Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Great article.

three levels of Division I football

I've been saying that for years.

I doubt there will be 3 divisions. If this long-predicted separation actually happens, it seems much more likely the G5 and FCS will combine into one division.

He's wrong about one thing though: Texas Tech. Everything north of I-20 and west of DFW is Tech country....yeah, it's not HUGE like LA or Chicago, but it's enough to get 65k to every football weekend and their games get decent ratings on TV. Especially when they're competitive (which Kliff has them headed towards). I don't think TTU gets booted....K-State and Iowa State? Sure...

Interesting, though I see it hard for conferences to boot long time members.

Ain't gonna happen.

The B1G0 wasn't interested in Missouri, why would they be interested in Kansas? Both would have given them access to the Kansas City market but Missouri would have helped them with a greater share of the St. Louis market as well.

The Big12 is in better shape now than it was a few years ago. It was a lot closer to imploding but Bowlsby has turned it around and put it on much firmer ground.

The article focuses too much on immediate market for some schools without accounting for a greater geographic reach (such as Texas Tech as AZ mentioned). Iowa may not be a high population state but the University of Iowa has huge following in Chicago as do most of the B1G0 schools.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:If this long-predicted separation actually happens, it seems much more likely the G5 and FCS will combine into one division.

I would certainly be fine with the G5 combining with the upper echelon of FCS.

But, FCS is also divided into the "haves" and "havenots" as well. While the best FCS programs and conferences are in many ways equals to the FBS G5 programs and conferences - there is A LOT of dead weight in FCS that would have to be discarded first.

And, I think this could be done through scholarship requirements. Allow FCS programs that can and want to fund 85 scholarships to combine with G5 schools. Cast the rest out.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote:If this long-predicted separation actually happens, it seems much more likely the G5 and FCS will combine into one division.

I would certainly be fine with the G5 combining with the upper echelon of FCS.

But, FCS is also divided into the "haves" and "havenots" as well. While the best FCS programs and conferences are in many ways equals to the FBS G5 programs and conferences - there is A LOT of dead weight in FCS that would have to be discarded first.

And, I think this could be done through scholarship requirements. Allow FCS programs that can and want to fund 85 scholarships to combine with G5 schools. Cast the rest out.

A second tier division with equal schollies across the board sounds good.

Good article. The P5 needs to complete their split (they are already half way there with the recent approval of autonomy) and get on with it already. The P5 has already started to distance themselves on a product standpoint, give it a few more years at the expanded revenue they are seeing compared to those in the G5 and it will get even more distinct.

Tier 1 - P5
Tier 2 - G5, top FCS
Tier 3 - Remaining FCS, any D2 that wants to be "D1"

kalm wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
I would certainly be fine with the G5 combining with the upper echelon of FCS.

But, FCS is also divided into the "haves" and "havenots" as well. While the best FCS programs and conferences are in many ways equals to the FBS G5 programs and conferences - there is A LOT of dead weight in FCS that would have to be discarded first.

And, I think this could be done through scholarship requirements. Allow FCS programs that can and want to fund 85 scholarships to combine with G5 schools. Cast the rest out.

A second tier division with equal schollies across the board sounds good.

Yup. Part of the issue G5 is having is with the 85 scholarship amount. IMO it would be a financially prudent move for the tier 2 to revisit the level/amount of scholarships they want to offer when P5 splits.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote:If this long-predicted separation actually happens, it seems much more likely the G5 and FCS will combine into one division.

I would certainly be fine with the G5 combining with the upper echelon of FCS.

But, FCS is also divided into the "haves" and "havenots" as well. While the best FCS programs and conferences are in many ways equals to the FBS G5 programs and conferences - there is A LOT of dead weight in FCS that would have to be discarded first.

And, I think this could be done through scholarship requirements. Allow FCS programs that can and want to fund 85 scholarships to combine with G5 schools. Cast the rest out.

I'd be surprised if that actually happened, especially when you're talking about the non-scholarship teams. I guess much of the SWAC dropping to DII wouldn't be shocking given the financial issues many of them have. However, I doubt we'll see a repeal of the Dayton Rule anytime soon and there's no way the Ivies drop to DII/DIII (they don't really need to provide scholarships in the conventional sense anyway).

