Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB conference?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
SDHornet Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 829
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-24-2021 11:04 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 10:49 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 03:18 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  C. None

This. Although I'm more entertained at how there is already talk of the TX SLC defectors talking about FBS without even playing a down of WAC FCS FB.

It is entertaining that the WAC announcement about the 5 new teams came with the stipulation that all the FCS schools would explore FBS? People can laugh at anything they want, I guess. But facts are facts. That's what happened. I don't know why folks can't accept that.

I'm not laughing at the study, I'm laughing at the thought of the WAC as a whole being FBS. I have no doubt the "cream" of the WAC FCS will get poached by whatever bottom tier FBS conference needs a body. We've seen it before, the only question is when.
05-24-2021 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
Warden Of The WAC
*

Posts: 20,204
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-24-2021 11:35 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 11:04 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 10:49 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 03:18 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  C. None

This. Although I'm more entertained at how there is already talk of the TX SLC defectors talking about FBS without even playing a down of WAC FCS FB.

It is entertaining that the WAC announcement about the 5 new teams came with the stipulation that all the FCS schools would explore FBS? People can laugh at anything they want, I guess. But facts are facts. That's what happened. I don't know why folks can't accept that.

I'm not laughing at the study, I'm laughing at the thought of the WAC as a whole being FBS. I have no doubt the "cream" of the WAC FCS will get poached by whatever bottom tier FBS conference needs a body. We've seen it before, the only question is when.

This^^
05-24-2021 12:03 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DoubleRSU Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,815
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 76
I Root For: SU, WAC, NAU
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-24-2021 11:04 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 10:49 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 03:18 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  C. None

This. Although I'm more entertained at how there is already talk of the TX SLC defectors talking about FBS without even playing a down of WAC FCS FB.

It is entertaining that the WAC announcement about the 5 new teams came with the stipulation that all the FCS schools would explore FBS? People can laugh at anything they want, I guess. But facts are facts. That's what happened. I don't know why folks can't accept that.

You can study it all you want. Lamar and SHSU could have been FBS 10 years ago. Southern Utah didn’t leave the Big Sky to be left by the Texas schools, “when they join FBS”. Not happening anytime soon. Southern Utah isn’t joining FBS either.
05-26-2021 07:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,542
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-26-2021 07:41 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 11:04 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 10:49 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 03:18 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  C. None

This. Although I'm more entertained at how there is already talk of the TX SLC defectors talking about FBS without even playing a down of WAC FCS FB.

It is entertaining that the WAC announcement about the 5 new teams came with the stipulation that all the FCS schools would explore FBS? People can laugh at anything they want, I guess. But facts are facts. That's what happened. I don't know why folks can't accept that.

You can study it all you want. Lamar and SHSU could have been FBS 10 years ago. Southern Utah didn’t leave the Big Sky to be left by the Texas schools, “when they join FBS”. Not happening anytime soon. Southern Utah isn’t joining FBS either.

Some of you might want to take a look at the ASUN CSNBBS board under the topic of "ASUN Expansion," or a similar thread that I started to ask them their opinions about the future direction of that conference."

It appears that the range of views over there is somewhat similar to the views on this board:

--Some of them see the ASUN as moving toward FBS status, while others disagree and think it's more likely to proceed as an FCS conference.

--One or two of them noted that they haven't yet identified a 6th football school and suggested that it might be a good idea to extend their temporary plan to play the WAC football teams.

--Both boards seem to agree that they will be FCS conferences, but to have different views about whether or when or how they would transition to FBS, if they ever do.

--It appears that both conferences are in a somewhat similar situation, and for either of them to put a FBS conference together, their best bet might be some kind of an ongoing scheduling alliance.

.
05-27-2021 09:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bobcat2013 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,699
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 84
I Root For: Texas State
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 09:00 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-26-2021 07:41 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 11:04 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 10:49 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 03:18 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  C. None

This. Although I'm more entertained at how there is already talk of the TX SLC defectors talking about FBS without even playing a down of WAC FCS FB.

It is entertaining that the WAC announcement about the 5 new teams came with the stipulation that all the FCS schools would explore FBS? People can laugh at anything they want, I guess. But facts are facts. That's what happened. I don't know why folks can't accept that.

