FCS is the most disjointed division in college football. There’s little or no uniformity. Some conferences offer scholarships, others don’t. Some participate in the playoffs, others don’t. Some regularly play OOC games against FCS peers, others rarely venture outside of their own conference.

Not only do this disconnectedness make make rankings a challenge, it it diminishes the overall quality of playoffs, which regularly match non scholarship and scholarship opponents in the first round and leaves out what arguably might be better teams from non participating conferences.

If there is one thing I’ve noticed about this board it’s that there is no shortage of experts with answers for needed reforms in college athletics. So, ok, football experts, what should be done to strengthen FCS?

My one thought is to incentivize schools from conferences that don’t participate in the playoffs to at least regularly schedule OOC games against FCS schools from participating conferences. I’m looking at you Ivy and SWAC.

FCS is fine. It serves the purposes if the schools in FCS. It's not a corporation responsible for maximizing FCS shareholder value.

I think it is fine it allows D1 schools to have football without the G5 minimum cost.
St Thomas can have non scholarship football and afford D1 athletics easier.
More schools should probably go the non scholarship route or limited scholarship.
Why would the FCS want to pressure the Ivy or SWAC ?
Make the Celebration bowl a first round match up.

FCS should go away. Allow schools to either be D1 FBS or DII in football or DI and no football. Or play each sport where you want.

With the recent SCOTUS anti trust ruling it would appear the NCAA would have a hard time stopping a school or conference from moving to any level they desired.

What is the goal of FCS?

I bet you will get 50 different responses for that

Until that is defined you are going to have what currently exists

(06-23-2021 07:28 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  FCS should go away. Allow schools to either be D1 FBS or DII in football or DI and no football. Or play each sport where you want.

With the recent SCOTUS anti trust ruling it would appear the NCAA would have a hard time stopping a school or conference from moving to any level they desired.

If schools were able to just will themselves to FBS dont you think most of them would do so? Lets say that happens and FBS goes up to 200 schools. That would just lead to another split right? Then we'd be right back to square one. Idk if there's a problem for this solution.

FCS is a combo of DI through DIII. When you have three conferences (Ivy, SWAC, MEAC) that don't send their champ to the playoffs, four conferences (Pioneer, NEC, Patriot, Ivy) with less than the full amount of scholarships, and a second championship inside the division you can expect a hot mess.

Almost 1/3 or so of the I-aa/FCS champions since its beginning have moved to FBS. Those dozen or so schools who actually have the ability to win a championship don't seem to care the playing field has reduced to redheaded step children.


Edit: However I still watch. Because football.

(06-23-2021 06:31 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  FCS is the most disjointed division in college football. There’s little or no uniformity. Some conferences offer scholarships, others don’t. Some participate in the playoffs, others don’t. Some regularly play OOC games against FCS peers, others rarely venture outside of their own conference.

Not only do this disconnectedness make make rankings a challenge, it it diminishes the overall quality of playoffs, which regularly match non scholarship and scholarship opponents in the first round and leaves out what arguably might be better teams from non participating conferences.

If there is one thing I’ve noticed about this board it’s that there is no shortage of experts with answers for needed reforms in college athletics. So, ok, football experts, what should be done to strengthen FCS?

My one thought is to incentivize schools from conferences that don’t participate in the playoffs to at least regularly schedule OOC games against FCS schools from participating conferences. I’m looking at you Ivy and SWAC.

The Ivy League does regularly OOC schedule games against FCS schools. Simply because of tradition, the Ivy League has never participated in the FCS playoffs, despite numerous pleas to do so from Ivy League coaches & players.

The SWAC regularly schedules games against FCS opponents as well. The only reason why the SWAC doesn't participate in the FCS playoffs is because of the Grambling v. Southern game in New Orleans. It is a HBCU game that is as storied as Harvard v. Yale. The game is always played around Thanksgiving and it is always played in New Orleans, just like Oklahoma v. Texas is always in Dallas, Georgia v. Florida is just about always in Jacksonville (there have been some exceptions to this), and Navy v. Army is regularly played in Philadelphia. That's part of the reason for the Celebration Bowl. It gives the SWAC a postseason opportunity to play against another conference: the MEAC

50% of schools in the FBS will wake up on the first day of the next season with a zero percent chance of going to the playoff and winning a national title despite their fervent desire to do so, and its the FCS that is a mess because three of thirteen conferences are all set with participating in the playoffs?

There is not a damn thing wrong with FCS. Leave them alone.

Solution in search of a problem.

Looking at the last 35 Seasons there have been 16 different champions. 6 of those have moved to FBS. Out of those 10 that's left four teams have won 18 championships, over half the titles.