A Power "5"/everyone else split seems much likely than three tiers to me.

Mvemjsunpx wrote: A Power "5"/everyone else split seems much likely than three tiers to me.

Yeah but (per the article) the P5 is going to take a lot of that money that trickles down (see what I did there) with them. The number of money games (both G5 & FCS) will greatly diminish, if not vanish completely. The G5 (tier 2) & FCS (tier 3) will have to take a serious look at their revenue sources and what their sustainability level will be. 85 and 63 scholies may not be sustainable (hell they really aren't in the current format for those classifications).

SDHornet wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote: A Power "5"/everyone else split seems much likely than three tiers to me.

Yeah but (per the article) the P5 is going to take a lot of that money that trickles down (see what I did there) with them. The number of money games (both G5 & FCS) will greatly diminish, if not vanish completely. The G5 (tier 2) & FCS (tier 3) will have to take a serious look at their revenue sources and what their sustainability level will be. 85 and 63 scholies may not be sustainable (hell they really aren't in the current format for those classifications).

That makes it sound a lot more likely that you'll see a mass dropping of football rather than an extra tier, IMO.

The number of money games (both G5 & FCS) will greatly diminish

This is why I'm skeptical the full split will actually happen. The TV networks may not like the body bag games, but the big schools have plenty of financial incentive to play them.

Mvemjsunpx wrote: I'd be surprised if that actually happened, especially when you're talking about the non-scholarship teams. I guess much of the SWAC dropping to DII wouldn't be shocking given the financial issues many of them have. However, I doubt we'll see a repeal of the Dayton Rule anytime soon and there's no way the Ivies drop to DII/DIII (they don't really need to provide scholarships in the conventional sense anyway).

A Power "5"/everyone else split seems much likely than three tiers to me.

And how would that work with the "everyone else" group?

A group of teams with 85 scholarships, a group of teams with 63 scholarships, and a group of teams that are nonscholly? That sounds awful.

Would the 50+ G5 teams be forced to get rid of 20 scholarships each to make it even. Also sounds awful.

Only a handful of FCS programs could afford to pay for 20 more scholarships a year. So, as bad as the other options are... this doesn't sound like it would be a possibility at all.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Yeah but (per the article) the P5 is going to take a lot of that money that trickles down (see what I did there) with them. The number of money games (both G5 & FCS) will greatly diminish, if not vanish completely. The G5 (tier 2) & FCS (tier 3) will have to take a serious look at their revenue sources and what their sustainability level will be. 85 and 63 scholies may not be sustainable (hell they really aren't in the current format for those classifications).

That makes it sound a lot more likely that you'll see a mass dropping of football rather than an extra tier, IMO.

I don’t think so; otherwise a mass dropping of FB would have happened already. FCS does a decent job of containing costs (mainly coaching salaries and scholarships) and allows a balance within the T-IX requirements with the minimal revenues at FCS (obviously some schools still struggle with this, and that will be the case regardless of the new metrics).

The number of money games (both G5 & FCS) will greatly diminish

This is why I'm skeptical the full split will actually happen. The TV networks may not like the body bag games, but the big schools have plenty of financial incentive to play them.

I think it depends largely on the structure of the new TV deal(s) and how increased the production/marketing will go into every game. Will the network own the rights to every game (ie not just the games that draw) and will every game be televised? If the answer is ‘yes’ to both then I can see the garbage games going away completely. At a P5 that is 64 teams that is a max of 32 games a weekend (Thursday & Saturday) spread across 4 time zones. Is it even possible to air all 32 games on a major network & its affiliates?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote: I'd be surprised if that actually happened, especially when you're talking about the non-scholarship teams. I guess much of the SWAC dropping to DII wouldn't be shocking given the financial issues many of them have. However, I doubt we'll see a repeal of the Dayton Rule anytime soon and there's no way the Ivies drop to DII/DIII (they don't really need to provide scholarships in the conventional sense anyway).

A Power "5"/everyone else split seems much likely than three tiers to me.

And how would that work with the "everyone else" group?

A group of teams with 85 scholarships, a group of teams with 63 scholarships, and a group of teams that are nonscholly? That sounds awful.

Would the 50+ G5 teams be forced to get rid of 20 scholarships each to make it even. Also sounds awful.

