(08-11-2014 12:02 PM)YNot Wrote:  CSU is actually a sleeping giant. Colorado State has over 31K students and WAS desperately trying to build a larger on-campus stadium...until they had horrible attendance in 2013, less than 20K per game (but still more than SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Temple). They have more alumni in the top-20 Denver market than CU.

Half of the MAC is already on life support, with EMU leading the way.

CSU is no giant, just sleeping. They fired their AD Friday because they are woefully short on stadium fundraising and they've been spending like a Big 12 invite was inevitable. Nobody attends their games and they don't move the needle in Denver regardless of alumni #s. It is being reported as an athletics reset--ditching big time stadium dreams and likely watching their football and men's basketball coaches bolt within the next 3 years.

They won't be giving up on D1 but long-term competitiveness is not their future.

(08-11-2014 10:24 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  In the coming years there will be some schools that just throw in the towel and concede that they can't keep up. Who are they? What happens then? Do conferences shed them? What does the reshuffle look like?

Pssst...


Almost nothing will change day to day for most of the G5. We were not competing directly with Texas, Georgia and Notre Dame two weeks ago. We still are not.

(08-11-2014 12:54 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:24 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  In the coming years there will be some schools that just throw in the towel and concede that they can't keep up. Who are they? What happens then? Do conferences shed them? What does the reshuffle look like?

Pssst...


Almost nothing will change day to day for most of the G5. We were not competing directly with Texas, Georgia and Notre Dame two weeks ago. We still are not.

You shouldn't generalize the G5. We aren't competing with Georgia State for anything either. The Sun Belt and the AAC have very little in common outside of legislation concerning an Access Bowl game.

(08-11-2014 12:55 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:54 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:24 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  In the coming years there will be some schools that just throw in the towel and concede that they can't keep up. Who are they? What happens then? Do conferences shed them? What does the reshuffle look like?

Pssst...


Almost nothing will change day to day for most of the G5. We were not competing directly with Texas, Georgia and Notre Dame two weeks ago. We still are not.

You shouldn't generalize the G5. We aren't competing with Georgia State for anything either. The Sun Belt and the AAC have very little in common outside of legislation concerning an Access Bowl game.

Then stop offering the same kids down here in Atlanta.

My point is that a lot of this is going to get overblown. None of us have a waterfall in out locker room. The $90M programs are going to be doing what they where doing 2 weeks ago which is signing 4 and 5 star players. About the only impact would be if they followed through on not playing G5 OOC and the Indiana's, Wakes and Oregon State's are not going to do that.

How can EMU compete, they have the behemoth known as Michigan a few miles away. Then again, Texas-Austin being 20 minutes away isn't stopping Texas State from being a school on the rise.

(08-11-2014 12:48 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  CSU is no giant, just sleeping. They fired their AD Friday because they are woefully short on stadium fundraising and they've been spending like a Big 12 invite was inevitable. Nobody attends their games and they don't move the needle in Denver regardless of alumni #s. It is being reported as an athletics reset--ditching big time stadium dreams and likely watching their football and men's basketball coaches bolt within the next 3 years.

They won't be giving up on D1 but long-term competitiveness is not their future.

When people throw up threads about expansion into the MWC territory, this is what makes it so difficult, at least for message board posters. You don't know which of those schools has real strength. The only ones I trust are SDSU and Boise, and the AAC is not exactly happy with Boise's conduct.

(08-11-2014 01:04 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:55 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:54 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:24 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  In the coming years there will be some schools that just throw in the towel and concede that they can't keep up. Who are they? What happens then? Do conferences shed them? What does the reshuffle look like?

Pssst...


Almost nothing will change day to day for most of the G5. We were not competing directly with Texas, Georgia and Notre Dame two weeks ago. We still are not.

You shouldn't generalize the G5. We aren't competing with Georgia State for anything either. The Sun Belt and the AAC have very little in common outside of legislation concerning an Access Bowl game.

Then stop offering the same kids down here in Atlanta.

My point is that a lot of this is going to get overblown. None of us have a waterfall in out locker room. The $90M programs are going to be doing what they where doing 2 weeks ago which is signing 4 and 5 star players. About the only impact would be if they followed through on not playing G5 OOC and the Indiana's, Wakes and Oregon State's are not going to do that.

