NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:06 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:29 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
One poster suggested that the NCAA restructure itself along the lines of English soccer leagues where you can play yourself into a higher division.

I think conceptually this is a great idea, although wins and losses should not be the driving force. Fan support, NFL team, Enrollment, Academics, and Media Markets should be. Possibly in that order.

A lot of people discount the importance of fan support, but fan support is revenue to support the program in IA & IAA and it is an indication of the relative TV ratings you might get in an area in IA. If a team draws well, they will probably generate good ratings in a broadcast market. To me, fan support, which I think is measurable in attendance, is a key mesurable for IA schools and vital at the IAA.

Whether or not there is an NFL team within 40 miles really plays a huge factor in fan support IMO. NFL teams compete directly with college football teams for the general public's entertainment dollars. There is a reason UH, Rice, SMU, and TCU are no longer collegiate powers. Within 1 generation attendance at college schools within 40-100 miles (depending on the quality of the NFL team and the rabidity of fans in the region), what I call an "NFL killzone" will see a dramatic drop in fan support from the non-alumni public. I would argue the resurgance of USC and UCLA attendance in a generation after the NFL left LA supports my theories on this. (I am curious to see how BC does over the next 10 years with NE's dominance and BC's move to the ACC. I think the decline is coming.)

Enrollment USUALLY dovetails with football attendance pretty well. There is a reason that elite private schools generally draw less than 30K. It you have a university with an enrollment of 10K, your alumni base is probably no more than (10/4x40=)100k. You have to assume at least half of them are not interested in football and some part of them are no longer close enough to attend. If you compare that with a public school with an enrollment of 70K, the public school might have 7 times the number of alumni. This would seem to me to be the logical reason most of IA schools are larger publics --- it is easier to generate attendance numbers with a large student body. (IMO, the private schools that are the exception to this have properly marketed to the surrounding communities. ND for example has an enrollment of 12k, but pulls 80K per game.)

Large public schools can put a stadium on campus and just off their enrollment can often put 20-30K+ in the stands. UCF and USF are good examples of this. Both schools are enormous but are (reportedly - I'm not from FL) large commuter schools that are relatively new additions to IA. So far, they have been able to leverage their huge enrollments into solid attendence numbers. Enrollment can be a valid indicator of solid IA attendance numbers.

(I don't have anything to support this next claim, but it is generally accepted on this forum. "Commuter schools don't do as well as schools with lots of on campus or near campus housing." Since I don't have any numbers to support that, I won't suggest that for a criteria --more as an aid for fans/alumni considering the IA viability of their school.)

Academics should always be considered. The BCS schools are usually among the top 2 tiers of the US News ranking. (Those rankings are not the full picture, but are a good quick indicator of how universities see themselves vs. other universities.) BCS schools see themselves as academically and athletically superior to the rest of the feild. Unless your academics match up well/ are trending upwards and you have an athletic budget that shows a BCS sized committment to athletics (say at least 25M before BCS admission) and have a healthy neighboring media market that expands their TV deal, BCS schools will not be admitting you unless they are really despirate (ex. Cinnci into the BE).

In general, if you don't fit those criteria, you will find yourself in a sub-BCS conference. Most of those conferences will judge you mostly by whether or not you fit in their footprint and the size of your native media market(s). (The MWC being the lone exception to that. They have two criteria: will this school help us into the BCS, and barring that, will they add enough media market to offset the further division of the TV pie.)

As far as Media Markets go there seems to be 3 ways universities are evaluated:

If you are a flagship university (usually "the University of Xstate" but Ohio State, LSU, and some others are notable exceptions) or the second long established, large university in a state with good academics (Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, Michigan State), it can be argued that you have alumni all over the state and therefore all media markets in the state are your native markets.

If you aren't a large and academically dominant university your native market is often evaluated by your local DMA only. Rice is in Houston. Houston has a DMA of 2M TV household. That is a big part of why rice is in CUSA and not the sunbelt, for example.

