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

The moratorium on moving up to the FBS level being lifted next year and I was wondering what the ramifications will be. This is not a "who should move up" thread, however, noticing all the schools that are spending money to upgrade their football facilities it becomes a more legitimate topic. JMU is spending $52million, Liberty is looking to expand up to 30k then possible 60k? and App completed it's expansion. Were the decisions for Hofstra and NE to drop their programs due to the lact of support or seeing the writing on the wall that next year the game will become more expensive to play because of the realignment in the FBS? If some of the more high-profile FCS teams decide to make the jump will enough quality D2 programs want to move up or will the FCS lose a large number of its top programs?

It will depend on whether the moratorium is lifted, and what conditions are set to move up.

Right now, to be Division I (in general) you need 14 sports. FBS needs 16. I can see them raising it to 18, the theory being that only overall well-funded programs should be in FBS. If you can keep up with the big boys, then you can play with them. Otherwise, stay at FCS.

And, in this climate, who can afford the extra 50 schollies (22 for football, minimum 22 women's) to move up? Montana, for example, would need to add two sports, with coaching staffs, etc. Can they afford that?

I'll say this...if the CAA jumps to FBS together in the next 5 years, don't expect ODU to go with it. We'll probably end up in the CAA for everything except football (w/ an open invite to a new FBS CAA league when we're ready). The administration and coach Wilder seem clear that we MUST achieve success at this level first before even doing anything remotely associated with FBS. The only hint we even have of going to that level of football is the fact that our clam shells were never heavily renovated. Expect us at the FCS level for a while...which is fine with all of us...we like it so far! It's clear that the school wants to build this program up the right way...with small achievable milestones. As of now, FBS is NOT an achievable milestone for ODU. And honestly, I'd rather our school be a Montana of the East on the FCS level than a Marshall on the FBS stage.

As for the decimation of the FCS, I think if JMU and Appy and Montana and whoever else leave, other teams will step up and fill their roles. It's always been like that in sports collegiate sports...when one dominant teams leave for higher division, someone fills their shoes. Same thing...new faces.

Very true on the stepping up.

Montana did not gain the dominance until Boise, Nevada and Idaho moved up. App State was in Marshall's shadow.

Despite the calls on the UMass boards for the Minutemen to move up, I don't think it will happen for a long time...

The legislature in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has made it clear they are not willing to spend more money on the University system...never mind sports...

So the upgrades that would be needed must be privately funded, and the economy just isn't going to support that...

Yes, there is more money to be made by moving up to FBS...but to make money, you gotta spend money...and I just don't see where those funds will come from...

First off, I think the FBS schools (particularly BCS schools) are going to make it next to impossible for any FCS schools to move up.

Right now they are talking about at minimum a $1 million application fee just to start the process. FBS schools share a certain portion of advertising and TV money and allowing more teams in means dilution of profits. Keeping that in mind there are very few teams that would bring any financial benefits with them to FBS. Montana, JMU and App State are three examples of potential teams. The days of FIU, FAU are over, IMO.

Even if a few of the top FCS teams do go FBS, there will be teams that step up. Like Jon said - there are strong teams now that have benefited from Bosie St., Nevada, and Marshall moving up. The FCS already has a few teams on the move up within its own ranks now that could easily take the place of teams moving out (e.g. Liberty, Stony Brook (and Albany to some extent), etc..).


I think its more likely that we'll see more DII teams moving up to FCS then FCS to FBS moves.

∞∞∞ wrote:I'll say this...if the CAA jumps to FBS together in the next 5 years, don't expect ODU to go with it.

Again, a league doesn't move up, only individual teams do. Only eleven teams had the required attendance this year, you say ODU won't move, Yale and Jackson St. don't participate in the FCS playoffs anyway, only a handful of other colleges are in range of meeting attendance. Most would need stadium expansion because you can't depend on 100% capacity crowds to keep meeting the 15K.

There will be no "decimation" of FCS.

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2009/Internet/ ... NDANCE.pdf

UAalum72 wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I'll say this...if the CAA jumps to FBS together in the next 5 years, don't expect ODU to go with it.

Again, a league doesn't move up, only individual teams do. Only eleven teams had the required attendance this year, you say ODU won't move, Yale and Jackson St. don't participate in the FCS playoffs anyway, only a handful of other colleges are in range of meeting attendance. Most would need stadium expansion because you can't depend on 100% capacity crowds to keep meeting the 15K.

There will be no "decimation" of FCS.

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2009/Internet/ ... NDANCE.pdf

I believe we've covered this ad nauseum, but didn't the NCAA do away with the attendance requirement?

AZGrizFan wrote:

UAalum72 wrote: Again, a league doesn't move up, only individual teams do. Only eleven teams had the required attendance this year, you say ODU won't move, Yale and Jackson St. don't participate in the FCS playoffs anyway, only a handful of other colleges are in range of meeting attendance. Most would need stadium expansion because you can't depend on 100% capacity crowds to keep meeting the 15K.

There will be no "decimation" of FCS.

