(09-24-2010 12:52 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(09-24-2010 12:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  If we added UMass, Illinois State, and Delaware as the primary choices, I think we would do pretty well. Each is a "state name" school and they would all compete well from the start. Not to mention spreading our footprint out a bit. JMU is a viable alternative, as is Charlotte.

Of course, adding an existing FBS school would be ideal. Army, Navy, and LA Tech would be great.So would WKU.MTSU as a package deal. I just don't see that as being more likely than convincing some FCS schools to step out of the kiddie pool.

Got to be realistic.

JMU wants to go I-A or why spend huge sums of money on a beautiful, high capacity stadium (would be one of the best in the MAC).

Charlotte, as I've suggested is circa 2016, '18 or '20 (somewhere in those years).

Army and Navy not interested and apparently IL. State, UMass and Del either.

JMU is the ONLY ONE one I see chomping at the bit for a CONFERENCE AFFILIATION soon.

No one else would say, "YES".

Take at the JMU message board discussion on this very topic.

All these CAA teams have their heads way too far up their own asses. What they don't understand is that the Big East invite they're all waiting for will NEVER come. Nor will an invite from the C-USA. Both of those conferences have viable FBS teams they could bring in without having to nurse an FCS team to their level. It's either join the MAC now or wait another 20 years in the kiddie pool for the perfect offer.

They don't understand that you don't just add 20 scholarships and call it a day. It takes many years to get up to the max number thanks to recruiting class limits. It takes many years of recruiting at an FBS level before you can really compete because you have to give up taking in BCS transfers that play immediately. Sure they might be on par with the MAC competitively now, but put them in the FBS where the transfers dry up and you have to take a step back to take two steps forward. The MAC is the only conference willing to be patient and help them through that process.

give them 5 years in the MAC and then they might get their heads out of their rears... just saying

(09-24-2010 01:50 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  All these CAA teams have their heads way too far up their own asses. What they don't understand is that the Big East invite they're all waiting for will NEVER come. Nor will an invite from the C-USA.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Outside of the MAC and Sun Belt, the only hope for the CAA schools is moving up as a conference.

(09-24-2010 01:50 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  It takes many years of recruiting at an FBS level before you can really compete because you have to give up taking in BCS transfers that play immediately.

I think that's a bit of an inaccurate generalization. Some FCS programs rely heavily on transfers (UMass, Delaware), but others grow their own talent (JMU, App State).

JMU has a total of three BCS transfers and two non-BCS transfers on their 105 man roster.

BCS Transfers:
WVU - PK - Zero kicks in his two years at JMU
UVA - WR - Second string; one catch in first two games
Syracuse - DE - In his second year at JMU; had two tackles last year playing second string behind a homegrown DE who was drafted

Non-BCS Transfers:
Army - DT
Marshall - FS

Presumably, CAA schools would be able to recruit the non-BCS types straight out of high school with a move to FBS. Many top CAA schools are already competing with FBS schools for talent. For schools like JMU or App State, which don't rely on transfers, I just don't see a major shift in recruiting strategy being required.

Transfers might not affect teams like JMU, but at the same time, you can't just jump up to the max FBS scholarships. There is a cap on the number of scholarship players you can recruit each year (24). Even if you recruit the maximum every year, it still takes about 5 years to get to 85 because you can only add 24 minus the number of scholarship players graduating in a given year. FBS schools have an average of 17 scholarship players per class, while FCS schools have an average of 12.6 each counting redshirt years (in practice it's higher because not everybody redshirts, making the FBS average somewhere closer to 21 and the FCS average closer to 16). So you can only really add about 5 scholarships per year.

And about the CAA moving up as a group, it just won't happen. Too many schools are content to sit at the FCS level forever, and others won't go unless they see that the CAA gets an automatic BCS spot without actually earning it. Then there is the membership changes happening where Rhode Island is dropping to a lesser league and Villanova is threatening to go to the Big East. The CAA is always waiting, waiting for perfect conditions and ideal membership and complete accord between all schools before they even think about moving up as a group. It won't happen as a partial move because they are afraid of offending the ones left behind or leaving their rivalries against no-name schools.