Then sometimes a university is in a small market next to a large market or another small market with no native universities. Usually this is the case with a large school in a small town cranking out graduates who move to the nearby big city. Texas A&M grads to Houston is a decent example. (This is why UMASS and Delaware hit it out of the park on demographics.) Sometimes it seems true with privates too. Notre Dame is in south bend (300K Tv households) but they probably are the #1 college football team in the neighboring Chicago market (3.5 M TV households). This is a little tough to evaluate. Does S. Miss deliver Jackson (300K) or only their native Hattiesburg (110K)? Does Troy get credit for being the #2 school to Auburn in Montgomery, Dothan, and Columbus (a total of over 500k TVs) or only Montgomery?

So anyway there is the background thought process. On to the proposal.


Last edited by finiteman on Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:14 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
Fan support, NFL team, Enrollment, Academics, and Media Markets

Division IAA generally doesn't have profitable TV deals. That means revenue to support football has to usually generated by gate revenue and alumni and government donations, with the shortfall being pulled from university budgets, government budgets, and/or student fees.

The NCAA should be trying to make sure athletic tiers are structured so the schools at each tier are not having to redirect money to cover expenses. That is a legally defensible position. Tiering criterias should be built so football programs at every level have a good chance to either break even or generate a profit.

Along those lines the surest ways to make a profit at the IAA level is to generate good attendence and develop a generous alumni base. Those two go hand in hand, IMO. As it is, once a school starts pulling 12-22K in attendence in IAA, the fans and alumni push the university to jump to IA, where they are often overmatched and 15-20K attendance is not break even level. As a result of this there are only a handful of IAA schools who run profitable football programs. This has to be addressed.

1. Attendance threshold = 30K.
If you don't average 30K over any 3 year period for 2 consecutive years, you drop to IAA for the next 3 years. You can miss it one year and have a three year average as low as 28.5K and be on warning for the next year.

If you average over 30K over any 3 year period in IAA, you are eligible to chose to move up to IA.

How this could work. Teams at IA level are limited to 85 scholarships and I believe they can give out 25 a year. If you were, for example, SMU, and you failed to meet the criteria, you would drop to IAA. That year you would presumeably have 15-20 seniors graduate. You would not be eligible to issue any new scholarships that would put you over the FCS limit of 50 scholarships total, but you would be able to honor those additional 10-20 scholarships for which you offered at the FBS level --- AND (this is an important olive branch) you would be able to compete for the FCS title starting your first year in FCS.

I think some schools might have instant FCS success and embrace being financial successful and an athletic power at that level, especially if they were in the same boat as ~40 other schools.

(Additionally, I feel players in general --- and specifically in the case of a school moving down ---- should be able to transfer to other schools WITHOUT sitting out a year to play. A year off can kill a player's edge, so I feel that forcing them to sit out potentially is costing them money and therefore is grounds for a successful lawsuit.)

Schools that elect to move up would be given an additional olive branch. They would be allow to offer up to 35 scholarships a year in their first 2 seasons after moving up (up to the total of 85). This would set them up to have very successful 3rd and 4th years that would hopefully solidify them as FBS schools. They also would not have any limitations on their immediate bowl eligibility.

2. NFL teams
I think #1 will take care of these concerns. A team in an NFL killzone is going to have a hell of a time generating 30K attendance on average over 3 years. If they can do that, they deserve to be IA.

3. Enrollment
I think schools use football to grow enrollment so this is a little touchy, but I think enrollment numbers should be used to evalute schools too. If you can hit the 30K and are a public school with an enrollment of more than 12K students you should be allowed to make the jump. If you are a private with an enrollment of at least 10K and you hit those numbers you should be allowed to make the jump.

IAA and lower classifications should be the divisions that are about helping universities use football to grow enrollment at smaller universities, not FBS.