You can study it all you want. Lamar and SHSU could have been FBS 10 years ago. Southern Utah didn’t leave the Big Sky to be left by the Texas schools, “when they join FBS”. Not happening anytime soon. Southern Utah isn’t joining FBS either.

Some of you might want to take a look at the ASUN CSNBBS board under the topic of "ASUN Expansion," or a similar thread that I started to ask them their opinions about the future direction of that conference."

It appears that the range of views over there is somewhat similar to the views on this board:

--Some of them see the ASUN as moving toward FBS status, while others disagree and think it's more likely to proceed as an FCS conference.

--One or two of them noted that they haven't yet identified a 6th football school and suggested that it might be a good idea to extend their temporary plan to play the WAC football teams.

--Both boards seem to agree that they will be FCS conferences, but to have different views about whether or when or how they would transition to FBS, if they ever do.

--It appears that both conferences are in a somewhat similar situation, and for either of them to put a FBS conference together, their best bet might be some kind of an ongoing scheduling alliance.

.

There is one big difference: the WAC still has an FBS charter apparently. The ASUN does not. Still not sure about the practicality of the FBS charter thing myself though.
05-27-2021 09:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PojoaquePosse Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,223
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 47
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 09:21 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 09:00 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-26-2021 07:41 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 11:04 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 10:49 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  This. Although I'm more entertained at how there is already talk of the TX SLC defectors talking about FBS without even playing a down of WAC FCS FB.

It is entertaining that the WAC announcement about the 5 new teams came with the stipulation that all the FCS schools would explore FBS? People can laugh at anything they want, I guess. But facts are facts. That's what happened. I don't know why folks can't accept that.

You can study it all you want. Lamar and SHSU could have been FBS 10 years ago. Southern Utah didn’t leave the Big Sky to be left by the Texas schools, “when they join FBS”. Not happening anytime soon. Southern Utah isn’t joining FBS either.

Some of you might want to take a look at the ASUN CSNBBS board under the topic of "ASUN Expansion," or a similar thread that I started to ask them their opinions about the future direction of that conference."

It appears that the range of views over there is somewhat similar to the views on this board:

--Some of them see the ASUN as moving toward FBS status, while others disagree and think it's more likely to proceed as an FCS conference.

--One or two of them noted that they haven't yet identified a 6th football school and suggested that it might be a good idea to extend their temporary plan to play the WAC football teams.

--Both boards seem to agree that they will be FCS conferences, but to have different views about whether or when or how they would transition to FBS, if they ever do.

--It appears that both conferences are in a somewhat similar situation, and for either of them to put a FBS conference together, their best bet might be some kind of an ongoing scheduling alliance.

.

There is one big difference: the WAC still has an FBS charter apparently. The ASUN does not. Still not sure about the practicality of the FBS charter thing myself though.

There is another big difference. The WAC announced that all FCS teams would do a study to explore going to FBS. I don't think the ASUN has expressed a similar edict. So any ASUN speculation on FBS is just that...speculation. The WAC is openly looking at FBS. They explicitly told us that.

One other thing. In a couple years, the WAC will not need an alliance with the ASUN. Tarleton and Dixie will be FCS and the WAC will have 7 FCS teams which gives them an auto qualifier.
05-27-2021 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco85 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 218
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 41
I Root For: COI, BSU
Location: Parts Unknown
Post: #27
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-22-2021 09:08 PM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  Ironically the only one of the Texas schools that meet the minimum stadium size is Lamar. But to meet the average attendance number they would need to be sold out almost every game. I know Sam is planning to expand their stadium and I believe SFA might be also, but are they going to say a target of 20,000 seats? Last time I looked, the minimum stadium capacity was either 15 or 16K with an average attendance of 15k. To expand any of these stadiums is going to take some large donors and since most of them are in the Texas State system I wouldn't think the system could afford to expand all of them.