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2009/Internet/ ... NDANCE.pdf

I believe we've covered this ad nauseum, but didn't the NCAA do away with the attendance requirement?

No, the NCAA did away with the stadium capacity requirement and replaced it with the attendance requirement.

With that being said, I don't think they've enforced it yet.

Only likely scenarios, these days, would be for a school that would have an assured Conference slot - like South Alabama. If there is another round of FBS conference realignment (like Big 10 swiping more than one member), you could see a conference like the WAC work with the NCAA to write rules to allow them to invite a Montana, etc.

UAalum72 wrote:http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2009/Internet/ ... NDANCE.pdf

Thanks for that list. Just curious, how do some schools achieve a percentage over their stadium's capacity? Isn't there like a fire code or something they have to follow? Does standing room only or grassy areas (like UVA) count as part of the stadium capacity?

As for the CAA thing, I know it's individual teams only, but from what I read on CAAzone, there is a theory that many will make the jump together along with teams from a different east coast conferences (Appy, UD, Charlotte, JMU, UMass, GSU, Liberty, possibly Towson). I personally doubt it, and I'm not sure if it'd even be called the CAA, but that's what I meant. This new conference would guarentee them an FBS spot.

dbackjon wrote:It will depend on whether the moratorium is lifted, and what conditions are set to move up.

Right now, to be Division I (in general) you need 14 sports. FBS needs 16. I can see them raising it to 18, the theory being that only overall well-funded programs should be in FBS. If you can keep up with the big boys, then you can play with them. Otherwise, stay at FCS.

And, in this climate, who can afford the extra 50 schollies (22 for football, minimum 22 women's) to move up? Montana, for example, would need to add two sports, with coaching staffs, etc. Can they afford that?

Speaking strictly in terms of schollies, this can be done with the introduction of ONE sport. The problem is that it would ALSO take coordination with other schools to form a league for that sport. Perhaps the MPSF could cover it out west; I'm not sure if there's a similar league back east. I still don't understand why this hasn't happened yet given the plethora of professional leagues right now. That one sport is WOMEN'S FOOTBALL. It would be great for Cali, the Pacific Northwest, the Chicago-Detroit-Kansas City area, the Southeast (particularly around Atlanta) and the New York area, which are all hotbeds for women's football.

While women's football would get the number of schollies, NCAA current requirements state an FBS team must sponsor 16 teams. FCS must sponsor 14 teams.

Montana sponsors the bare minimum of sports. Other Big Sky schools, like NAU and Sac State, sponsor more than 14 (NAU 15, Sac State at least 16, maybe 17 already)

I'd assume women's football wouldn't work considering it costs a whole bunch already to even run a men's football program. You'd also have to create an infrastructure for it on the high school level, and probably at earlier ages too. If you just started out from scratch on the collegiate level, the talent would simply be horrendous to watch.

dbackjon wrote:While women's football would get the number of schollies, NCAA current requirements state an FBS team must sponsor 16 teams. FCS must sponsor 14 teams.

Montana sponsors the bare minimum of sports. Other Big Sky schools, like NAU and Sac State, sponsor more than 14 (NAU 15, Sac State at least 16, maybe 17 already)

Harvard sponsors 41 teams -- more than any other school in the country -- and they ain't goin' nowhere. In more than one sense.

That's true, Infinity Cubed. That's why I'd want to take water polo as a model, even though there's no pro league for that sport in the US. WWP started in the late '80s with individual girls playing with the boys at the HS level (and perhaps college, too). That sparked enough interest for schools to sponsor segregated teams. As far as I'm concerned, the violence issue is a red herring when one compares football to water polo, especially if one restricts which positions a female would play: many don't realize how violent WP is because much of said violence takes place unseen beneath the water. Restricting the positions would also allow coaches to specifically target the recruiting of girls to those who have certain skill sets from other sports. Bring in soccer players for the kicking positions. Get softball players, particularly catchers and outfielders, to play quarterback. Recruit basketball post players to play wide receiver. (And if you're scared about that, you can restrict their routes to bombs and sideline routes, which are less likely to be well-covered and any sort of hit more likely to draw a flag.) In this initial phase, I probably wouldn't recruit women for the line, and I'm not sure about defense, unless I could get a sprinter to play free safety. While I know a couple of big hitters, they're not that common. Once the interest level is there (which will understandably take a while), one could split the team off as happened with water polo. As HS leagues form, there would then be a basis for the formation of college leagues.

Pretty ambitious, I grant you. But certainly doable. It's been done before with other sports.

dbackjon wrote:It will depend on whether the moratorium is lifted, and what conditions are set to move up.

Right now, to be Division I (in general) you need 14 sports. FBS needs 16. I can see them raising it to 18, the theory being that only overall well-funded programs should be in FBS. If you can keep up with the big boys, then you can play with them. Otherwise, stay at FCS.

And, in this climate, who can afford the extra 50 schollies (22 for football, minimum 22 women's) to move up? Montana, for example, would need to add two sports, with coaching staffs, etc. Can they afford that?