4. Academics

I would make an enrollment acception for flagships. I think a state's flagship university (allowing up to 2 universities to share the "flagship" designation) should be free to make the jump if they can hit the attendance numbers --- regardless of enrollment. Flagships reperesent that state's best commitment to academic excellence and their exposure should not be limited as they are the public's best effort. If a flagship of a small state like Idaho or one of the Dakota Univerisities ramp up their programs to draw 30K a game, they should be allowed to move up even if they are below the 12K enrollment number.

Additionally, I think that conferences will be very welcoming to any non-flagship top academic schools who can hit the 30K attendance bar, so I don't see a reason to create futher criterias based off academics. It will take care of itself.

5. DMAs
I think conference affiliations will control this. What I am proposing would effectively reclassify about 40 of IA's members and would effectively downgrade all non-BCS conferences. If the BCS conferences want your market and like your academics, they will let you in. If they don't, having a good market might allow you to make your own TV deal in your local market and go as an Indy. If not, you might reconsider IA and stay a money machine in IAA.

So that would be the criteria:

30K attendance average over 3 years to move up; 30K attendance average over 3 years for 2 straight years to go down

12K enrollment for publics (flagships get waivers) and 10K for privates.


Last edited by finiteman on Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:48 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
Now obviously this won't work in a vacuum. IAA is broken and would have to be fixed. To reclassify all of these 40 schools to IAA would be condeming many of them to financial hardships as IAA exists today.

To aleviate that, I would suggest a number of changes at the FBS and FCS levels.

FBS changes

Bowl games.

No regular season IA football games after 11/31 and no bowl games before 12/25. I would also publically request the NFL not schedule games on thursday-saturday in that period to assist the financial growth of IAA.

This is a modest change in FBS procedures that can bring about a dramatic turn in the fortunes of FCS. It would open up 3 weekends in december for starved broadcast networks to broadcast the first 3 rounds of the FCS playoffs in their entirety. This would allow the nation to become familiar with the schools involved and chose favorites. The TV deal would pay all travel expenses for schools involved and would give a bit back to the schools in profit. The teams with the better attendance would always be the home team with both schools splitting gate profits.
OOC play.
I would suggest a rule that requires all FBS teams to play host in 2 OOC games against FCS teams each season. I think all FCS and all IAA teams should be included in the same strength computer ratings for evaluateing FBS schools. That would effectively goad IA teams into not only playing top 25 teams in IAA, but also playing the best competition they can schedule in IA, effectively helping to control movement in both directions.

A heavyweight in a power conference like Michigan or Alabama might play a pair of school in the FCS that is in the top 15-25 range and a pair of middling Div 1A schools the caliber of memphis to ease into SEC or Big 10 play. Now a school in a weaker conference like memphis might play powers like Michigan and Alabama and take two risky games against two top 10 FCS schools to bump up the relative strength of their schedule in a weaker conference.

Anyway, home gate profit would be split between FBS host and FCS visitor, making these games enormously profitable for the lower division.

By my count as few as 77 schools would remain in IA.

FCS changes

Should be split into two levels. If you maintain 40-60 full football scholarships you would be eligible to compete at the FCS level with the ability to play in the televised FCS playoffs and play FBS teams OOC. IAA teams that do not maintain at least 30 scholarships would be reclassified as specifically"IAA" (not "FCS") and would not be eligible for FBS "bodybag" games.

Since FCS schools have scholarship expense just like FBS schools and revenue at that level is mostly from stadium revenue, there should be an attendance requirement at this level too. Teams that do not maintain attendances over 8K over any 3 year period would be downgraded to "IAA" in a procedure very similar to the proposed one at the IA level. Players on a downgrading school would retain their scholarships if they chose not to transfer. Schools and conference chosing not to play in the FCS playoffs would be downgraded to IAA.

Teams chosing to upgrade to FCS would have to have enrollments larger than 8K and a stadium that seats at least 20K.

