How the BCS and Non-BCS should compromise
Page 2 of 2

Author:  footballgod [ Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:06 pm ]
Post subject:  How the BCS and Non-BCS should compromise

One there is hardly any r&d in this country anymore its all outsourced. Two do you know why its a coummunity college anyone from the crackhead to the bum down street can go. Three athletics is important nowadays manly because its worth multi-billion dollar industry.

Author:  sec03 [ Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:  How the BCS and Non-BCS should compromise

Fossil, as you noted, enrollment is one of multiple factors.

Schools such as Rice, Tulsa, and Wake Forest can have as few as 3,000+ undergraduates. History, tradition, type, revenue, etc. all play a role. Small private universities would have a very difficult time developing to go to 1-A levels nowadays. But some are moving up to stronger levels such as 1-AA, as was done by Wofford College, Gardner-Webb, and Elon College, and now Presbyterian College. These particular ones are in the Carolinas.

State universities with large enrollments such as Southern Illinois and Indiana State chose not to play or seek the highest levels of football.

Why are there only two big time (1A) university football teams in Georgia, but handfuls of them in Louisiana and Ohio? The sport, through history, has unfolded in perplexing ways.

Author:  wbyeager [ Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:  How the BCS and Non-BCS should compromise

Football being introduced into this country in Ohio (Canton), not to mention the state's substantial population, probably has something to do with the abundance of major college football teams in the state.

Not sure about Louisiana, but its proximity to Texas probably doesn't hurt.

Here's a scary thought: could you imagine four to five Bowl Subdivision conferences alone in California? It's not too far fetched when you think that Alabama has one Bowl Subdivision team per 1.1 million people, and that Mississippi has three in a state of 2 million people.

I feel one of the reasons that you see a number of private colleges moving up to Division I (Bryant University, Houston Baptist, Presbyterian, Longwood, etc.) is that the expenses of a Division II program are similar to Division I, but the revenue streams just aren't there in Division II.

Author:  footballgod [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:  How the BCS and Non-BCS should compromise


Why fault a university that chooses to emphasize education, research, or arts over athletics?

As see whats going in Division 2 and 3.

Also D2 is trying to split into D-2A and D-2AA.

Division 3 is also trying to go to D-3A and D-3AA.

So my belief is certain universitys have an unfair advantage because of enrollment. Why don't they charge kids athletic fees. It should be left to the enrollment to vote if they won't to or not. that is to move up and have a football program if they wish. Some do not ETSU don't.

Author:  fossil [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:59 am ]
Post subject:  How the BCS and Non-BCS should compromise

I agree that larger enrollment means more alumni, which means more donations and people at the games. However, universities are free to set their own enrollments. Schools that want to grow, can. I think the best examples are the phenomenal growths seen at the newish Florida schools (USF, UCF, FAU, FIU, even FGCU).

Additionally, other factors affect support. In the Sun Belt, FIU has over 38,000 students (; FAU has 26,000 ( Plus they're in a highly populated area. Compare to Troy with only 7,500 at the main campus ( in a sparsely populated area. They're all young programs, but Troy's attendance is far better.

I'm unsure, however, if the decision to emphasize/de-emphasize athletics should be left to the enrollment. That's mainly because this is a transient body of voters. Sure, some alums will financial support their school for life, but for many, their undergrad years are just a 7 year drunken blur. Does the enrollment get to revote every few years, potentially waffling between having and not having football?

Even if the enrollment does get to vote, it's possible they may choose to stay at a lower classification. Troy and North Alabama have similar enrollments. UNA students may prefer to perennially challenge for Div II titles instead of being the punching bag of the SEC.

Now, if there was more standardized funding of athletic programs, regardless of attendance, enrollments would be the best way to set classifications -- like most state high school athletic associations do.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group