Is Georgia St. D1 in football now?

(08-11-2014 01:04 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  How can EMU compete, they have the behemoth known as Michigan a few miles away. Then again, Texas-Austin being 20 minutes away isn't stopping Texas State from being a school on the rise.

What really changes for them? Unless they stop getting payday games, nothing. They could not compete financially with Michigan and Michigan State last week and they still cannot. Their problem is if they start falling behind the rest of the MAC

Yeah, they've come along at the same time as the latest wave of South Alabama, UTSA, Texas State, etc...

(08-11-2014 01:07 PM)panama Wrote:  What really changes for them? Unless they stop getting payday games, nothing. They could not compete financially with Michigan and Michigan State last week and they still cannot. Their problem is if they start falling behind the rest of the MAC

From what I understand, they are good at Olympic sports, which is what they should stick to because even if they get really good and go on a Boise-like run, they STILL would be dwarfed by Michigan unless they in turn become Oregon State before Mike Riley.

(08-11-2014 01:06 PM)First Mate Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 01:04 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:55 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:54 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:24 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  In the coming years there will be some schools that just throw in the towel and concede that they can't keep up. Who are they? What happens then? Do conferences shed them? What does the reshuffle look like?

Pssst...


Almost nothing will change day to day for most of the G5. We were not competing directly with Texas, Georgia and Notre Dame two weeks ago. We still are not.

You shouldn't generalize the G5. We aren't competing with Georgia State for anything either. The Sun Belt and the AAC have very little in common outside of legislation concerning an Access Bowl game.

Then stop offering the same kids down here in Atlanta.

My point is that a lot of this is going to get overblown. None of us have a waterfall in out locker room. The $90M programs are going to be doing what they where doing 2 weeks ago which is signing 4 and 5 star players. About the only impact would be if they followed through on not playing G5 OOC and the Indiana's, Wakes and Oregon State's are not going to do that.

Is Georgia St. D1 in football now?

(08-11-2014 01:04 PM)DrBox Wrote:  this is what makes it so difficult, at least for message board posters. You don't know which of those schools has real strength. The only ones I trust are SDSU and Boise, and the AAC is not exactly happy with Boise's conduct.

If there ever is western expansion by the AAC, I think it'll be BYU and 2 or 3 other schools chosen mainly on the basis of "who-does-BYU-want." For now I would guess San Diego State and UNLV will be two of them, and that Boise State will be excluded.

But anyway, that's a few years away, if it ever happens at all.

What will happen after one of the big money schools fails to gain access to the playoffs for say the third time because one or more of its conference teams is hurting its SOS?

There is no playoff system that satisfies everyone so people will be complaining about this one as well.

I don't know anything, but ......

I suspect that after a few years of being non-competitive because of the difference in signable recruits, and the corresponding drop in paid attendance, there will be a good many programs that call it quits.

Some programs are living on state tax payers and students now and with potential reduced interest/revenue I would think that university administrators could see a time when governing boards force programs to disband.

If indeed the P5 adopt a "no scheduling other conferences" policy, the end could be quicker for some programs.

(08-11-2014 02:40 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  I don't know anything, but ......

I suspect that after a few years of being non-competitive because of the difference in signable recruits, and the corresponding drop in paid attendance, there will be a good many programs that call it quits.

Some programs are living on state tax payers and students now and with potential reduced interest/revenue I would think that university administrators could see a time when governing boards force programs to disband.

If indeed the P5 adopt a "no scheduling other conferences" policy, the end could be quicker for some programs.

Call it quits to do what though? Will they being going FCS? Or will they be closing up shop all together and then just rooting for "x" big state school U?

(08-11-2014 11:36 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  What do you mean by give up? Do you mean accept mediocrity, or drop down to FCS, or just stop supporting athletics all together? There are already a lot of FBS schools who either can't or won't do what it takes to compete at a high level, so in that sense schools like FAU, ULM, and Idaho have already given up.

I don't think anyone is going to voluntarily demote themselves or end their athletics program though. They'll play their G5 schedule and some bodybag games and hope for a December Bowl and for a small slice of the CFB Playoff paycheck.