That's why the MAC should consider adding both UMass and Delaware. No CAA school will leave without one of their friends coming along. Would UMass, Delaware, and JMU come as a package?

I think a lot of fans of prospective teams are simply afraid of change. They're familiar with the teams they play now. They know the opposing fan bases, their reputations, their locations, and switching to the MAC would require having to re-learn all that. It's the real reason behind the "I don't want to lose our rivalries" nonsense. They'll develop new rivalries, guaranteed. It clouds their judgement when weighing pros and cons.

I don't think it'd be much a problem related to being "afraid" of changing for us here at ISU. Half the students don't even know who we play now anyway.

(09-24-2010 03:27 PM)ISU BRMM Man Wrote:  I don't think it'd be much a problem related to being "afraid" of changing for us here at ISU. Half the students don't even know who we play now anyway.

ISU fans, to their credit, seem to be the most realistic when it comes to weighing the pros and cons of moving tothe FBS.

I was actually referrencing mostly the CAA fans; after digging through their message boards they seem to posess more than their fair share of "east coast bias" thinking that they're the sh!t and everyone should bow down to them. But they would be in for a rude awakening if they finally made the jump, and they know it in the back of their minds and so would rather live in their little world of being a big fish in a small pond. I think it has to do with geography a little bit. There is no east coast non-BCS conference, so they are right behind the BCS in the perceived local hierarchy.

(09-24-2010 01:33 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  Do you have a link for the above? I've heard this mentioned before, but I've never seen it in context.

Among the issues with UMass is that the basketball contingent would revolt against a move to the MAC. It would have to be football-only, with guarantees that the deal wouldn't be yanked out from under us once we've already made the move and have nowhere else to go. It'd be hard enough to make the FBS move if the entire fanbase was mobilized to do it, and completely impossible if the fanbase was divided.

No links, but I found the quotes from prior posts:

This was posted by our old friend Schadenfreude concerning comments from BGSU's AD to a fan in '07:

"He indicated that it all depends on what Temple does. If Temple stays in the MAC, then they are looking to move the footprint east and add a school that would be geographically closer to Temple. The examples he gave were UMass and Stony Brook. Both are considering the move up to 1A in football. If they don't pan out, he discussed Illinois State as a possible."

And this was posted by good ol' KC in '08:

"Ohio president McDavis has said in a recent article that Temple to the MAC for basketball was all but a certainty and they were looking for a 14th like UMass or SUNY-Stony Brook to compliment."

Of course, his 'certainy' isn't so certain today.

(09-24-2010 04:22 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(09-24-2010 03:27 PM)ISU BRMM Man Wrote:  I don't think it'd be much a problem related to being "afraid" of changing for us here at ISU. Half the students don't even know who we play now anyway.

ISU fans, to their credit, seem to be the most realistic when it comes to weighing the pros and cons of moving tothe FBS.

I was actually referrencing mostly the CAA fans; after digging through their message boards they seem to posess more than their fair share of "east coast bias" thinking that they're the sh!t and everyone should bow down to them. But they would be in for a rude awakening if they finally made the jump, and they know it in the back of their minds and so would rather live in their little world of being a big fish in a small pond. I think it has to do with geography a little bit. There is no east coast non-BCS conference, so they are right behind the BCS in the perceived local hierarchy.

good points.

I've been posting for a long time that the time will come when all of these east coast schools, e.g., JMU, ODU, Charlotte, Appy State, Ga. State, etc. start discovering that they have D-I stadia, etc. but no D-IA conference to go.

Maybe JMU is waiting for a new non-BCS conference to germinate (sp).

(09-24-2010 04:22 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(09-24-2010 03:27 PM)ISU BRMM Man Wrote:  I don't think it'd be much a problem related to being "afraid" of changing for us here at ISU. Half the students don't even know who we play now anyway.