FCS schools would be required to schedule up to 3 IAA schools for home games on any open OOC slots not taken by IA schools. Home gate profit would be split between host and IAA visitor.

FCS and IAA teams would again be ranked together in the same shared ranking system.

I count about 47 IAA schools who would remain FCS and another 44 or so IA schools who would be downgraded who would initially be classified together as a very financially healthy 91 member FCS.*

IAA schools

Up to 36 football scholarships with no minimums.

IAA schools that qualified for the FCS playoffs would have the option of not playing in the FCS playoffs (unlike FCS schools, where it would be manditory), but the thanks to the TV deal, finances would be there for them to play if they opted to play.

By my count probably 76 of the IAA teams would fall below the new proposed FCS requirements. I think once you are at the non-scholarship level, attendance should dictate division.

Since the newly classified IAA schools would be extracting travel and facility expenses almost exclusively from gate revenue, there should be an attendance requirement at this level too. Any team that draws 4K or more and had an enrollment of at least the same would be eligible to play at the IAA level if they so chose. Any team that draws less than 4K over a 3 year period would automatically downgraded to division II or III.

Teams chosing to upgrade to IAA would have enrollments of at least 3K and a stadium that seats at least 10K.

I count 30 of the above 76 IAA teams that would not meet the 4K attendance minimum. I count as many as 44 Div II teams who would be classified IAA and another 5 or 6 Div III teams who would be classified as such, creating a drand total of as many as 96 IAA schools.

Division II

Up to 36 football scholarships with no minimums. This is the same criteria as the new IAA for football, which hopefully would ease the transitions between divisions. Only attendance numbers would seperate these programs with regards to football.

I count 21 FCS schools, 63 Division II schools that draw 2-4K fans per game and probably another 30-40 Div III schools who would be classified as Div II initially. ~120

Division II schools can play OOD games vs. Division IAA and III schools.

Division III

no football scholarships.

Division III schools can play OOD games vs. Division II and NAIA opponents.

----------

Now obviously there are problems in the lower ranges that are not clearly addressed in this proposal, (how this affects NCAA basketball) but I think those things can be straighten out pretty quickly. It does a pretty good job of addressing football.

I think probably 70-90% of all schools in the FBS, FCS, and IAA classifications would have profitable football programs under this setup and maybe a third of the schools in Div II. I think this would be real progress.

* My counts of schools were quickly done and should be considered relative ballpark figures.


Last edited by finiteman on Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:24 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
What IA might look like

1. Big Ten
Michigan 110.6K
Penn St. 106K
Ohio St. 104.9K
Wisconsin 80.7K
Michigan St. 72.8K
Iowa 68.9K
Purdue 58.8K
Minnesota 48.2K
Illinois 46.3K
Indiana 35.7K
Northwestern 29.7K (warning)

2. PAC 10
Southern California 86.6K
Washington 64.9K
UCLA 62K
Oregon 58.1K
Arizona St. 56.8K
California 54.8K
Arizona 50.5K
Stanford 43.4K
Oregon St. 39.5K
Washington St. 33.2K

3. SEC
Tennessee 106K
Georgia 92.5K
LSU 91.6K
Florida 90.3K
Alabama 85.3K
Auburn 84.8K
South Carolina 78.8K
Arkansas 66.8K
Kentucky 61.5K
Mississippi 54.8K
Mississippi St. 45.4K
Vanderbilt 32.8K

4. BIG 12
Texas 85.3K
Oklahoma 83.9K
Nebraska 80K
Texas A&M 77.1K
Missouri 54.2K
Texas Tech 50.5K
Colorado 48.9K
Kansas St. 46.6K
Iowa St. 45.8K
Oklahoma St. 43.6K
Kansas 42.1K
Baylor 34.8K