I also don't see how it cheapens the experience of the top teams playing in the playoffs for SWAC/MEAC/Ivy schools to not participate.

Does it make a NDSU/SDSU semifinal worse that Harvard or Yale didn't participate in the playoffs? Does the Celebration Bowl mean that JMU vs. Sam Houston is a farce? Does the mere existence of Presbyterian or Stetson or Dayton mean that Northern Iowa or Montana fans have a worse experience at a game not involving those teams?

(06-23-2021 10:06 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  I also don't see how it cheapens the experience of the top teams playing in the playoffs for SWAC/MEAC/Ivy schools to not participate.

Does it make a NDSU/SDSU semifinal worse that Harvard or Yale didn't participate in the playoffs? Does the Celebration Bowl mean that JMU vs. Sam Houston is a farce? Does the mere existence of Presbyterian or Stetson or Dayton mean that Northern Iowa or Montana fans have a worse experience at a game not involving those teams?

I would surmise the problem amongst FCS aficionados is that the lack of consistency cheapens the brand.

How good are the FCS playoffs if 3 of the conferences dont even want to participate?

How good is FCS as a whole if you have X number of schools who dont even fully fund the program or even offer scholarships at all?

One could argue the gap between JMU/NDSU and Davidson/Dayton is larger than the gap between Alabama and ULM. At least the gap between Alabama and ULM, in part, can be partially explained by the current conference structural advantage that exists in FBS.

In FCS, some programs really try and others put in the bare minimum due to tradition or some other reason.

(06-23-2021 07:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  What is the goal of FCS?

FCS was created to keep a bunch of Division I schools out of FBS.

I imagine this was originally about TV money, or something, although I've never been sure.

(06-23-2021 10:18 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 07:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  What is the goal of FCS?

FCS was created to keep a bunch of Division I schools out of FBS.

I imagine this was originally about TV money, or something, although I've never been sure.

from what I've learned from ArkStfan, it was created with a bunch of false promises to keep smaller schools at a different level in order to attempt to keep the bigger schools aligned and satisfied under the NCAA football TV deal.

When the NCAA lost the 1984 Supreme Court case and conferences began taking greater control and maximizing their revenue, the goals for which 1AA was created were no longer needed.

(06-23-2021 10:15 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:06 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  I also don't see how it cheapens the experience of the top teams playing in the playoffs for SWAC/MEAC/Ivy schools to not participate.

Does it make a NDSU/SDSU semifinal worse that Harvard or Yale didn't participate in the playoffs? Does the Celebration Bowl mean that JMU vs. Sam Houston is a farce? Does the mere existence of Presbyterian or Stetson or Dayton mean that Northern Iowa or Montana fans have a worse experience at a game not involving those teams?

I would surmise the problem amongst FCS aficionados is that the lack of consistency cheapens the brand.

How good are the FCS playoffs if 3 of the conferences dont even want to participate?

How good is FCS as a whole if you have X number of schools who dont even fully fund the program or even offer scholarships at all?

One could argue the gap between JMU/NDSU and Davidson/Dayton is larger than the gap between Alabama and ULM. At least the gap between Alabama and ULM, in part, can be partially explained by the current conference structural advantage that exists in FBS.

In FCS, some programs really try and others put in the bare minimum due to tradition or some other reason.

I guess my answer is, "so what?" If I'm sitting there on a Saturday afternoon, watching Maine host like William and Mary or New Hampshire, what the heck do I care if Dayton is playing Davidson? Even if we are talking about the FCS "brand," the only attention FCS gets outside of schools that are in the FCS are 1.) when an FCS school beats an FBS school, or puts a scare in a P5 school, or 2.) the playoffs on ESPN (or the Celebration Bowl). Those moments are so fleeting that there isn't time for some deep discussion of the University of San Diego's finances vis a vis NDSU.

I don't think there's any value to a discussion of "How good is the FCS?" or anything. My team plays in the FCS and I couldn't care less. And I doubt anyone outside this board cares at all.

(06-23-2021 06:31 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  FCS is the most disjointed division in college football. There’s little or no uniformity. Some conferences offer scholarships, others don’t. Some participate in the playoffs, others don’t. Some regularly play OOC games against FCS peers, others rarely venture outside of their own conference.

Not only do this disconnectedness make make rankings a challenge, it it diminishes the overall quality of playoffs, which regularly match non scholarship and scholarship opponents in the first round and leaves out what arguably might be better teams from non participating conferences.

If there is one thing I’ve noticed about this board it’s that there is no shortage of experts with answers for needed reforms in college athletics. So, ok, football experts, what should be done to strengthen FCS?

My one thought is to incentivize schools from conferences that don’t participate in the playoffs to at least regularly schedule OOC games against FCS schools from participating conferences. I’m looking at you Ivy and SWAC.