The NCAA FBS attendance rule has not had a stadium size requirement for a long time. The attendance rule states a school must average 15,000 persons in paid (not turnstile count) attendance in a two year period (rolling average). This means schools (boosters, corporations, or whomever) need to buy up enough unused tickets to meet any deficit. A school can thus make the FBS attendance rule without having actual butts in the seats (and not necessarily even have 15,000 seats in their stadium). This is how schools like Idaho (when they were FBS), Akron, EMU, etc, make the attendance rule. It is another (and very valid) point entirely that the financials for FBS may not work well for a school with a small stadium, who can't draw well, and who has a small operating budget. It means they are likely dependent on 2 or more "body bag" games a year just to fund their AD and they are likely to be noncompetitive. However, the financial realities of most teams in FCS make an FBS existence possibly more sustainable than in the FCS (where there is much less income available and expenses are still considerable). This is the hard lesson the University of Idaho has learned.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2021 04:46 PM by Bronco85.)
05-27-2021 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PojoaquePosse Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,223
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 47
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 10:53 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 09:08 PM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  Ironically the only one of the Texas schools that meet the minimum stadium size is Lamar. But to meet the average attendance number they would need to be sold out almost every game. I know Sam is planning to expand their stadium and I believe SFA might be also, but are they going to say a target of 20,000 seats? Last time I looked, the minimum stadium capacity was either 15 or 16K with an average attendance of 15k. To expand any of these stadiums is going to take some large donors and since most of them are in the Texas State system I wouldn't think the system could afford to expand all of them.

The NCAA FBS attendance rule has not had a stadium size requirement for a long time. The attendance rule states a school must average 15,000 persons in paid (not turnstile count) attendance in a two year period (rolling average). This means schools (boosters, corporations, or whomever) need to buy up enough unused tickets to meet any deficit. A school can thus make the FBS attendance rule without having actual butts in the seats (and not necessarily even have 15,000 seats in their stadium). This is how schools like Idaho (when they were FBS), Akron, EMU, etc, make the attendance rule. It is another (and very valid) point entirely that the financials for FBS may not work well for a school with a small stadium, who can't draw well, and who has a small operating budget. It means they are likely dependent on 2 or more "body bag" games a year just to fund their AD and they are likely to be noncompetitive. However, the financial realities of most teams in FCS make an FBS existence possibly more sustainable than in the FCS (where there is much less income available and expenses are still considerable). This is the hard lesson the the University of Idaho has learned.

Spot on. NMSU has a partnership with Learfied and if they don't meet the attendance requirement, Learfield swoops in and buys a bunch of tickets.
05-27-2021 10:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,542
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 10:47 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 09:21 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 09:00 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-26-2021 07:41 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 11:04 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  It is entertaining that the WAC announcement about the 5 new teams came with the stipulation that all the FCS schools would explore FBS? People can laugh at anything they want, I guess. But facts are facts. That's what happened. I don't know why folks can't accept that.

You can study it all you want. Lamar and SHSU could have been FBS 10 years ago. Southern Utah didn’t leave the Big Sky to be left by the Texas schools, “when they join FBS”. Not happening anytime soon. Southern Utah isn’t joining FBS either.

Some of you might want to take a look at the ASUN CSNBBS board under the topic of "ASUN Expansion," or a similar thread that I started to ask them their opinions about the future direction of that conference."

It appears that the range of views over there is somewhat similar to the views on this board:

--Some of them see the ASUN as moving toward FBS status, while others disagree and think it's more likely to proceed as an FCS conference.

--One or two of them noted that they haven't yet identified a 6th football school and suggested that it might be a good idea to extend their temporary plan to play the WAC football teams.

--Both boards seem to agree that they will be FCS conferences, but to have different views about whether or when or how they would transition to FBS, if they ever do.

--It appears that both conferences are in a somewhat similar situation, and for either of them to put a FBS conference together, their best bet might be some kind of an ongoing scheduling alliance.

.

There is one big difference: the WAC still has an FBS charter apparently. The ASUN does not. Still not sure about the practicality of the FBS charter thing myself though.

There is another big difference. The WAC announced that all FCS teams would do a study to explore going to FBS. I don't think the ASUN has expressed a similar edict. So any ASUN speculation on FBS is just that...speculation. The WAC is openly looking at FBS. They explicitly told us that.

One other thing. In a couple years, the WAC will not need an alliance with the ASUN. Tarleton and Dixie will be FCS and the WAC will have 7 FCS teams which gives them an auto qualifier.

Good points.

Regarding ASUN, they're saying that the President of one of their schools, Central Arkansas, made a bold public statement to the effect that the ASUN is planning to become a FBS conference.

