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter.

Then I guess it really wouldn't matter if there was no such thing as FCS and FBS. Just have D-I football with no minimums and let everyone have at it. If teams want to go to a bowl, no problem. Want to organize some sort of play off, go for it.

[GannonFan]

Then I guess it really wouldn't matter if there was no such thing as FCS and FBS. Just have D-I football with no minimums and let everyone have at it. If teams want to go to a bowl, no problem. Want to organize some sort of play off, go for it.


Basically what we have now. The NCAA's organized a playoff for the FCS level and some care about it and some don't. Seems to be working well. xthumbsupx

[grizband]

One possible option would be to combine all Division I schools, then reclassify the programs into three subdivisions. The top would include the BCS conferences and other "power" conferences, like the MWC and others that are right behind the BCS in terms of tallent. The second tier would include the lower ranks of the FBS, with the power conferences of the FCS (Big Sky, CAA, SoCon, MWFC, Soutland, etc) into a second level of football. Then the third tier could include the lower tiers of FCS football, with the possible addition of some power teams from Division II football. This idea isn't perfect, but I think it solves the problem of not forcing anyone to eliminate football, while also providing a "home" for every team.

[GannonFan]

And again, what harm does the current alignment do to anyone? Why do we need a "home" for every team? How are teams that compete in the playoff system at the FCS level harmed by those who don't?

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

I used to think that the public's perception of FCS was a huge factor, but I've come to the opinion that it is hopeless. Let me share this ongoing interaction with my bro-in-law who is from Oklahoma.

Every year when New Hampshire plays FBS opponents or makes the playoffs, he genuinely asks me "they're Division II, right?" I shake my head and go off on a rant. Doesn't do a lick of good because he's incapable of modifying his knowledge base. Now the other night, I'm talking to him after my niece's HS graduation. One of her classmate friends is going to Ohio University. Are you ready for this, he asks me "they're Division II, right?" xeekx xeekx xsmhx xsmhx xsmhx Of course I proceed to set him straight.

Unfortunately, to everyone in the BCS world, I'm afraid they view everything outside their realm as inferior and in most cases as Division II. I know how much this pisses all of us off. Can you imagine what the non-BCS FBS schools must feel like? xlolx xlolx

[JohnStOnge]

And even without the BCS, the remaining FBS schools are making more/losing less money than FCS. .

That is not true. Geeze, why does that myth continue to persist? If you insist I guess I'll go through all the data again. But it's just not true. Take this article, for instance:

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=1cfda9e0-7665-4e0f-8cc0-cc720edd5dd3

A quote:

"Overall, our study suggests that there are neither obvious financial nor considerable nonfinancial measurable benefits from reclassification and that the primary motivation to reclassify is intangible (e.g., perceived increased prestige). Additionally, the findings in this study underscore the issues faced by school administrators who are considering reclassification. One significant and consistent finding is that reclassification is a financial drain to the athletics department. The fact that schools choose to reclassify despite this suggests that non-monetary perquisites, perceived increases in status, and a ‘keeping up with the Joneses' effect' may serve as a motive for reclassification.”

Now, it's interesting that that the NCAA study being referenced concluded that moving from D-II to FCS is also questionable. But the point is that this idea that moving "up" typicall means financial improvement is a myth.

And that's consistent with what I've found myself when I've looked into it. For instance, I've looked at Louisiana Legislative Auditor's reports on athletic departments of University of Louisiana system schools that have FBS and FCS programs. I've looked over the years at the IDES reports for schools that moved from FCS to FBS. Even a program that's had the exposure of Boise State is experiencing financial problems:

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2009/05/13/ccripe/bleymaier_calls_cuts_daunting_task_broncos_still_w orking_tv_deal

The idea that moving from FCS to FBS is, more likely than not, going to result in a net financial benefit is absolute nonsense.

[FargoBison]

I used to think that the public's perception of FCS was a huge factor, but I've come to the opinion that it is hopeless. Let me share this ongoing interaction with my bro-in-law who is from Oklahoma.

Every year when New Hampshire plays FBS opponents or makes the playoffs, he genuinely asks me "they're Division II, right?" I shake my head and go off on a rant. Doesn't do a lick of good because he's incapable of modifying his knowledge base. Now the other night, I'm talking to him after my niece's HS graduation. One of her classmate friends is going to Ohio University. Are you ready for this, he asks me "they're Division II, right?" xeekx xeekx xsmhx xsmhx xsmhx Of course I proceed to set him straight.

Unfortunately, to everyone in the BCS world, I'm afraid they view everything outside their realm as inferior and in most cases as Division II. I know how much this pisses all of us off. Can you imagine what the non-BCS FBS schools must feel like? xlolx xlolx

The FCS is making strides though, last year there was a regular season game on ESPN and moving the title game away from the weekend DII has their title game and into the end of bowl season should also help.

[ASU]

Suckers......didn't that "report" come out just after the NCAA put a four year moratorium a couple of years ago on schools changing divisions. I believe that the intent of that report was to quash any desire to move. I bet the BCS schools wanted to take the heat off. They wanted to keep making millions ............stealing millions.............because of their monopoly that they so cleverly designed.

[Syntax Error]

... even without the BCS, the remaining FBS schools are making more/losing less money than FCS.
That is not true. Geeze, why does that myth continue to persist? If you insist I guess I'll go through all the data again. But it's just not true. Take this article, for instance:

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=1cfda9e0-7665-4e0f-8cc0-cc720edd5dd3

A quote:

"Overall, our study suggests that there are neither obvious financial nor considerable nonfinancial measurable benefits from reclassification and that the primary motivation to reclassify is intangible (e.g., perceived increased prestige). Additionally, the findings in this study underscore the issues faced by school administrators who are considering reclassification. One significant and consistent finding is that reclassification is a financial drain to the athletics department. The fact that schools choose to reclassify despite this suggests that non-monetary perquisites, perceived increases in status, and a ‘keeping up with the Joneses' effect' may serve as a motive for reclassification.”

Now, it's interesting that that the NCAA study being referenced concluded that moving from D-II to FCS is also questionable. But the point is that this idea that moving "up" typicall means financial improvement is a myth.

And that's consistent with what I've found myself when I've looked into it. For instance, I've looked at Louisiana Legislative Auditor's reports on athletic departments of University of Louisiana system schools that have FBS and FCS programs. I've looked over the years at the IDES reports for schools that moved from FCS to FBS. Even a program that's had the exposure of Boise State is experiencing financial problems:

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2009/05/13/ccripe/bleymaier_calls_cuts_daunting_task_broncos_still_w orking_tv_deal

The idea that moving from FCS to FBS is, more likely than not, going to result in a net financial benefit is absolute nonsense.

BINGO!

[Jackman]

That is not true. Geeze, why does that myth continue to persist? If you insist I guess I'll go through all the data again.

Go through it all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the additional scholarships are offset by higher guarantees. If programs that move up tend to add expenses in other areas, that's their choice. They could also have chosen to make those same expenditures at the FCS level. But the only additional expense FBS requires is the scholarships. Your argument is like saying don't buy a Porsche because people who buy sports cars tend to get speeding tickets. It's not the car's fault if you can't control your speeding. And you can go too fast in a minivan just like you can spend too much on a FCS program.