ISU fans, to their credit, seem to be the most realistic when it comes to weighing the pros and cons of moving tothe FBS.

I was actually referrencing mostly the CAA fans; after digging through their message boards they seem to posess more than their fair share of "east coast bias" thinking that they're the sh!t and everyone should bow down to them. But they would be in for a rude awakening if they finally made the jump, and they know it in the back of their minds and so would rather live in their little world of being a big fish in a small pond. I think it has to do with geography a little bit. There is no east coast non-BCS conference, so they are right behind the BCS in the perceived local hierarchy.

Part of the CAA attitude comes from cockiness, but some of that comes from being the dominant conference in FCS.

In the past five seasons, the CAA went 10-34 against the FBS. That number doesn't sound good until you realize the rest of FCS went a combined 19-344 against FBS. I think you see less of the CAA attitude elsewhere in FCS.

(09-24-2010 01:33 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(09-23-2010 03:50 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  UMass, Charlotte, and SBU could be associate MAC East football members if Temple stays (remember Ohio's president bringing up UMass and SBU, generally shifting the footprint East?), and shifting BGSU back to the West.

Do you have a link for the above? I've heard this mentioned before, but I've never seen it in context.

That was in the Athens News sometime in early 2008. The archiving from the website only goes back 6 months now so I can't find the actual article online.

What I do have for you is links to old board threads where this was discussed...

Ohio Prez Wrote:Many of the college athletic conferences have seen changes in recent years, and the Mid-American Conference (MAC), which OU is a part of, also has seen change with Marshall University and the University of Central Florida leaving. McDavis said he is very happy with OU's standing in the MAC, and he thinks the conference will get stronger in future years.

"It's a solid conference," McDavis said. The conference is admitting Temple University in football only, with the hopes that it will eventually join the conference in all sports, McDavis said. Temple is recognized nationally for its basketball program, but its football program has not done well in recent years.

It is worth just having Temple's football team in the conference for now, if it eventually results in the university's basketball team and other sports joining the conference, McDavis said. He added that with the lack of stability in other conferences, he thinks in a few years there will be colleges unhappy with their situations that will want to join the MAC.
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=115140

Ohio Prez Wrote:Ohio president McDavis has said in a recent article that Temple to the MAC for basketball was all but a certainty and they were looking for a 14th like UMass or SUNY-Stony Brook to compliment.
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=289381

(09-24-2010 02:39 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Transfers might not affect teams like JMU, but at the same time, you can't just jump up to the max FBS scholarships. There is a cap on the number of scholarship players you can recruit each year (24). Even if you recruit the maximum every year, it still takes about 5 years to get to 85 because you can only add 24 minus the number of scholarship players graduating in a given year. FBS schools have an average of 17 scholarship players per class, while FCS schools have an average of 12.6 each counting redshirt years (in practice it's higher because not everybody redshirts, making the FBS average somewhere closer to 21 and the FCS average closer to 16). So you can only really add about 5 scholarships per year.

From the NCAA Division I manual:

Quote:15.5.6.1 Bowl Subdivision Football. [FBS] There shall be an annual limit of 25 on the number of initial counters (per Bylaw 15.02.3.1) and an annual limit of 85 on the total number of counters (including initial
counters) in football at each institution. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/92, 12/15/06)

20.9.7.2.2.1 Reclassifying Opponents. [FBS] A reclassifying institution shall be counted as a football bowl subdivision opponent in the year the reclassifying institution must meet the football
bowl subdivision scheduling requirements (year two of the reclassifying process). (Adopted: 4/15/97, Revised: 3/10/04, 12/15/06)

FCS teams moving to FBS have to go through a two-year transition period before they become full FBS members. I don't follow your math...

Say an FCS team awards 63 scholarships and redshirts most but not all players in its last year of FCS. On average, that team has been awarding around 13-16 scholarships per year, assuming none of its players transfer, flunk out, etc.