Yeah, if we go women's bowling and lawn dirts... or whatever the realistic equivalent is

That's definitely one method, but one that will take many years to develop. It's doable though, but I'm not sure who's gonna take the initiative? One interesting case study that's happening right now that could be applied to the development of women's football is Quidditch (yep that stupid Harry Potter sport). I'm not sure if you guys know this, but it's been developing fairly rapidly at the club level around colleges everywhere and Athletic Departments are beginning to take notice of this rising new "sport." That seems like a more natural way of something developing into an NCAA sanctioned sport. Regarding women's football, I think it's gonna have to come at club level first (with monetary help from smaller professional leagues), and then show that the interest is there before schools begin to look at it seriously. Then if women's football does actually occur, its effects will trickle down to high/middle/elementary schools as the possibility of free rides to college for girls playing fb becomes a reality, and parents begin to notice. So even though I believe there must be an infrastructure in place for teenagers to take advantage of, I think professional women's football leagues need to promote it first on the collegiate club levels before we see the effects on younger gals.

Also, don't be surprised if Quidditch is a real sport in a few years. Like beach volleyball became popular and eventually sanctioned by the NCAA, Quidditch is also gaining that popularity.

ps. I hope that post made sense. I reread it and was a bit confused with the wording...but I'm too lazy to change it.

What if women's football was a flag football type thing? There wouldn't be any contact and you could have rules like everyone is an eligible receiver. It would be like a back yard game, but the costs would be much less than providing a whole new set of equipment, and you wouldn't have as many injuries, and you wouldn't have to recruit women to play on the line. Just an idea, probably not too plausible, but I'm kinda trying.

JConnolly wrote:What if women's football was a flag football type thing? There wouldn't be any contact and you could have rules like everyone is an eligible receiver. It would be like a back yard game, but the costs would be much less than providing a whole new set of equipment, and you wouldn't have as many injuries, and you wouldn't have to recruit women to play on the line. Just an idea, probably not too plausible, but I'm kinda trying.

I think a flag football type of game would be great. The different style in play would make it interesting because you really couldn't compare it to men's and say "well the product is worse so why should I watch it." It'd be a completely seperate sport in terms of rules, types of plays, etc. It'd probably be very fast paced with agility and maneuverability as keys to success. High paced sports are usually fun to watch regardless if men or women are playing it. Of course though, it'd have to be played in volleyball-esque type shorts and very tight shirts...just sayin'.

∞∞∞ wrote:

JConnolly wrote:What if women's football was a flag football type thing? There wouldn't be any contact and you could have rules like everyone is an eligible receiver. It would be like a back yard game, but the costs would be much less than providing a whole new set of equipment, and you wouldn't have as many injuries, and you wouldn't have to recruit women to play on the line. Just an idea, probably not too plausible, but I'm kinda trying.

I think a flag football type of game would be great. The different style in play would make it interesting because you really couldn't compare it to men's and say "well the product is worse so why should I watch it." It'd be a completely seperate sport in terms of rules, types of plays, etc. It'd probably be very fast paced with agility and maneuverability as keys to success. High paced sports are usually fun to watch regardless if men or women are playing it. Of course though, it'd have to be played in volleyball-esque type shorts and very tight shirts...just sayin'.

maybe make it like the lingerie football league? http://www.lflus.com/

Sure, you could sponsor bowling. And travel all the time since no Western teams sponsor it

you could also add one of the WAC sports Mntana doesn't sponsor - Softball (build a field), Swimming (build a Natatorium), Gymnastics or Baseball.

∞∞∞ wrote:That's definitely one method, but one that will take many years to develop. It's doable though, but I'm not sure who's gonna take the initiative? One interesting case study that's happening right now that could be applied to the development of women's football is Quidditch (yep that stupid Harry Potter sport). I'm not sure if you guys know this, but it's been developing fairly rapidly at the club level around colleges everywhere and Athletic Departments are beginning to take notice of this rising new "sport." That seems like a more natural way of something developing into an NCAA sanctioned sport. Regarding women's football, I think it's gonna have to come at club level first (with monetary help from smaller professional leagues), and then show that the interest is there before schools begin to look at it seriously. Then if women's football does actually occur, its effects will trickle down to high/middle/elementary schools as the possibility of free rides to college for girls playing fb becomes a reality, and parents begin to notice. So even though I believe there must be an infrastructure in place for teenagers to take advantage of, I think professional women's football leagues need to promote it first on the collegiate club levels before we see the effects on younger gals.

Also, don't be surprised if Quidditch is a real sport in a few years. Like beach volleyball became popular and eventually sanctioned by the NCAA, Quidditch is also gaining that popularity.

ps. I hope that post made sense. I reread it and was a bit confused with the wording...but I'm too lazy to change it.

Quidditch is a uni sex sport and should remain so.

Besides do you have any idea how much a magical flying broom costs? Not to mention the sports training and medical issues from players falling thousands of feet.

golf, bowling, archery...

In the northeast we add women's crew.