Only a handful of FCS programs could afford to pay for 20 more scholarships a year. So, as bad as the other options are... this doesn't sound like it would be a possibility at all.

Not for the bottom line.

SDHornet wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
And how would that work with the "everyone else" group?

A group of teams with 85 scholarships, a group of teams with 63 scholarships, and a group of teams that are nonscholly? That sounds awful.

Would the 50+ G5 teams be forced to get rid of 20 scholarships each to make it even. Also sounds awful.

Only a handful of FCS programs could afford to pay for 20 more scholarships a year. So, as bad as the other options are... this doesn't sound like it would be a possibility at all.

Not for the bottom line.

Right. I'm pretty sure the scholarship limit would be the same for all. It might be 70 or something, who knows?

SDHornet wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote:
That makes it sound a lot more likely that you'll see a mass dropping of football rather than an extra tier, IMO.

I don’t think so; otherwise a mass dropping of FB would have happened already. FCS does a decent job of containing costs (mainly coaching salaries and scholarships) and allows a balance within the T-IX requirements with the minimal revenues at FCS (obviously some schools still struggle with this, and that will be the case regardless of the new metrics).

A lot of these schools stay afloat through money games (e.g. Idaho State) and eliminating them would probably force a lot of them to kill the program entirely.

Money games are mutually beneficial arrangements. I figure it'll be difficult to get rid of them; either that, or the change wouldn't last very long.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

SDHornet wrote: I don’t think so; otherwise a mass dropping of FB would have happened already. FCS does a decent job of containing costs (mainly coaching salaries and scholarships) and allows a balance within the T-IX requirements with the minimal revenues at FCS (obviously some schools still struggle with this, and that will be the case regardless of the new metrics).

A lot of these schools stay afloat through money games (e.g. Idaho State) and eliminating them would probably force a lot of them to kill the program entirely.

Money games are mutually beneficial arrangements. I figure it'll be difficult to get rid of them; either that, or the change wouldn't last very long.

Idaho State is a tier 3 school, I don’t see them being able to be tier 2. They barely stay afloat in the BSC, half of the BSC falls into this category. The ISU example is why this split is so monumental. There will be shakeups within established conferences that will be interesting to see where thing lie when the dust settles.

With the P5 split, the gig is officially up. The G5 will have to realize and officially recognize that they are no longer and never will be on par with the P5 (autonomy solidified this fact, G5 has just been in denial ever since). At that point there is no reason to send women’s volleyball and men’s tennis 3 time zones away to compete in front of family and friends. I think conferences regionalize (within reason), money is saved, and common sense finally prevails wrt this whole realignment nonsense.

Look for the TV money to go down, next go round. The 4 letter network is losing money and cutting back.

Jjoey52 wrote:Look for the TV money to go down, next go round. The 4 letter network is losing money and cutting back.

Serves them right for giving garbage conferences like the Sun Belt a TV deal, no doubt cord cutters are having a bigger impact than they anticipated too.

If there was a merger with G5 and upper-echelon FCS - in addition to scholarship discrepancy - you'd also have to work out "cost of attendance" stipends.

We'll be paying our football players and men's and women's basketball players a $3,400 stipend next year.

Some FCS programs won't have a problem stepping up to do this. And a few have already announced they plan to, right?

But, again - if there's a merger between G5 and FCS... I think we're only talking about upper echelon FCS programs.

Paying players won't solve anything and will only open Pandora's Box.

Whenever I read an article like this, I usually wonder if the person writing it really has any understanding of the business side of college sports. Relegation? Seriously?

I said this on AGS and I'll repeat it here...Power 5 teams don't pay G5 and FCS teams to play in their stadiums out of charity. They do it because it's a business model that works for them. If P5s only play other P5s then home games for a lot of big-money programs are lost and revenue they don't have to share with other conference mates is lost. If the TV money dries up like the article suggests then what incentive is there to only play other P5 teams?

I like the idea of 3 subdivisions with the middle one being the G5 and the top of the FCS, but I don't see it happening. Remember, the G5 gained voting power in the autonomy proposal and is getting a larger cut of post-season money from the CFP than they got in the old BCS system. Doesn't seem to me like the P5 is trying to create a separation to me.