You mean, 'which teams shouldn't be G5'.

Anybody who wants to put the resources into G5 should be able to play G5.

Many schools used to have teams but had to cut them due to Title IX. No doubt, were it not for Title IX, many of those schools would probably be competing at G5 level

Also, FCS and Division II have their own perks. Many schools are convinced FCS and DII are better for them. If a school weighs their options, - Division II, FCS, or G5 - and they decide G5 is best, then that's their decision. G5 does come with its downfalls: no national championship, if you're brand new you have to find a conference, pricier then FCS and DII.

Lastly, it's not just a matter of 'is your football program good?' Many of the G5 schools that don't have good football programs, are great in other sports.

(02-01-2019 03:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  What difference does attendance really make? Especially nowadays with so many games on TV.

Is a school going to drop wrestling or tennis because the attendance is low?

Wrestling and tennis don't cost as much as football. And don't require twisting admissions rules beyond recognition.

And their fan support is comparable to other school's support for those programs.

Rice and UTEP. They've been passed by UNT, UTSA, and Texas St. recently. They have no future if FBS. They'd have no future in FCS either. They should consider D-2.

(02-01-2019 09:18 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Rice and UTEP. They've been passed by UNT, UTSA, and Texas St. recently. They have no future if FBS. They'd have no future in FCS either. They should consider D-2.

UTEP has more NCAA basketball titles than Houston. And despite golf, perhaps more total NCAA titles than Houston. Rice has more NCAA baseball titles and CWS trips than Houston. And Rice has a winning record against Army. And their 49-12 loss to Army wasn't nearly as bad as Houston's.

And as I recall, Houston had one of the largest subsidies in all of Division I, along with many of their AAC brethren trying to compete in football with schools with more resources.

(02-01-2019 09:18 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Rice and UTEP. They've been passed by UNT, UTSA, and Texas St. recently. They have no future if FBS. They'd have no future in FCS either. They should consider D-2.

I disagree. Rice has the finances to be a player in the FBS if they ever choose to commit the resources to that end. UTEP has a long history in the FBS and they are the only game in El Paso. When they turn it around, they will fill their stands again. Texas State has posted a 4-20 record over the last 3 seasons. How is that really any better than what Rice and UTEP have done?

The question is why have most of the schools in the last 20 years moved up to FBS?

The answer largely is to get into a better athletic conference which they will need to go FBS to do.

Think Buffalo. With football MAC....without football American East.

Or UMass. They are using FB to try and get into the AAC. They know if they can get into the AAC they have no chance of winning it but they are more than happy to do it for the TV deal.

(02-01-2019 09:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:18 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Rice and UTEP. They've been passed by UNT, UTSA, and Texas St. recently. They have no future if FBS. They'd have no future in FCS either. They should consider D-2.

I disagree. Rice has the finances to be a player in the FBS if they ever choose to commit the resources to that end. UTEP has a long history in the FBS and they are the only game in El Paso. When they turn it around, they will fill their stands again. Texas State has posted a 4-20 record over the last 3 seasons. How is that really any better than what Rice and UTEP have done?

Well you said only 85 make the cut.

Someone has to drop and if UTEP/Rice aren't included in the drops....maybe North Texas.

(02-01-2019 12:24 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:04 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 08:59 AM)indianasniff Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:36 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-leave-fcs

"Dropping down could help a team win more and spend less. Attendance could reveal some candidates."

This article is a total waste of time, even for a realignment thread.

Obviously written by a pimple faced fan of a P5 school that was told to write about G5

I never understand how G5's get upset by it. Just because you care about Toledo doesn't mean anyone else does. The data shows that actually very few people care. But like all G5's you make a fake list of peer groups (Alabama, USC, etc) and want to stay connected him. It's just a case of Keeping Up the Joneses. "If that crap school is FBS then our crap school should be there too."

Miami cared enough about Toledo to play in the Glass Bowl.

Yeah, Miami wasn't able to use a hurricane to weasel out of it. (Maybe they mistakenly thought Lake Erie was capable of their producing their own hurricane)

(02-01-2019 08:43 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  You mean, 'which teams shouldn't be G5'.

Anybody who wants to put the resources into G5 should be able to play G5.

Many schools used to have teams but had to cut them due to Title IX. No doubt, were it not for Title IX, many of those schools would probably be competing at G5 level

Also, FCS and Division II have their own perks. Many schools are convinced FCS and DII are better for them. If a school weighs their options, - Division II, FCS, or G5 - and they decide G5 is best, then that's their decision. G5 does come with its downfalls: no national championship, if you're brand new you have to find a conference, pricier then FCS and DII.

Lastly, it's not just a matter of 'is your football program good?' Many of the G5 schools that don't have good football programs, are great in other sports.