In football only, allow non scholarship programs who are D1 in name only to move down to a lower division.

Enforce or eliminate existing minimum attendance requirements at the FBS level, or allow the formation of a new FBS conference in the North/West that allows schools like the Dakotas and Montanas to compete against peer athletic departments while playing in a conference that fits their geographic footprint. Money-wise, these schools organically generate more revenue than most Mac teams and many mwc teams (ticket sales/donations), and this is why a conference like the mvfc had 5 at large births to the 16 team playoff this spring. The swath of fbs schools in the south vs the lack of northern FBS opportunities in the north doesn't make sense, and it is the cause for much of the disparity at the fcs level.

The NCAA generates enough money overall that they could and should better support the FCS playoff system. At minimum, stop requiring schools to pay for home games, and instead select home games based on merit.

HBCU schools make more money by not participating because they have their annual celebration bowl game that pulls in around a million in revenue per year. The NCAA needs to have some type of financial reward to help incentivize playoff participation. They do not work at all to promote and advertise the FCS playoffs, and they do not work with ESPN to do so either. If the NCAA required ESPN to increase promotion and air more FCS playoff games nationally, the increased exposure would make participation from the HBSU's and IVY's more likely.

If the IVY and HBCU leagues participated and if there was any advertising push whatsoever for the playoffs, I think it's reasonable to think ratings could be decent and revenue could greatly increase, since those schools have such rabid followings or name recognition. As it stands, there is so little advertising that most casual viewers don't have any idea when FCS playoffs are taking place. Yet of course there are March madness commercials and intermission segments about fbs, during fcs playoff games.

(06-23-2021 10:30 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:15 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:06 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  I also don't see how it cheapens the experience of the top teams playing in the playoffs for SWAC/MEAC/Ivy schools to not participate.

Does it make a NDSU/SDSU semifinal worse that Harvard or Yale didn't participate in the playoffs? Does the Celebration Bowl mean that JMU vs. Sam Houston is a farce? Does the mere existence of Presbyterian or Stetson or Dayton mean that Northern Iowa or Montana fans have a worse experience at a game not involving those teams?

I would surmise the problem amongst FCS aficionados is that the lack of consistency cheapens the brand.

How good are the FCS playoffs if 3 of the conferences dont even want to participate?

How good is FCS as a whole if you have X number of schools who dont even fully fund the program or even offer scholarships at all?

One could argue the gap between JMU/NDSU and Davidson/Dayton is larger than the gap between Alabama and ULM. At least the gap between Alabama and ULM, in part, can be partially explained by the current conference structural advantage that exists in FBS.

In FCS, some programs really try and others put in the bare minimum due to tradition or some other reason.

I guess my answer is, "so what?" If I'm sitting there on a Saturday afternoon, watching Maine host like William and Mary or New Hampshire, what the heck do I care if Dayton is playing Davidson? Even if we are talking about the FCS "brand," the only attention FCS gets outside of schools that are in the FCS are 1.) when an FCS school beats an FBS school, or puts a scare in a P5 school, or 2.) the playoffs on ESPN (or the Celebration Bowl). Those moments are so fleeting that there isn't time for some deep discussion of the University of San Diego's finances vis a vis NDSU.

I don't think there's any value to a discussion of "How good is the FCS?" or anything. My team plays in the FCS and I couldn't care less. And I doubt anyone outside this board cares at all.

If you're the CAA or SoCon trying to talk to executives about getting a media contract, they are going to compare you to the Pioneer and NEC instead of CUSA and Sunbelt, even though the level of play in the CAA or SoCon may be closer to CUSA/Sunbelt.

Its not fair, but being associated in the same classification with conferences who are not trying hurts your brand.

(06-23-2021 10:27 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:18 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 07:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  What is the goal of FCS?

FCS was created to keep a bunch of Division I schools out of FBS.

I imagine this was originally about TV money, or something, although I've never been sure.

from what I've learned from ArkStfan, it was created with a bunch of false promises to keep smaller schools at a different level in order to attempt to keep the bigger schools aligned and satisfied under the NCAA football TV deal.

When the NCAA lost the 1984 Supreme Court case and conferences began taking greater control and maximizing their revenue, the goals for which 1AA was created were no longer needed.

Well, if someone waived a wand tomorrow and merged all the Division I schools into one football division, you'd see about 60 football teams up and disappear, so there's that. I don't think it's accurate to look at FCS as something foisted upon the schools there and only these darn NCAA bylaws are keeping them from taking the college football world by storm.

99% of schools in the FCS are there because they have no business competing (or even "competing" in the UMass/ULM sense) against Alabama or Clemson.