(05-11-2020 01:02 PM)Trod0 Wrote: (05-11-2020 12:57 PM)chrisattsu Wrote: (05-11-2020 09:57 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: (05-11-2020 09:48 AM)Trod0 Wrote: (05-11-2020 08:07 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: Just shows how little you know. D2 has far less stringent academic requirements than D1. It is loaded with D1 talent with iffy GPAs. Just look at D2 rankings in football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, you name it. Lone Star Conference is always at the top of the heap. The Texas LSC schools are not your average bear, but you'll find that out soon enough.
I’ll take your word for it that the D2 texas conference is some sort of national powerhouse loaded with grizzlies. You’re the perfect example that I hope we don’t keep adding Texas schools.
And you're the perfect example that I hope the Texas schools come in make you put your foot in your mouth.
I like the enthusiasm but I think we will see growing pains. It's one thing to play a single game up (d2 vs FCS, fcs vs FBS, G5 vs P5), it will be a whole other beast to play a season.
UIL has just realigned and were the 2a school that just moved to 3a thinking we can crush whip the floor of every 4a schools. This FBS talk makes sound like we think we can beat can beat 6a Galena North Shore.
This guy gets it. I would like to see the WAC as a FBS and take Dixie and Tarleton along the transitional ride up to that level.
I agree. I'd like to see the WAC return as an FBS conference. To achieve that goal, I would look for candidates with at least the following attributes.
1. Demonstrated ability to raise funds - especially in states like Texas which don't allow public funds for athletic facilities.
2. Decent sized student body - If a university needs student athletic fees to help fund the move, the existing fee base should not be to high. There should be room to reasonably grow the fee base without overburdening the student.
3. The university should already have good to great athletic facilities. - This is needed to keep from blowing the budget by needing to upgrade too much at one time.
4. Mitigate travel requirements - It would be good to have a cluster of at least 3-4 universities to help mitigate travel costs. A geographically based divisional set up would be optimum. Try to keep the candidate from being on an "island". Some long distance rivals are ok. It would not be good to require long distance travel for too many competitions.
5. Easy travel connections would be nice. - Not too far from regional or major airports
6. Decent population base would be nice.- While not a game breaker, having a decent population base would help with an existing infrastructure (hotels, transportation sources, food) for the traveling team as well as a greater fan pool for the home university.
If FBS is the goal, I don't think current attendance should be as high a determining factor as long as the program has proven financial support (see #1 above). The current rules are to average at least 15,000 every other year. Attendance can be measured as either actual attendance or paid. At least in the early years, I'd opt for paid attendance and, if needed, supplement paid attendance to meet the required 15,000. I would consider that as part of the cost of sub-division membership.
Looking at the NCAA's 2019 Football Attendance Report, it looks like that is what many FBS programs currently do. I counted 14 of the current 130 FBS sub-division members with an annual attendance under 16,000. Several of those were under 15,000 for 2019.
Link - 2019 Football Attendance Report (NCAA)
Even without the CFP money, I see advantages for both the conference as well as its member institutions.