Many? In the last forty years? UTA and Pacific dropped the sport. Idaho dropped down. Who else?

There are no perks in FCS or Div II that are greater than that 30 second halftime commercial on Saturday.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(02-01-2019 09:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:18 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Rice and UTEP. They've been passed by UNT, UTSA, and Texas St. recently. They have no future if FBS. They'd have no future in FCS either. They should consider D-2.

I disagree. Rice has the finances to be a player in the FBS if they ever choose to commit the resources to that end. UTEP has a long history in the FBS and they are the only game in El Paso. When they turn it around, they will fill their stands again. Texas State has posted a 4-20 record over the last 3 seasons. How is that really any better than what Rice and UTEP have done?

Well you said only 85 make the cut.

Someone has to drop and if UTEP/Rice aren't included in the drops....maybe North Texas.

North Texas was not a program that was even mentioned in the article. Nor should it have been. The Mean Green have been to four bowls in the last 5 seasons, and averaged over 23,000 fans per game last season. We are on the upswing. If you really want me to create a list of 40 to 45 teams that could/should be removed from the FBS, I can do that.

(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The trim FBS people cannot articulate any real reason to trim it and no one who understands how the intercollegiate economy works would expect the P5 to harm themselves by trimming G5 away.

Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The trim FBS people cannot articulate any real reason to trim it and no one who understands how the intercollegiate economy works would expect the P5 to harm themselves by trimming G5 away.

Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

That's because it's not about doing research or even really contributing to any sort of debate. It's clickbait. He's just doing some DavidSt-style rant for clicks and attention, and judging by this thread, it worked. Good for him, I guess.

The "could win more" concept is flawed. If a school could maintain its FBS coaching staff, FBS players, and FBS facilities while dropping down to FCS, they could probably win more games. The reality is they are going to have FCS coaches, players and facilities. They are going to be way behind established FCS programs.

It's also going to be a financial nightmare with lower donations, lower ticket prices, and lower attendance.

(02-01-2019 10:56 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:36 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-leave-fcs

"Dropping down could help a team win more and spend less. Attendance could reveal some candidates."

This article is a total waste of time, even for a realignment thread.

I agree. Poorly researched and poorly written. For example, take ULM athletics. Their 2016-2017 athletic budget was $14.2 million, with $5.3 million spent on football. In 2018, they brought in $2.7 million in revenue from money games and another $1.7 million from their share of Sun Belt CFP revenue.

https://www.thenewsstar.com/story/sports...690715002/

A total of $4.4 million in revenue before they get to any other football related revenue. FBS football is a huge source of revenue for ULM. Dropping down to FCS would be a big money loser for them.

Taking an attendance number for one season does not tell you a lot. ULM in 2017 averaged 9,928 fans. In 2012, they averaged 24,981 per game. So what happened in 2012? The team was good. They won eight games. They beat Arkansas on the road. They lost to Auburn on the road in OT. They lost to Baylor at home 47-42, in a game that was televised nationally on ESPN and had attendance of 31,175.

Their head football coach has a salary of $390,000 annually. ULM is not paying their head coach millions and they went 6-6 in 2018. Obviously, in this one example, FBS football is not a burden for this school. Each school has multiple reasons for being an FBS football program. An attendance number for one season tells you nothing about that FBS football program.

Ditto on UTEP & NMSU who are the biggest draws in the El Paso/Las Cruces market with very little competition whatsoever.

(02-01-2019 10:36 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The trim FBS people cannot articulate any real reason to trim it and no one who understands how the intercollegiate economy works would expect the P5 to harm themselves by trimming G5 away.

Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

That's because it's not about doing research or even really contributing to any sort of debate. It's clickbait. He's just doing some DavidSt-style rant for clicks and attention, and judging by this thread, it worked. Good for him, I guess.

I do not post for schools moving down. I think the top schools to move up. Get the G5 conferences split into regions using FCS extras to create better rivalry games. The problem is you do not see North Texas fans travel to FAU/FIU to fill stadiums. They do travel to places like Lamar, Houston, UTEP ect...

(02-01-2019 11:08 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The "could win more" concept is flawed. If a school could maintain its FBS coaching staff, FBS players, and FBS facilities while dropping down to FCS, they could probably win more games. The reality is they are going to have FCS coaches, players and facilities. They are going to be way behind established FCS programs.

It's also going to be a financial nightmare with lower donations, lower ticket prices, and lower attendance.

G5 programs have the ability to keep 3 star recruits home.

Arkansas/Arkansas St is a perfect example of a P5/G5 setup. Arkansas has to go out and recruit nationally to compete in the SEC, leaving a lot of quality in-state players behind. This is where AState can fill the void and keep some 3 stars home.

