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

http://tribstar.com/sports/x1520509571/ ... ball-level" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Really worth the read...a couple quick points I found interesting

Internet rumors circulated that Indiana State had been approached by the Sun Belt Conference to bring the Sycamores’ football team into the Sun Belt’s fold.

I've literally heard zero of these rumors before this article...lots of behind the scene stuff going on

ISU still hasn’t come close to filling its small stadium … and Memorial Stadium’s capacity (12,764) doesn’t meet the FBS attendance requirement (15,000) in any case.

Proof the attendance rule doesn't matter...stadium can't hold 15 and still got an invite according to their AD.

Moreover, ISU only recently funded all of the 63 scholarships allocated at the Football Championship Subdivision level. The scholarship limit for a FBS program is 85.

No idea ISU wasn't funding all 63...how had they been counting as FBS wins in the past if that was the case?

“We were contacted by the Sun Belt. While flattering, it’s something we’re not ready for. We may be someday, but we’re not there now,” ISU Director of Athletics Ron Prettyman confirmed to the Tribune-Star.

Bombshell announcement, IMO, that apparently has made zero waves anywhere

“The million dollar question is to try and guess and anticipate what that future is,” Northern Iowa Director of Athletics Troy Dannen said.

...

“Over the last five years, people have been bailing FCS football as fast as they can to get into a bowl division,” Dannen said. “They’re not doing it for financial reasons. That’s a misnomer. You’re going to make more money, you’re going to spend more money. But I think they’re doing it because of an insecurity of where FCS football is headed.”

This has been Dannen's stance for a very long time. He and many others fear a split like the 1979 split, and being on the "top side" of the wave is always better than being left in the wake trying to "catch up"

“It’s fair to say that the continuing migration of some of the better teams in FCS into FBS is troubling, but we look at the finances and logistics and think it doesn’t make any sense,” MVFC commissioner Patty Viverito said.

“We think playing for national championships is a lot more interesting than playing in bad bowls with nobody present. That being what it is, there are people who find being in the FBS neighborhood attractive,” Viverito added.
Seems like a standard reply from an FCS conference commish.

“A school might say, ‘We’re on national TV, and no matter what bowl it is, you’re drawing a hefty audience on national TV and that’s a great commercial for your institution.’ There are things businesses and institutions do that might not always turn a profit, but profits in another way,” Southern Illinois Director of Athletics Mario Moccia.

...

Moccia said that when SIU advanced to the 2007 FCS playoff semifinals and played three home games in Carbondale, Ill., the school netted $28,000. He noted that SIU has never lost money on a home playoff game, but that the margins were in the $5,000 range.

SIU is one of the lucky schools. Outside of the top of the MVFC, SoCon (likely not the case anymore), CAA, and Big Sky I'd bet anyone else who hosts is losing money by doing so.

I'll stop there with quotes, as that's is only about half way through the article and I just want to pull the rest of it. UNI's AD Dannen is throwing lines out like crazy on this, and it's awesome. He speaks very frankly about it all...and those of you who don't fear another split/being left behind I encourage you to take what Dannen says seriously. He speaks publicly on almost no issue, but has been very outspoken on this.



In the article he also states UNI could play MAC football next year and it would be a financial wash compared to what we do now...however, the issue would be if we were forced to take all sports to the MAC. That is what would cause us to lose money--

Like many UNI fans from the start have stated, because it was said by Dannen at the start...a move to the FBS for football only for UNI is a good move. Any move that takes us from the MVC for other sports is not.

Good read, thanks. At this point, to simplify matters, wouldn't it boil down to tangibles like funding an extra 22 scholarships and travel expenses (compared to current arragements which may be a positive or negative depending on the school and conference) versus intangibles like revenue and exposure from some backwater bowl game?

It doesn't say that they were invited. Just says that they were contacted. And, it's not news that they were a potential candidate on the Sun Belt's list.

There was an extensive list of candidates obtained by AppNation.com in a FOIA request in February. Illinois State was one of those listed... and, it's not a surprise that they were contacted nor a surprise that they're not ready to move to FBS.

The schools it lists are:

Appalachian State
Delaware
Georgia Southern
Idaho
Illinois State
Jacksonville State
James Madison
Lamar
Liberty
Missouri State
New Mexico State
Richmond
Sam Houston State
Towson
UT Chattanooga

http://www.appstatenation.com/2013/02/0 ... andidates/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:Good read, thanks. At this point, to simplify matters, wouldn't it boil down to tangibles like funding an extra 22 scholarships and travel expenses (compared to current arragements which may be a positive or negative depending on the school and conference) versus intangibles like revenue and exposure from some backwater bowl game?