5. ACC
Florida St. 81.9K
Clemson 79.1K
Virginia Tech 64.5K
Virginia 59.7K
North Carolina St. 54.2K
Georgia Tech 51.6K
Maryland 50.8K
North Carolina 49.2K
Miami (Fla.) 48.6K
Boston College 40.2K
Wake Forest 29.8K (Warning)
UCF 28.5K (Warning --- football only add "until Duke exceeds 30k in IAA")

6. Big East
West Virginia 55.7K
Pittsburgh 47.3K
Louisville 40.8K
Syracuse 39.6K
Connecticut 38.6K
Memphis 36.8K
Rutgers 33.8K
South Fla. 32.8K

I could see two scenarios. With Cinnci not meeting the criteria and dropping to IAA, they would in essence become a basketball only memember of the Big East. Are they still good enough to merit inclusion only off their BB program. My gut says no. IMO, they would be voted out and memphis would be voted in as their all-sports replacement keeping the football vs. basketball voting balance at 8 vs. 8.

The alternate scenario has them admitting ECU as well as an all sports member to balance against basketball only cinnci --- a very hard thing to imagine.

7. MWC
Brigham Young 60K
Utah 39.9K
Air Force 37.8K
TCU 33.2K
New Mexico 32.8K
Boise St. 29.5K
San Diego St. 29.3K
Colorado St. 28.2K

The MWC is interesting too. They lose wyoming, the #3 school in the Denver market (and gang of 5 member) and UNLV, the best market in Nevada. SDSU and CSU would both be on warning. THose two schools would be delivering the WAC's best TV revenues. Losing either one of those schools would cripple the WAC; losing both would reduce them to sunbelt level. I think they would pull in the Boise State to replace Wyoming and content themselves in that there is one fewer mouth to feed. I think they would try to nurse SDSU and CSU over 30, but I suspect in fairly short order one would not make it.

Independents

Notre Dame 80.7K
Navy 32K
Army 33K
Fresno St. 38.8K
Hawaii 36.7K
UTEP 35.9K
East Caro. 34.4K
Southern Miss. 28.5K
------------------------

I think if CSU or SDSU dropped, Utah and BYU would see this as the end of the viability of the MWC. If one dropped, the idea of the gang of 5 would be dead and Utah and BYU would agree not to insist on a package deal and would make their own ways.

In this scenario, I could see the Big 12 quickly evicting the superflous and non-competitive Baylor (who would drop to IAA in 3 years to play SMU & Rice's conference) and offering that slot to larger market Utah. (Missou would move to the B12 south.) BYU would become an independent --- the Notre Dame of the East.

I could see a sunbelt level SWC emerging from the MWC ruins

Fresno St. 38.8K
Air Force 37.8K
Hawaii 36.7K
UTEP 35.9K
TCU 33.2K
New Mexico 32.8K
Boise St. 29.5K
San Diego St. 29.3K or Colorado St. 28.2K
Southern Miss. 28.5K

and the new Indys
Notre Dame 80.7K
Brigham Young 60K
East Caro. 34.4K
Army 33K
Navy 32K

I think IA would mostly solidify in that format.

IA downgrades

By my quick count, 1 ACC school, 1 Big East school, 7 CUSA schools, 13 MAC schools, 8 sunbelt schools, and 6 WAC schools.

Marshall 26.7K
Toledo 22.2K
Northern Ill. 22.2K
UAB 22.2K
Tulsa 22K
Cincinnati 21.4K
UNLV 21.2K
Troy 20.3K
Houston 19.8K
Tulane 19.6K
Duke 19.1K
Western Mich. 18.6K
Miami (Ohio) 18.5K
Wyoming 18.3K
Arkansas St. 18.3K
Bowling Green 18K
Nevada 18K
Temple 17.6K
Louisiana Tech 17.2K
Southern Methodist 17.1K
Central Mich. 16.9K
North Texas 16.9K
Ohio 16.7K
La.-Monroe 16K
San Jose St. 15.8K
Middle Tenn. St. 15.5K
Rice 15.4K
New Mexico St. 15.4K
La.-Lafayette 15.2K
Florida Int'l 15.1K
Idaho 13.8K
Akron 13.6K
Ball St. 13.5K
Buffalo 12.5K
Utah St. 12.3K
Kent St. 10.5K
Eastern Mich. 10.5K
Fla. Atlantic 9.2K


IAA
CUSA would be gone. The MAC & Sunbelt conferences would be the dominant IAA powers with their own regional TV deals. The Magnolia conference would emerge in the IAA level as an academic and athletic power, causing the Ivy league further athletic anguish.