Transitional Year 1 (mostly FCS opponents)
Starting Scholarships: 63
Graduations: 16
New scholarships: 25
Total Scholarships: 72

Transitional Year 2 (50%+ FBS opponents)
Starting Scholarships: 72
Graduations: 16
New scholarships: 25
Total Scholarships: 81

First Year Full FBS
Starting Scholarships: 81
Graduations: 16
New scholarships: 20
Total Scholarships: 85

Am I missing something?

(09-24-2010 04:57 PM)rufus Wrote:  

(09-24-2010 02:39 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Transfers might not affect teams like JMU, but at the same time, you can't just jump up to the max FBS scholarships. There is a cap on the number of scholarship players you can recruit each year (24). Even if you recruit the maximum every year, it still takes about 5 years to get to 85 because you can only add 24 minus the number of scholarship players graduating in a given year. FBS schools have an average of 17 scholarship players per class, while FCS schools have an average of 12.6 each counting redshirt years (in practice it's higher because not everybody redshirts, making the FBS average somewhere closer to 21 and the FCS average closer to 16). So you can only really add about 5 scholarships per year.

From the NCAA Division I manual:

Quote:15.5.6.1 Bowl Subdivision Football. [FBS] There shall be an annual limit of 25 on the number of initial counters (per Bylaw 15.02.3.1) and an annual limit of 85 on the total number of counters (including initial
counters) in football at each institution. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/92, 12/15/06)

20.9.7.2.2.1 Reclassifying Opponents. [FBS] A reclassifying institution shall be counted as a football bowl subdivision opponent in the year the reclassifying institution must meet the football
bowl subdivision scheduling requirements (year two of the reclassifying process). (Adopted: 4/15/97, Revised: 3/10/04, 12/15/06)

FCS teams moving to FBS have to go through a two-year transition period before they become full FBS members. I don't follow your math...

Say an FCS team awards 63 scholarships and redshirts most but not all players in its last year of FCS. On average, that team has been awarding around 13-16 scholarships per year, assuming none of its players transfer, flunk out, etc.

Transitional Year 1 (mostly FCS opponents)
Starting Scholarships: 63
Graduations: 16
New scholarships: 25
Total Scholarships: 72

Transitional Year 2 (50%+ FBS opponents)
Starting Scholarships: 72
Graduations: 16
New scholarships: 25
Total Scholarships: 81

First Year Full FBS
Starting Scholarships: 81
Graduations: 16
New scholarships: 20
Total Scholarships: 85

Am I missing something?

No school has a perfect 16 players per recruiting class. Some have more and some less. It also has to do with money. Scholarships cost a school, and in practice most schools that have actually made the move (like Akron) added them gradually over a number of years (usually the number of years it takes to establish a women's sport of some kind to balance out Title IX; you can't add 9 men's scholarships per year if you can only bring in 5 or 6 women's scholarships).

If you brought in two classes of 25 players, you have limited yourself to just 35 scholarships to split between your next two years of recruiting and if you redshirt players it's even less. Ideally you want about 20 recruits per class and when you get unbalanced classes like that it is impossible to become consistent since you're re-building every four years.

(09-24-2010 01:40 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Take at the JMU message board discussion on this very topic.

What I said on UBFan when this thread came up:

LOL I love to see the inflated egos of FCS members who think they are 'too good' for the MAC... When is the last time that an FCS school made a jump to a BCS conference with whom they have no current membership.. (Hint: UConn and Rutgers don't count because they were in the BE for basketball.)

JM Brings *nothing* to the ACC, so they can wait until they are blue in the face.

While I'm sure the ACC needs to capture the Richmond, Baltimore, DC, ummm What new market do they bring? Anyway while I am sure the ACC is dying for an unproven team to be their 13th member I doubt they want to add someone who is smack in the middle of two or three teams alread in the Market.