FAU's new stadium ($70m is pretty nice), and they fought hard to go 6-6 last year despite losing their coach. I wouldn't group them in with Idaho at all. FAU is trying.

The schools that fit the description you've described (e.g., have had no success, have no plan, are not investing, have no idea what it means to be a 1-A program, etc.) are:

Idaho
Eastern Michigan
UMass
UAB
New Mexico State
Georgia State (What's the plan here, honestly?)
FIU

Almost everyone else is doing something to try and spark growth, through investment in facilities, coaching salaries, expanding budgets, etc.

If I'm being honest, I would have put Tulane on this list 3 years ago. Say whatever you want about our administration but they're definitely *moving*. Whether or not its in the right direction (I think it is) is a different story.

(08-11-2014 03:04 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:36 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  What do you mean by give up? Do you mean accept mediocrity, or drop down to FCS, or just stop supporting athletics all together? There are already a lot of FBS schools who either can't or won't do what it takes to compete at a high level, so in that sense schools like FAU, ULM, and Idaho have already given up.

I don't think anyone is going to voluntarily demote themselves or end their athletics program though. They'll play their G5 schedule and some bodybag games and hope for a December Bowl and for a small slice of the CFB Playoff paycheck.

FAU's new stadium ($70m is pretty nice), and they fought hard to go 6-6 last year despite losing their coach. I wouldn't group them in with Idaho at all. FAU is trying.

The schools that fit the description you've described (e.g., have had no success, have no plan, are not investing, have no idea what it means to be a 1-A program, etc.) are:

Idaho
Eastern Michigan
UMass
UAB
New Mexico State
Georgia State (What's the plan here, honestly?)
FIU

Almost everyone else is doing something to try and spark growth, through investment in facilities, coaching salaries, expanding budgets, etc.

If I'm being honest, I would have put Tulane on this list 3 years ago. Say whatever you want about our administration but they're definitely *moving*. Whether or not its in the right direction (I think it is) is a different story.

See ya and raise ya...

http://www.carterusa.com/app-latest-news...00-million

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/b...er-/ngSs2/

New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

...oh and then there is MBB

Depends on what your definition of "give up" is. If you mean which schools will choose to not increase spending to stay at the top level of football here's my list:
Idaho
NM St
San Jose St
Utah St
UTEP
Hawaii
Tulsa
S. Miss
UMASS
Florida International
A few more schools in the MAC and Sun Belt
UAB--actually, UAB will be forced into this because the Alabama school system will never allow them to keep up. It's a terrible thing and I can't believe they've been able to keep UAB from building a stadium etc.

(08-11-2014 03:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Depends on what your definition of "give up" is. If you mean which schools will choose to not increase spending to stay at the top level of football here's my list:
Idaho
NM St
San Jose St
Utah St
UTEP
Hawaii
Tulsa
S. Miss
UMASS
Florida International
A few more schools in the MAC and Sun Belt
UAB--actually, UAB will be forced into this because the Alabama school system will never allow them to keep up. It's a terrible thing and I can't believe they've been able to keep UAB from building a stadium etc.

I am getting my popcorn out. Tulsa has plenty of $ and have survived for years on CUSA paychecks, I don't see it.

(08-11-2014 01:11 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 01:04 PM)DrBox Wrote:  this is what makes it so difficult, at least for message board posters. You don't know which of those schools has real strength. The only ones I trust are SDSU and Boise, and the AAC is not exactly happy with Boise's conduct.

If there ever is western expansion by the AAC, I think it'll be BYU and 2 or 3 other schools chosen mainly on the basis of "who-does-BYU-want." For now I would guess San Diego State and UNLV will be two of them, and that Boise State will be excluded.

But anyway, that's a few years away, if it ever happens at all.

I find it funny that a Tulane fan thinks he can take shots at Boise. Boise has had a football stadium (38,000) and a nice big basketball arena for awhile now and success in both sports--tremendous success in football BTW. They have near sell outs in both sports and have had a bowl game that's attracted ACC and Big 12 teams to it. They play on ESPN almost every game. They are now light years ahead of you. You guys had your first winning record in football in almost 20 years last year, built a cheap 22,000 stadium and have a 3,000 average attendance in basketball and suddenly you think your hot sh!t.