Magnolia
Baylor 34.8K
Tulsa 22K
Tulane 19.6K
Miami (Ohio) 18.5K
Southern Methodist 17.1K
Ohio 16.7K
Rice 15.4K
St. Louis (non- football)
Dayton (non-football)
Marquette (non-football)
Loyola University Chicago (non-football)
Butler (non-football)
Creigton (non-football)
Denver (non-football)


The Patriot conference, Pioneer conference, and Ivy League would all drop to the new IAA designation.

I could see West Texas leading a small handful of LSC members into IAA land. WT would love to be in a more noteworthy football classification, but the money isn't there. It would probably make financial sense for schools like WT and UCO to move to this new IAA designation so they could potentially have a shot to play schools like SMU, UNT, and Tulsa in football, or at least regular 1 & 1's with Southland schools. It would also probably make sense for their basketball programs too by opening the possibility of an NCAA berth.

That would probably be it of real note.

If I were in the conference business, a new Western Athletic Confederation would emerge as an IAA power. The new WAC would be an affiliation of 2 12 team conferences with a goal of reemerging as a football/basketball IA/IAA hybrid conference in 10 years. It would consuming the Great West and Big Sky conferences and reorganize under the WAC banner to negotiate TV deals en masse, maximizing their potential, with the understanding that the majority of TV revenue is going to go into making a conference loan program designed to fuel expansion of football stadium capacities to 35K at those schools with the best chance to go IA. All schools would split football home profits under that setup.

New WAC affiliation
Big Sky Conference

Idaho
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
Utah State
Weber State
Wyoming
N. Dakota
N. Dakota State
S. Dakota
S. Dakota State
N. Colorado

Great West Conference
Eastern Washington
Western Washington
Portland State
Nothern Arizona
San Diego State/CSU
Cal Poly
Cal Davis
Sacramento State
San Jose State
Southern Utah
Nevada
UNLV


Last edited by finiteman on Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:24 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:20 pm
Posts: 3
Interesting how so many people want LIFE to be put into such nice, neat and tidy little boxes?! Yet they have very little facts, have the parameters totally screwed up and hardly ever consider anything outside their own little box. Which seems more to be more of a brown paper bag rather than a box. Nt to mention it's all wet and soggy.

Collegiate sports, particulalry football has really very little to do with any of the junk that everybody hashes out online. I think that's why the Ivy League and Patriot League schools simply walked away from the entire mess decades ago. There are some smart folks at those places and they saw the train wreck coming down the tracks. College sprots were ORIGINALLY offered at colleges as an extension of the DEVELOPMENT of the WHOLE MAN. NOT as another professional amusement venue for otherwise bored people. If you all want a playoff and all these nice neat little packages, loby the NFL to play year round. Or have them expand to 68 or 200 or 300 teams so it takes 12 months of playing time to come up with a Super Bowl. That should keep everybody from being bored.

Not that it would be more advantageous to NOT have a little more order amongst the chaos of college sports, lke football, but some of these scenarios are really pushing the limit on what schools, fans, alums, etc., etc., can be allowed to do and not do. When the rules become an over-bearing crush on the sport, I think the spirit of the game suffers immeasurably. Just like placing a "moratorium" on schools starting teams or conferences or moving about to different conferences. Personally, i think that should be a decision of the "confereences" and individual schools. I am in agreement with "organizing" "groupings"(aka Divisions) but those "groupings" need to be for the benefit of the schools and not the fans, especially those "fans" that have no affiliations or concerns for the schools or scholaastic endevours of higher education. College sports is an EXTENSION of a university, NOT the sole reason a university exists.