But I have to say that I do understand their disdain for having to go to Muncie or Buffalo, neither have the cosmopolitan attraction of Harrisonburg. I mean who would not want to go catch a football game with a chaser at the Virginia Quilt Museum?

One of the posters said: "This would be like an ugly girl calling you late at night. We don't need an ugly girl right now, we're in good shape."

Hey if they want to stay up alone all night and masturbate in FCS good for them... Right now they are like the nerd holding out for the promqueen (ACC).. Buy a clue McFly, she ain't gonna call you..

Those clowns are hilarious. I'm sure the ACC and Big East have JMU on speed dial!

JMU would be good for the MAC and vice-versa. Especially if y'all really could pull up Delaware and UMass or such to go to 16 with a good eastern division.

How much would academics play into this kind of expansion?

(09-26-2010 09:59 AM)ISU BRMM Man Wrote:  How much would academics play into this kind of expansion?

Huge.

WKU was rejected by MAC presidents over academics back in 2005.

YSU was in like rejected applying to the MAC in 1995. Akron's entrance into the MAC was delayed 5 years until they put a plan for residential housing in place.

The MAC has 8 Tier I schools, more than any other non-AQ conference. The graduation rates for MAC football are at the top of the NCAA.

Illinios State and U Albany make the most sense. They would give NIU and Buffalo in-state rivals and help in the state legislature.

Kent State had zero athletic tradition and was voted into the MAC by Ohio and Miami in 1950 because of school mission. Buffalo was added for a similar reasons decades later. Both were project schools athletically at the time.

I don't see why the MAC can't take Illinios St. and UAlbany in for basketball first and give them 5 years to upgrade to FBS football. Both schools have plans in place for 25,000 seat football stadiums.

(09-26-2010 11:43 AM)Airport KC Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 09:59 AM)ISU BRMM Man Wrote:  How much would academics play into this kind of expansion?

Huge.

WKU was rejected by MAC presidents over academics back in 2005.

YSU was in like rejected applying to the MAC in 1995. Akron's entrance into the MAC was delayed 5 years until they put a plan for residential housing in place.

The MAC has 8 Tier I schools, more than any other non-AQ conference. The graduation rates for MAC football are at the top of the NCAA.

Illinios State and U Albany make the most sense. They would give NIU and Buffalo in-state rivals and help in the state legislature.

Kent State had zero athletic tradition and was voted into the MAC by Ohio and Miami in 1950 because of school mission. Buffalo was added for a similar reasons decades later. Both were project schools athletically at the time.

I don't see why the MAC can't take Illinios St. and UAlbany in for basketball first and give them 5 years to upgrade to FBS football. Both schools have plans in place for 25,000 seat football stadiums.

The Princeton Review academic ratings are useful, because they group all schools together, rather than separating national, liberal arts, regional, etc. They apply the same ratings methodology to all schools on a 1-100 scale. The only limitation is the fact that they don't publish ratings under 60.

MAC Ratings:
Miami - 77
Temple - 73
Ball St. - 72
Ohio - 70
WMU - 67
EMU - 67
Akron - 66
Buffalo - NR
Kent St. - NR
Toledo - NR
BGSU - NR
CMU - NR
NUI - NR

Expansion Candidate Ratings:
Delaware - 76
JMU - 75
UMass - 73
Albany - 61
Illinois St. - NR

Honestly, any of those schools would fit within the general academic parameters of the MAC.

(09-26-2010 08:54 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Those clowns are hilarious. I'm sure the ACC and Big East have JMU on speed dial!

JMU would be good for the MAC and vice-versa. Especially if y'all really could pull up Delaware and UMass or such to go to 16 with a good eastern division.

Not all JMU fans are so unrealistic. The debate over whether/when/how to move to FBS is probably the most hotly debated topic on the JMU board. Some fans may be detached from reality, but JMU's administration is not. They're not spending that type of money on football to watch it sit in FCS forever, while waiting for a BCS invite.