When you drop to FCS you don't offer those recruits an alternative. Then its down to how well a program fits the FCS landscape.

(02-02-2019 07:31 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 11:08 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The "could win more" concept is flawed. If a school could maintain its FBS coaching staff, FBS players, and FBS facilities while dropping down to FCS, they could probably win more games. The reality is they are going to have FCS coaches, players and facilities. They are going to be way behind established FCS programs.

It's also going to be a financial nightmare with lower donations, lower ticket prices, and lower attendance.

G5 programs have the ability to keep 3 star recruits home.

Arkansas/Arkansas St is a perfect example of a P5/G5 setup. Arkansas has to go out and recruit nationally to compete in the SEC, leaving a lot of quality in-state players behind. This is where AState can fill the void and keep some 3 stars home.

When you drop to FCS you don't offer those recruits an alternative. Then its down to how well a program fits the FCS landscape.

We do have some great players started out at UCA or Arkansas Tech since they needed to get their grade point average up to join Arkansas/A-State. We had players at Tech and the next year, they transferred to Arkansas. That is why UCA moved up. Arkansas Tech does have the academics at the same level as some FBS schools.

(02-01-2019 10:10 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:18 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Rice and UTEP. They've been passed by UNT, UTSA, and Texas St. recently. They have no future if FBS. They'd have no future in FCS either. They should consider D-2.

I disagree. Rice has the finances to be a player in the FBS if they ever choose to commit the resources to that end. UTEP has a long history in the FBS and they are the only game in El Paso. When they turn it around, they will fill their stands again. Texas State has posted a 4-20 record over the last 3 seasons. How is that really any better than what Rice and UTEP have done?

Well you said only 85 make the cut.

Someone has to drop and if UTEP/Rice aren't included in the drops....maybe North Texas.

North Texas was not a program that was even mentioned in the article. Nor should it have been. The Mean Green have been to four bowls in the last 5 seasons, and averaged over 23,000 fans per game last season. We are on the upswing. If you really want me to create a list of 40 to 45 teams that could/should be removed from the FBS, I can do that.

Cutting to 85 only provides room for like 22 G5 programs.

The entire AAC is probably in one would figure. Then BYU/Army. That is 14 right there.

At least 8 programs in the MWC are worthy, if not the whole conference.

I don't see where there is room for UNT and they would be behind So Miss, Marshall, AState and a few others listed in the article for making that type of cut. Not enough history and a glut of Texas schools hurts.

(02-02-2019 08:06 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:10 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:33 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 09:18 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Rice and UTEP. They've been passed by UNT, UTSA, and Texas St. recently. They have no future if FBS. They'd have no future in FCS either. They should consider D-2.

I disagree. Rice has the finances to be a player in the FBS if they ever choose to commit the resources to that end. UTEP has a long history in the FBS and they are the only game in El Paso. When they turn it around, they will fill their stands again. Texas State has posted a 4-20 record over the last 3 seasons. How is that really any better than what Rice and UTEP have done?

Well you said only 85 make the cut.

Someone has to drop and if UTEP/Rice aren't included in the drops....maybe North Texas.

North Texas was not a program that was even mentioned in the article. Nor should it have been. The Mean Green have been to four bowls in the last 5 seasons, and averaged over 23,000 fans per game last season. We are on the upswing. If you really want me to create a list of 40 to 45 teams that could/should be removed from the FBS, I can do that.

Cutting to 85 only provides room for like 22 G5 programs.

The entire AAC is probably in one would figure. Then BYU/Army. That is 14 right there.

At least 8 programs in the MWC are worthy, if not the whole conference.

I don't see where there is room for UNT and they would be behind So Miss, Marshall, AState and a few others listed in the article for making that type of cut. Not enough history and a glut of Texas schools hurts.

My 85 divided up into conferences:

Aac7
Army, Navy, lv

Independent: Notre Dame

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, Arizona St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona
East: Nebraska, Iowa St, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St
South: Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech
*Arizona and Arizona St switch divisions annually

SEC
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
South: Alabama, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Tennessee
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
North: Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St, Miami
*South and East divisions lined up by permanent cross-division rivalries
*Divided so each division has a Texas or Florida presence

B1G
West: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
North: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St
East: Pittsburgh, Penn St, Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College
South: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest

AAC
West: San Diego St, Fresno St, Boise St, Utah, BYU, Colorado St, Air Force, New Mexico
Central: Tulsa, SMU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Navy
East: Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Louisville, Cincinnati, Temple, Connecticut, Army

Total by current conference:
PAC - 12
XII - 10
SEC - 14
B1G - 14
ACC - 14
AAC - 12
MWC - 6
IND - 3