There are 128 FBS teams and only 123 FCS teams, but if the NCAA allowed whole conferences to be promoted to FBS, then schools wouldn't have to take a hit in other sports just to play in a FBS conference.

Given the new arrangement where FBS football now has greater leeway to make its own rules, without the challenge of making rules that the FCS schools are willing to agree to ... they aren't going to recreate that problem by putting the FCS votes back into those decisions.

A FBS/FCS merger is problematic since some of the FCS conferences don't play scholarship football.

The facility difference between FBS/FCS is more pronounced than what is found between the P5/G5. P5 schools usually have a bigger stadium than the G5 but the G5's often have IPF's, press boxes, weight rooms ect on par with the P5.

FCS schools rarely have much in the way of stadium bells and whistles. Some of the FCS stadiums barely seat 5,000.

What might make more sense is when FBS expands to 140 schools or so through another round of realignment is to just split from Division 1 entirely.

B1G 15 (Oklahoma)
B12 12 (Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati)
AAC 14 (BYU, Col State, Air Force, UNM, Rice)
MWC 14 (Montana, Montana St, NMSU, UTEP, UTSA)
CUSA 14 (Texas St, Ark State, Louisiana)
SBC 14 (JMU, Towson, EKU, UTC, UNF, Liberty, Jax St)
MAC 14 (Illinois St, Delaware)

There wouldn't be too many viable FCS to FBS transitioning schools after that point, IMO.

JMU has greater attendance that 25% of FBS teams. Better facilities and higher athletic budget than many FBS.

(10-28-2015 12:42 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  A FBS/FCS merger is problematic since some of the FCS conferences don't play scholarship football.

The facility difference between FBS/FCS is more pronounced than what is found between the P5/G5. P5 schools usually have a bigger stadium than the G5 but the G5's often have IPF's, press boxes, weight rooms ect on par with the P5.

FCS schools rarely have much in the way of stadium bells and whistles. Some of the FCS stadiums barely seat 5,000.

What might make more sense is when FBS expands to 140 schools or so through another round of realignment is to just split from Division 1 entirely.

B1G 15 (Oklahoma)
B12 12 (Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati)
AAC 14 (BYU, Col State, Air Force, UNM, Rice)
MWC 14 (Montana, Montana St, NMSU, UTEP, UTSA)
CUSA 14 (Texas St, Ark State, Louisiana)
SBC 14 (JMU, Towson, EKU, UTC, UNF, Liberty, Jax St)
MAC 14 (Illinois St, Delaware)

There wouldn't be too many viable FCS to FBS transitioning schools after that point, IMO.

The CFP only pays $12M per conference no matter how many teams are in the conference. Why would the AAC, CUSA, MAC, MWC, and SBC take money out of their pockets to add FCS teams?

The biggest problem with this is that the G5 currently split their $80 million from the CFP about 60 ways. If you were to add a bunch of new FBS conferences, that same pie would have to be cut into a lot smaller pieces. Three small (8 team) conferences would reduce the share of the current G5 schools by more than $300M each, or almost 25% of their current take. I don't see them allowing that to happen.

It also hurts the G5 by increasing the number of FBS schools available to pad the schedules of the P5 with cupcakes. That increase would reduce the payout those cupcakes receive when they get a body bag game, unless they find a way to repeal the law of supply and demand.

(10-28-2015 07:21 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  JMU has greater attendance that 25% of FBS teams. Better facilities and higher athletic budget than many FBS.

JMU is the exceptIon, not the rule. There are a handful of FCS schools that are similar to the lower end of FBS schools. The vast majority of FCS schools are well below the level of FBS schools with respect to performance, facilities, and attendance. They also would tend to Vote differently on many NCAA matters than most current FBS schools.

If this does happens, I want to see the SEC schedule Pioneer teams. The entertainment value would be immense.

There are FCS schools masquerading as FBS.

There are FBS schools stuck in FCS.

Enforce the guidelines and the whole problem takes care of itself.

(10-28-2015 07:21 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  JMU has greater attendance that 25% of FBS teams. Better facilities and higher athletic budget than many FBS.

Maybe JMU ought to join FBS

The guidelines say that as of right now, if you want into FBS you have to be invited. What is the issue?

(10-28-2015 09:31 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  There are FCS schools masquerading as FBS.

There are FBS schools stuck in FCS.

Enforce the guidelines and the whole problem takes care of itself.

Other than Liberty, EKU and Jacksonville State are there any other schools who WANT to be FBS who have been denied a path? EKU still needs some budget work for their own sake.