Yes. For the vast majority of fully funded FCS schools (re: the top 30% or so) playing at the FBS level is going to be almost identical financially to playing at the FCS level. For the top 10-15% the extra scholarships aren't really going to be much of an issue either.

The biggest issue is going to be the cost of sending the teams to such an expanded footprint. That would be UNI's issue - as Dannen points out. It would be NDSU's issue, especially with their location. It is the issue for pretty much anyone west of the Mississippi unless they are already established/have massive donors/huge football programs...see most of the MWC.

There is the saying "once you're on a plan it doesn't really matter where you go", which is true for a single sport, maybe 2 (football and mens basketball since they both make money/break even at most schools). However, once you have to start sending soccer, tennis, volleyball, womens basketball, softball, baseball, etc... across the country it adds up real damn quick.

clenz wrote:

kalm wrote:Good read, thanks. At this point, to simplify matters, wouldn't it boil down to tangibles like funding an extra 22 scholarships and travel expenses (compared to current arragements which may be a positive or negative depending on the school and conference) versus intangibles like revenue and exposure from some backwater bowl game?

Yes. For the vast majority of fully funded FCS schools (re: the top 30% or so) playing at the FBS level is going to be almost identical financially to playing at the FCS level. For the top 10-15% the extra scholarships aren't really going to be much of an issue either.

The biggest issue is going to be the cost of sending the teams to such an expanded footprint. That would be UNI's issue - as Dannen points out. It would be NDSU's issue, especially with their location. It is the issue for pretty much anyone west of the Mississippi unless they are already established/have massive donors/huge football programs...see most of the MWC.

I fail to see how an "expanded footprint" could be an issue for a school like Montana. They already travel through 3 time zones, and make trips to CA & AZ & MN (essentially, with the UND game). A Western division of the Sun Belt would be very little difference from a travel standpoint. Especially if the 'scats went with us.

AZGrizFan wrote:

clenz wrote: Yes. For the vast majority of fully funded FCS schools (re: the top 30% or so) playing at the FBS level is going to be almost identical financially to playing at the FCS level. For the top 10-15% the extra scholarships aren't really going to be much of an issue either.

The biggest issue is going to be the cost of sending the teams to such an expanded footprint. That would be UNI's issue - as Dannen points out. It would be NDSU's issue, especially with their location. It is the issue for pretty much anyone west of the Mississippi unless they are already established/have massive donors/huge football programs...see most of the MWC.

I fail to see how an "expanded footprint" could be an issue for a school like Montana. They already travel through 3 time zones, and make trips to CA & AZ & MN (essentially, with the UND game). A Western division of the Sun Belt would be very little difference from a travel standpoint. Especially if the 'scats went with us.

Montana's moving up to join Idaho, NMSU, SJSU, and the like might force marginals like us to jump as well.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I fail to see how an "expanded footprint" could be an issue for a school like Montana. They already travel through 3 time zones, and make trips to CA & AZ & MN (essentially, with the UND game). A Western division of the Sun Belt would be very little difference from a travel standpoint. Especially if the 'scats went with us.

Montana's moving up to join Idaho, NMSU, SJSU, and the like might force marginals like us to jump as well.

Exactly my point. I dont' think it changes our "footprint" issue one iota.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Montana's moving up to join Idaho, NMSU, SJSU, and the like might force marginals like us to jump as well.

Exactly my point. I dont' think it changes our "footprint" issue one iota.

For a school like you, it would not be much of an issue if a true western division was formed...that would mean a lot of your bsc mates would move up as well to get teams...good luck with that

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Jelly: The article clenz posted mentions only INDIANA State among the various ISUs. That school doesn't appear on your list. Did the acronym confuse you?

Clenz: You make some pretty good points here. I don't necessarily agree with ALL of them, but I come a whole lot closer than with just about any other topic lately. Given that the MAC goes all the way to UMASS (and that the bulk is in the Ohio area, I would agree that the move would be bad for UNI if the only option the MAC gave UNI was all-or-nothing. I'd STILL rather see UNI in the MVFC (there are some really good geographic rivalries there, and the only school who could even remotely be called an "outlier" is YSU (SW MO is about on a line from UNI, and not really all that far away), plus UNI is generally a power player in the FCS playoffs, something I would be loathe to lose. Additionally, making a bowl game isn't a panacea; a great point in your article was the $1.8M deficit UCONN ran when they went to the Fiesta Bowl, and that's after the rich payout. I could just imagine what a trip to the Humanitarian Bowl would cost. UNI as a threat to win a REAL national championship ON THE FIELD is something that I think we will see in FCS for a LONG time if they stay; if they go, the bogus B(C)$ers will do everything in their power to keep UNI (and every other "jumper") out.