.
05-27-2021 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pounder Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 101
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 5
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 10:53 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 09:08 PM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  Ironically the only one of the Texas schools that meet the minimum stadium size is Lamar. But to meet the average attendance number they would need to be sold out almost every game. I know Sam is planning to expand their stadium and I believe SFA might be also, but are they going to say a target of 20,000 seats? Last time I looked, the minimum stadium capacity was either 15 or 16K with an average attendance of 15k. To expand any of these stadiums is going to take some large donors and since most of them are in the Texas State system I wouldn't think the system could afford to expand all of them.

The NCAA FBS attendance rule has not had a stadium size requirement for a long time. The attendance rule states a school must average 15,000 persons in paid (not turnstile count) attendance in a two year period (rolling average). This means schools (boosters, corporations, or whomever) need to buy up enough unused tickets to meet any deficit. A school can thus make the FBS attendance rule without having actual butts in the seats (and not necessarily even have 15,000 seats in their stadium). This is how schools like Idaho (when they were FBS), Akron, EMU, etc, make the attendance rule. It is another (and very valid) point entirely that the financials for FBS may not work well for a school with a small stadium, who can't draw well, and who has a small operating budget. It means they are likely dependent on 2 or more "body bag" games a year just to fund their AD and they are likely to be noncompetitive. However, the financial realities of most teams in FCS make an FBS existence possibly more sustainable than in the FCS (where there is much less income available and expenses are still considerable). This is the hard lesson the the University of Idaho has learned.

Who really audits these numbers anyway? It’s never seemed like these rules have been enforced IF the conference is willing to back the school in question. Even then, Idaho never referenced those rules when returning football to the Big Sky.

I’ve had a hard time believing SUU would really accept the trajectory of the new Texas schools in the conference... but what if they just moved up without any of the requirements fulfilled? Would the NCAA clamp down? Shrug.
05-27-2021 12:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bobcat2013 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,699
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 84
I Root For: Texas State
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 12:34 PM)Pounder Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 10:53 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 09:08 PM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  Ironically the only one of the Texas schools that meet the minimum stadium size is Lamar. But to meet the average attendance number they would need to be sold out almost every game. I know Sam is planning to expand their stadium and I believe SFA might be also, but are they going to say a target of 20,000 seats? Last time I looked, the minimum stadium capacity was either 15 or 16K with an average attendance of 15k. To expand any of these stadiums is going to take some large donors and since most of them are in the Texas State system I wouldn't think the system could afford to expand all of them.

The NCAA FBS attendance rule has not had a stadium size requirement for a long time. The attendance rule states a school must average 15,000 persons in paid (not turnstile count) attendance in a two year period (rolling average). This means schools (boosters, corporations, or whomever) need to buy up enough unused tickets to meet any deficit. A school can thus make the FBS attendance rule without having actual butts in the seats (and not necessarily even have 15,000 seats in their stadium). This is how schools like Idaho (when they were FBS), Akron, EMU, etc, make the attendance rule. It is another (and very valid) point entirely that the financials for FBS may not work well for a school with a small stadium, who can't draw well, and who has a small operating budget. It means they are likely dependent on 2 or more "body bag" games a year just to fund their AD and they are likely to be noncompetitive. However, the financial realities of most teams in FCS make an FBS existence possibly more sustainable than in the FCS (where there is much less income available and expenses are still considerable). This is the hard lesson the the University of Idaho has learned.

Who really audits these numbers anyway? It’s never seemed like these rules have been enforced IF the conference is willing to back the school in question. Even then, Idaho never referenced those rules when returning football to the Big Sky.

I’ve had a hard time believing SUU would really accept the trajectory of the new Texas schools in the conference... but what if they just moved up without any of the requirements fulfilled? Would the NCAA clamp down? Shrug.

Not sure, I'd bet that if schools didn't upgrade their facilities and/or up their attendance and what not then they might struggle to get home and homes with other FBS schools which would defeat the purpose of going FBS in the first place.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2021 01:15 PM by Bobcat2013.)
05-27-2021 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Todor Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,505
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation: 96
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 12:13 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 10:47 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 09:21 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 09:00 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-26-2021 07:41 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  You can study it all you want. Lamar and SHSU could have been FBS 10 years ago. Southern Utah didn’t leave the Big Sky to be left by the Texas schools, “when they join FBS”. Not happening anytime soon. Southern Utah isn’t joining FBS either.