As for enforcing the rules. Attendance criteria is arbitrary, NCAA knows that. There are 11 full members of the MAC that aren't Eastern Michigan.

EMU keeps its paperwork in order in compliance and no one cares to check it out.

What is the overall harm EMU creates to FBS?
Whatever harm there is, will be most pronounced on the 11 other MAC institutions. If EMU is some form of harm to the MAC, then 9 of the 11 can vote to expel them from the conference, maybe even replace them with an attractive FCS.

Yet the people in equity partnership with EMU do not consider them too harmful to remain in the partnership, absent some compelling evidence EMU isn't following the rules (and it has been asserted frequently they have a large corporate sponsor who makes a purchase every two years to keep them in compliance) then what motivation exists for the NCAA to tweak the rule to close the loophole?

Would the differential in quality of play between the very best FBS program (say, Ohio St) and the very worst FCS program (say Miss. Valley St or Davidson, not sure which is worse) be much different than the differential between the very best DI men's basketball program (say, Kentucky) and the very worst DI men's basketball program (no idea? there are some very tiny gyms, though ... high school gyms) ??

I don't think it would be that much different.

(10-28-2015 08:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  The biggest problem with this is that the G5 currently split their $80 million from the CFP about 60 ways. If you were to add a bunch of new FBS conferences, that same pie would have to be cut into a lot smaller pieces. Three small (8 team) conferences would reduce the share of the current G5 schools by more than $300M each, or almost 25% of their current take. I don't see them allowing that to happen.

It also hurts the G5 by increasing the number of FBS schools available to pad the schedules of the P5 with cupcakes. That increase would reduce the payout those cupcakes receive when they get a body bag game, unless they find a way to repeal the law of supply and demand.

That wouldn't happen, because the CFP is owned and controlled by the 10 current FBS conferences plus Notre Dame.

Just because there would be one merged subdivision does not mean any of the current FCS conferences would have any rights to join the CFP ownership.

But, if a one or more FCS conferences that want to move up? You got to think the G5 might welcome them because you could create good match up like MWC Vs a Big Sky school in a newly created bowl. It would mean more money.

I do think they might go with 2 FBS Division and 2 FCS divisions. Some G5 schools would be finally graduate to the P5. The strongest FCS conferences could go FBS. Big Sky, CAA, Liberty, Jacksonville State, Eastern Kentucky, MVFC, Eastern Illinois, Fordham, Southland, and Southern. Plus the strongest D2 conferences can move up to be part of the FCS. Some D2 could graduate all the way up to FBS 2.

(10-28-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Would the differential in quality of play between the very best FBS program (say, Ohio St) and the very worst FCS program (say Miss. Valley St or Davidson, not sure which is worse) be much different than the differential between the very best DI men's basketball program (say, Kentucky) and the very worst DI men's basketball program (no idea? there are some very tiny gyms, though ... high school gyms) ??

I don't think it would be that much different.

I couldn't find a single top basketball program without a horrible loss to a bad school since 2008:

In 2008, Kentucky lost to VMI. In 2012, they lost to Robert Morris. In 2009, UNC lost to College of Charleston and East Tennessee State. Duke lost to Leheigh in 2012. In 2009, Syracuse lost to a D-2 school (Le Moyne), and in 2008 they lost to Cleveland State (who turned out to be pretty good that year, but hadn't been to an NCAA tournament in 20 years at that point). UConn lost to Yale last year. Louisville lost to Western Carolina in 2009 and Drexel in 2010. UCLA lost to Cal State Fullerton, Portland, and Long Beach State in 2009. UCLA also lost to Montana in 2010, Loyola Marymount in 2011, and Cal Poly in 2012.

In football the top teams don't play FCS schools very often, but their dominance against the worst 3 FBS conferences is arguably better than UK, IU, etc. dominance over bad FCS schools:

Since 1960, against current MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA, and FCS schools: Ohio State is 28-0, Michigan is 32-2, Notre Dame is 5-0, and Alabama is 61-9. If you take out Southern Miss and Louisiana Tech, Alabama is 32-2. These records don't include 8 games that Alabama & Ohio State forfeited due to NCAA violations.

You want dominance? Since 1960, Notre Dame is 52-12 against Big 12, MWC, and American conference schools not named Navy.

In short, great football programs have much bigger advantages than great basketball programs.

If a school wishes to play football at the highest level and has the attendance and cash to compete than said school should have the right to move up as an independent.

(10-28-2015 01:41 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  If a school wishes to play football at the highest level and has the attendance and cash to compete than said school should have the right to move up as an independent.

Agree 100%.