IMO (for whatever cred I have, which ain't all that much), staying FCS is the way to go for ALL of us, but especially for the FCS powerhouses like UNI, App, Montana, Delaware, etc.

Is there any non-FBS institution that is not on the Sun Belt's radar?

Mvemjsunpx wrote:Is there any non-FBS institution that is not on the Sun Belt's radar?

Probably Sac State and any other school out west that rejected the Titanic known as the WAC....

Wait, where did it say an offer was made to be turned down? Contacted =/= invited. Chattown on AGS was confused by this as well. We App fans are very familiar with the distinction.

No idea ISU wasn't funding all 63...how had they been counting as FBS wins in the past if that was the case?

The NCAA allows one victory per season over a Division I FCS (formerly I-AA) team to count toward an FBS team's bowl eligibility, so long as the FCS team has supplied financial aid for football averaging out to at least 56.7 full scholarships (90% of the limit of 63 allowed to FCS schools) over "a rolling two-year period" that can include the current season.

People argue that schools should move up to FBS to "stay relevant" or to "stay in the second tier of football and not the third".

I would argue that in the eyes of the Joe Schmo fan or sportstalk person, the FCS hasn't been "relevant" to begin with. And FCS/I-AA has been the "third tier" probably since it's inception. Or certainly since the "BCS" was formed, as those 6 "power conferences" have always been the "first tier", apart from the non-BCS conferences.

JayJ79 wrote:People argue that schools should move up to FBS to "stay relevant" or to "stay in the second tier of football and not the third".

I would argue that in the eyes of the Joe Schmo fan or sportstalk person, the FCS hasn't been "relevant" to begin with. And FCS/I-AA has been the "third tier" probably since it's inception. Or certainly since the "BCS" was formed, as those 6 "power conferences" have always been the "first tier", apart from the non-BCS conferences.

In general and on a national level, yes. But successful programs have some relevance. We were as relevant locally as Idaho before the NC and have surpassed them since. The amount of exposure we get in the local press, competing with Idaho and WSU, has increased dramatically, and the amount of Eagle apparel you see around Spokane has also shot up. We even get some press coverage in the Seattle paper (some 275 miles away). I have numerous friends and relatives who live over there and I'm frequently getting updates about Eastern fans they meet coming out of the woodwork.

And I guarantee you every Joe Schmo football fan from Montana finds the Griz relevant. If they were to move up, I don't imagine that would change in either direction a whole hell of a lot. Same could probably said for NDSU.

kalm wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:People argue that schools should move up to FBS to "stay relevant" or to "stay in the second tier of football and not the third".

I would argue that in the eyes of the Joe Schmo fan or sportstalk person, the FCS hasn't been "relevant" to begin with. And FCS/I-AA has been the "third tier" probably since it's inception. Or certainly since the "BCS" was formed, as those 6 "power conferences" have always been the "first tier", apart from the non-BCS conferences.

In general and on a national level, yes. But successful programs have some relevance. We were as relevant locally as Idaho before the NC and have surpassed them since. The amount of exposure we get in the local press, competing with Idaho and WSU, has increased dramatically, and the amount of Eagle apparel you see around Spokane has also shot up. We even get some press coverage in the Seattle paper (some 275 miles away). I have numerous friends and relatives who live over there and I'm frequently getting updates about Eastern fans they meet coming out of the woodwork.

And I guarantee you every Joe Schmo football fan from Montana finds the Griz relevant. If they were to move up, I don't imagine that would change in either direction a whole hell of a lot. Same could probably said for NDSU.

perhaps. but like you said, moving up wouldn't really change much in that regard.
if "moving up" makes sense financially, then I say go for it. But moving up just to maintain a perceived "tier" seems silly, and a waste of money if the economics of such a move aren't going to generate enough of a revenue boost to counteract the big increase in expenses.

The MAC/Sun Belt/WAC/C-USA aren't exactly "relevant." They have no shot at a title, and they get very little TV coverage, if any. At least in terms of titles, the CAA/SoCon/MVFC/Big Sky (not necessarily in that order) are MUCH more "relevant" than the lower-tier FBS conferences.

SuperHornet wrote:The MAC/Sun Belt/WAC/C-USA aren't exactly "relevant." They have no shot at a title, and they get very little TV coverage, if any. At least in terms of titles, the CAA/SoCon/MVFC/Big Sky (not necessarily in that order) are MUCH more "relevant" than the lower-tier FBS conferences.

Complete horse shit...but I'll let you continue to think that in your fantasy world, as we all know facts matter less than zero in your world.