I have been involved in the college business end of things and the athletics side as well. Sports is a big issue these days for promoting a school in the media and thus way too much is done to cater to the media versus the well-being of the university. There does have to be a better symbiotic relationship established but the media should never be allowed to be the driving force. that seems to be happening too much these past few decades. It is time the schools took control and DICTATED to the media and the general populus the way things are going to be in their institutions and not the other way around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:08 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 261
Location: Louisville, KY
I do see some major problems with any of this happening. First off, out of the past few schools to move up, only one school (either FAU or FIU, I want to say the former) wasn't already within a I-A (yes, I'm still refusing to use FBS/FCS) football conference. UConn was already a member of the BE when they moved up, and the remaining FA/IU school and WKU were both already in the SunBelt. Once you start messing with conference affiliation, you're getting on a very touchy subject. If you're going to say to anyone (especially the BCS-affiliated conferences) that one or two of their schools may have to drop down to I-AA, they're going to either tell you to get lost or push through legislation to counter the move. While we all know the BCS schools would be more than happy to not have to share their pie with everyone else, they also have enough schools in a danger zone that they'd either be forced to sacrifice those schools to trim the total number, which will not happen.

Honestly, looking at the current economic state and football state at the I-AA level, I don't see too many schools that have the viability to move up (Montana, App State, Northern Iowa are the ones I can think off of the bat). The private schools in the BE and 'Belt seem content where they're at (either I-AA or no football), while the state universities have a better shot to move up, but don't seem to be willing to unless they're going to get solid support from the alums.

If anything, maybe the best way to handle things would be possibly to rule that a school wanting to move up would either need to already be a member of a I-A conference or be accepted into one in all sports (with grandfatherings for ND, Navy, Army, and Temple, since they're already established). Taking the three I-AA schools previously stated, Montana would be able to find a home in either the WAC or MWC, App in either the SB or C-USA, and Northern Iowa would probably be able to find a home in either the MAC or C-USA, though that would be pushing the trave footprint of both conferences out a little bit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:36 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
People often complain about the quality of the schools that move up, but in the end, the more that do, the better the chances that there will be an even playing field (BCS-wise).

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:58 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1291
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
Thing about the proposal... I think you may as well go with what happens on the field. More often than not, it's going to reflect the financial support anyway. If you're filling a 20K stadium at FCS, you're probably doing well on the field. If you're not, you might be wishing to find a way to drop scholarships without dropping football... so what might end up happening is a 6-tier system where EVERYONE can be in the mix.

Or not. I need a lot of time to think through this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:11 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
pounder wrote:
Thing about the proposal... I think you may as well go with what happens on the field. More often than not, it's going to reflect the financial support anyway. If you're filling a 20K stadium at FCS, you're probably doing well on the field. If you're not, you might be wishing to find a way to drop scholarships without dropping football... so what might end up happening is a 6-tier system where EVERYONE can be in the mix.

Or not. I need a lot of time to think through this one.



Full circle. Years of success on the field will not only sell the seats, but will make the program more attractive to recruits who can better the program. You need to be good to sell seats = you need the best athletes to be good = you need to be already good and selling seats to get good athletes

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:48 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 261
Location: Louisville, KY
Quinn wrote:
Full circle. Years of success on the field will not only sell the seats, but will make the program more attractive to recruits who can better the program. You need to be good to sell seats = you need the best athletes to be good = you need to be already good and selling seats to get good athletes


Or you need the right coach who can build the program up. If you look at USF and FAU, for example, they both picked two proven coaches to start their programs from scratch and handed them the reins, and it's worked out pretty good thus far for both schools.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group