Some of you might want to take a look at the ASUN CSNBBS board under the topic of "ASUN Expansion," or a similar thread that I started to ask them their opinions about the future direction of that conference."

It appears that the range of views over there is somewhat similar to the views on this board:

--Some of them see the ASUN as moving toward FBS status, while others disagree and think it's more likely to proceed as an FCS conference.

--One or two of them noted that they haven't yet identified a 6th football school and suggested that it might be a good idea to extend their temporary plan to play the WAC football teams.

--Both boards seem to agree that they will be FCS conferences, but to have different views about whether or when or how they would transition to FBS, if they ever do.

--It appears that both conferences are in a somewhat similar situation, and for either of them to put a FBS conference together, their best bet might be some kind of an ongoing scheduling alliance.

.

There is one big difference: the WAC still has an FBS charter apparently. The ASUN does not. Still not sure about the practicality of the FBS charter thing myself though.

There is another big difference. The WAC announced that all FCS teams would do a study to explore going to FBS. I don't think the ASUN has expressed a similar edict. So any ASUN speculation on FBS is just that...speculation. The WAC is openly looking at FBS. They explicitly told us that.

One other thing. In a couple years, the WAC will not need an alliance with the ASUN. Tarleton and Dixie will be FCS and the WAC will have 7 FCS teams which gives them an auto qualifier.

Good points.

Regarding ASUN, they're saying that the President of one of their schools, Central Arkansas, made a bold public statement to the effect that the ASUN is planning to become a FBS conference.

.

Where was this public statement made? Any links?
05-27-2021 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Todor Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,505
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation: 96
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-23-2021 11:17 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 06:49 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  I honestly don’t feel the need to add anything but constantly reiterate that the WAC schools need to follow through with the commitment to study FBS and be transparent with what they learned.

And to any TXST people, I told you guys years ago that UTSA would pass you up in short order. I was correct then (despite all the crap I got from Bobcat fans back then) and quite frankly if Sam went FBS anytime soon - they too would pass up the folks in San Marcos. It wouldn’t take much and SFA probably would too.

Congrats on the natty!

As for UTSA they might be a slight notch above us as far as football success goes but we're better at just about everything else including facilities. I think we're both in bgood place thoughs, but I doubt any Bobcat fans would want to trade places with them. Not that it really matters but ESPNs preseason FPI has us rated higher than them.

I know things are different down in Hunstville now but yall never passed us when we were still FCS. I dont think it would happen if yall moved up. Same for SFA. I guess yall just need to move up so we can see! Which brings me to ask why havent yall moved up already?

Why haven't they moved up? Because they have no fans and no one gives a crap about their program. Last pre covid season they averaged 4,XXX fans per game at home. They were a lot closer to Houston Baptist attendance than they were an average Southland school. If no one shows up to your games, then nobody cares. Wasting money even studying FBS shows nothing but delusion.

It is true, that nobody cares about FCS in general and most of the public doesn't even know what it is, but still, even other Southland schools still have much higher attendance than SH.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2021 01:34 PM by Todor.)
05-27-2021 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco85 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 218
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 41
I Root For: COI, BSU
Location: Parts Unknown
Post: #34
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 12:34 PM)Pounder Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 10:53 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 09:08 PM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  Ironically the only one of the Texas schools that meet the minimum stadium size is Lamar. But to meet the average attendance number they would need to be sold out almost every game. I know Sam is planning to expand their stadium and I believe SFA might be also, but are they going to say a target of 20,000 seats? Last time I looked, the minimum stadium capacity was either 15 or 16K with an average attendance of 15k. To expand any of these stadiums is going to take some large donors and since most of them are in the Texas State system I wouldn't think the system could afford to expand all of them.

The NCAA FBS attendance rule has not had a stadium size requirement for a long time. The attendance rule states a school must average 15,000 persons in paid (not turnstile count) attendance in a two year period (rolling average). This means schools (boosters, corporations, or whomever) need to buy up enough unused tickets to meet any deficit. A school can thus make the FBS attendance rule without having actual butts in the seats (and not necessarily even have 15,000 seats in their stadium). This is how schools like Idaho (when they were FBS), Akron, EMU, etc, make the attendance rule. It is another (and very valid) point entirely that the financials for FBS may not work well for a school with a small stadium, who can't draw well, and who has a small operating budget. It means they are likely dependent on 2 or more "body bag" games a year just to fund their AD and they are likely to be noncompetitive. However, the financial realities of most teams in FCS make an FBS existence possibly more sustainable than in the FCS (where there is much less income available and expenses are still considerable). This is the hard lesson the the University of Idaho has learned.