Good read. Thanks. I was reading a blog about the SoCon and the ADs for The Citadel, and two other SoCon schools dismiss CCU for athletic reasons but stop short of saying that we could be competitive in the SoCon.

clenz wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:The MAC/Sun Belt/WAC/C-USA aren't exactly "relevant." They have no shot at a title, and they get very little TV coverage, if any. At least in terms of titles, the CAA/SoCon/MVFC/Big Sky (not necessarily in that order) are MUCH more "relevant" than the lower-tier FBS conferences.

Complete horse shit...but I'll let you continue to think that in your fantasy world, as we all know facts matter less than zero in your world.

I get your rejection but relevance is relative. To the casual FBS fan out west, the MAC is fairly irrelevant, probably on par with MVFC.

kalm wrote:

clenz wrote: Complete horse shit...but I'll let you continue to think that in your fantasy world, as we all know facts matter less than zero in your world.

I get your rejection but relevance is relative. To the casual FBS fan out west, the MAC is fairly irrelevant, probably on par with MVFC.

I would actually place the MVFC above the MAC, at least in terms of how big a proportion of the conference is "good." Counting UNI (for whom last season was an uncharacteristic sub-par outing), a good 70% of the MVFC is of post-season caliber on a consistent basis. The MAC is at about 50%, and it might actually be less, as a few teams may have had an uncharacteristic good season. Plus, I think the MVFC had a better record than the MAC in head-to-head competition.

FWIW, this isn't exactly unprecedented. Back in the mid-'90s, Sagarin consistently rated the I-AA Big Sky over the I-A Big West, and I don't think it was even close.

SuperHornet wrote:The MAC/Sun Belt/WAC/C-USA aren't exactly "relevant." They have no shot at a title, and they get very little TV coverage, if any. At least in terms of titles, the CAA/SoCon/MVFC/Big Sky (not necessarily in that order) are MUCH more "relevant" than the lower-tier FBS conferences.

It's amazing what one can say when they frame the argument to meet their point of view.

SuperHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:
I get your rejection but relevance is relative. To the casual FBS fan out west, the MAC is fairly irrelevant, probably on par with MVFC.

I would actually place the MVFC above the MAC, at least in terms of how big a proportion of the conference is "good." Counting UNI (for whom last season was an uncharacteristic sub-par outing), a good 70% of the MVFC is of post-season caliber on a consistent basis. The MAC is at about 50%, and it might actually be less, as a few teams may have had an uncharacteristic good season. Plus, I think the MVFC had a better record than the MAC in head-to-head competition.

FWIW, this isn't exactly unprecedented. Back in the mid-'90s, Sagarin consistently rated the I-AA Big Sky over the I-A Big West, and I don't think it was even close.

That doesn't necessarily make them more relevant. By that standard Appalachian State, James Madison, and Jacksonville State are more relevant than Michigan, Virginia Tech, and Ole Miss.

kalm wrote:

clenz wrote: Complete horse ****...but I'll let you continue to think that in your fantasy world, as we all know facts matter less than zero in your world.

I get your rejection but relevance is relative. To the casual FBS fan out west, the MAC is fairly irrelevant, probably on par with MVFC.

Of course it is, that's what's so funny about SH's constant bashing of the G5 conferences.

SuperHornet wrote:The MAC/Sun Belt/WAC/C-USA aren't exactly "relevant." They have no shot at a title, and they get very little TV coverage, if any. At least in terms of titles, the CAA/SoCon/MVFC/Big Sky (not necessarily in that order) are MUCH more "relevant" than the lower-tier FBS conferences.

The MAC is a regional conference and while they get little national coverage they are relevant in the Midwest. Northern Illinois is a fairly large school with a large alumni base in the Chicago area. Their alumni are fairly passionate about their team and that passion is growing with their success. Their games are almost always on the radio and frequently on TV in Chicago. They aren't far behind many of the B1G0 teams in the Chicago area (and Chicago is a hub of B1G0 alumni).

The Sunbelt is irrelevant in the Midwest but I would imagine they're much more relevant in the South. Boise St, Utah and TCU had some Midwestern followers because of their success but the rest of the non-PAC Western teams were/are irrelevant in the Midwest as well. For the non-BCS conferences, relevance is a matter of geography.

I prefer that UNI stay FCS but I'll let the administration study their options and make decisions accordingly. If the B1G0 does put a moratorium on playing FCS teams and other conferences follow suite that will be a factor because those money games help to fund the athletic department and the school needs them. I believe B1G0 teams also pay a MAC team considerably more than they do a FCS team because those games count more for bowl eligibility.

There are a lot of factors that have to be considered and it's not an easy decision. I wish GSU and App St the best in the Sun Belt!