(10-28-2015 12:56 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-28-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Would the differential in quality of play between the very best FBS program (say, Ohio St) and the very worst FCS program (say Miss. Valley St or Davidson, not sure which is worse) be much different than the differential between the very best DI men's basketball program (say, Kentucky) and the very worst DI men's basketball program (no idea? there are some very tiny gyms, though ... high school gyms) ??

I don't think it would be that much different.

I couldn't find a single top basketball program without a horrible loss to a bad school since 2008:

In 2008, Kentucky lost to VMI. In 2012, they lost to Robert Morris. In 2009, UNC lost to College of Charleston and East Tennessee State. Duke lost to Leheigh in 2012. In 2009, Syracuse lost to a D-2 school (Le Moyne), and in 2008 they lost to Cleveland State (who turned out to be pretty good that year, but hadn't been to an NCAA tournament in 20 years at that point). UConn lost to Yale last year. Louisville lost to Western Carolina in 2009 and Drexel in 2010. UCLA lost to Cal State Fullerton, Portland, and Long Beach State in 2009. UCLA also lost to Montana in 2010, Loyola Marymount in 2011, and Cal Poly in 2012.

In football the top teams don't play FCS schools very often, but their dominance against the worst 3 FBS conferences is arguably better than UK, IU, etc. dominance over bad FCS schools:

Since 1960, against current MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA, and FCS schools: Ohio State is 28-0, Michigan is 32-2, Notre Dame is 5-0, and Alabama is 61-9. If you take out Southern Miss and Louisiana Tech, Alabama is 32-2. These records don't include 8 games that Alabama & Ohio State forfeited due to NCAA violations.

You want dominance? Since 1960, Notre Dame is 52-12 against Big 12, MWC, and American conference schools not named Navy.

In short, great football programs have much bigger advantages than great basketball programs.

Thanks for the analysis.

But I wasn't necessarily talking just W-L. Hence why I said "program".


Yeah, Ohio St has a huge 100k+ stadium while some FCS schools have almost high school stadiums.

But then Kentucky, Louisville and some others play in 20k+ bball arenas while some DI bball programs literally are in high school-looking gyms.

(10-28-2015 02:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-28-2015 12:56 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-28-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Would the differential in quality of play between the very best FBS program (say, Ohio St) and the very worst FCS program (say Miss. Valley St or Davidson, not sure which is worse) be much different than the differential between the very best DI men's basketball program (say, Kentucky) and the very worst DI men's basketball program (no idea? there are some very tiny gyms, though ... high school gyms) ??

I don't think it would be that much different.

I couldn't find a single top basketball program without a horrible loss to a bad school since 2008:

In 2008, Kentucky lost to VMI. In 2012, they lost to Robert Morris. In 2009, UNC lost to College of Charleston and East Tennessee State. Duke lost to Leheigh in 2012. In 2009, Syracuse lost to a D-2 school (Le Moyne), and in 2008 they lost to Cleveland State (who turned out to be pretty good that year, but hadn't been to an NCAA tournament in 20 years at that point). UConn lost to Yale last year. Louisville lost to Western Carolina in 2009 and Drexel in 2010. UCLA lost to Cal State Fullerton, Portland, and Long Beach State in 2009. UCLA also lost to Montana in 2010, Loyola Marymount in 2011, and Cal Poly in 2012.

In football the top teams don't play FCS schools very often, but their dominance against the worst 3 FBS conferences is arguably better than UK, IU, etc. dominance over bad FCS schools:

Since 1960, against current MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA, and FCS schools: Ohio State is 28-0, Michigan is 32-2, Notre Dame is 5-0, and Alabama is 61-9. If you take out Southern Miss and Louisiana Tech, Alabama is 32-2. These records don't include 8 games that Alabama & Ohio State forfeited due to NCAA violations.

You want dominance? Since 1960, Notre Dame is 52-12 against Big 12, MWC, and American conference schools not named Navy.

In short, great football programs have much bigger advantages than great basketball programs.

Thanks for the analysis.

But I wasn't necessarily talking just W-L. Hence why I said "program".


Yeah, Ohio St has a huge 100k+ stadium while some FCS schools have almost high school stadiums.

But then Kentucky, Louisville and some others play in 20k+ bball arenas while some DI bball programs literally are in high school-looking gyms.

Look beyond superficial stats like stadium size - it cost a hell of a lot less money to put together a successful basketball program. There are fewer players, fewer coaching positions, and a smaller facilities footprint. The fact that there are only 13 b-ball scholarships per school seems to level the playing field - there's simply more talent to go around after the big guys get their pick.