Who really audits these numbers anyway? It’s never seemed like these rules have been enforced IF the conference is willing to back the school in question. Even then, Idaho never referenced those rules when returning football to the Big Sky.

I’ve had a hard time believing SUU would really accept the trajectory of the new Texas schools in the conference... but what if they just moved up without any of the requirements fulfilled? Would the NCAA clamp down? Shrug.

Idaho went to the Big Sky in football in 2018 because that was the only D1 conference that would have them (and the majority of their sports were already in the BSC) and their president at the time wanted to move down and devalue athletics. (The WAC looked to be at death's door when UI left for the BSC in their non-football sports). The excuse was it would be a financially prudent move. The lesson Idaho learned was the financials are worse in the BSC (FCS) and they now have a significant deficit since they moved down (they will get much less for payday games, their attendance is worse, there is no revenue to share in the BSC, and athletic donations have collapsed). The notion the NCAA does not enforce the attendance rule is somewhat overinflated since almost any school can make the ridiculously easy to meet FBS attendance rules.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2021 04:40 PM by Bronco85.)
05-27-2021 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 829
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 10:47 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 09:21 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 09:00 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-26-2021 07:41 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  
(05-24-2021 11:04 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  It is entertaining that the WAC announcement about the 5 new teams came with the stipulation that all the FCS schools would explore FBS? People can laugh at anything they want, I guess. But facts are facts. That's what happened. I don't know why folks can't accept that.

You can study it all you want. Lamar and SHSU could have been FBS 10 years ago. Southern Utah didn’t leave the Big Sky to be left by the Texas schools, “when they join FBS”. Not happening anytime soon. Southern Utah isn’t joining FBS either.

Some of you might want to take a look at the ASUN CSNBBS board under the topic of "ASUN Expansion," or a similar thread that I started to ask them their opinions about the future direction of that conference."

It appears that the range of views over there is somewhat similar to the views on this board:

--Some of them see the ASUN as moving toward FBS status, while others disagree and think it's more likely to proceed as an FCS conference.

--One or two of them noted that they haven't yet identified a 6th football school and suggested that it might be a good idea to extend their temporary plan to play the WAC football teams.

--Both boards seem to agree that they will be FCS conferences, but to have different views about whether or when or how they would transition to FBS, if they ever do.

--It appears that both conferences are in a somewhat similar situation, and for either of them to put a FBS conference together, their best bet might be some kind of an ongoing scheduling alliance.

.

There is one big difference: the WAC still has an FBS charter apparently. The ASUN does not. Still not sure about the practicality of the FBS charter thing myself though.

There is another big difference. The WAC announced that all FCS teams would do a study to explore going to FBS. I don't think the ASUN has expressed a similar edict. So any ASUN speculation on FBS is just that...speculation. The WAC is openly looking at FBS. They explicitly told us that.

One other thing. In a couple years, the WAC will not need an alliance with the ASUN. Tarleton and Dixie will be FCS and the WAC will have 7 FCS teams which gives them an auto qualifier.

No, the WAC isn't looking at FBS, a few members who are about to join the WAC are looking at FBS. Big difference.
05-27-2021 03:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco85 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 218
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 41
I Root For: COI, BSU
Location: Parts Unknown
Post: #36
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 12:53 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 12:34 PM)Pounder Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 10:53 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 09:08 PM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  Ironically the only one of the Texas schools that meet the minimum stadium size is Lamar. But to meet the average attendance number they would need to be sold out almost every game. I know Sam is planning to expand their stadium and I believe SFA might be also, but are they going to say a target of 20,000 seats? Last time I looked, the minimum stadium capacity was either 15 or 16K with an average attendance of 15k. To expand any of these stadiums is going to take some large donors and since most of them are in the Texas State system I wouldn't think the system could afford to expand all of them.

The NCAA FBS attendance rule has not had a stadium size requirement for a long time. The attendance rule states a school must average 15,000 persons in paid (not turnstile count) attendance in a two year period (rolling average). This means schools (boosters, corporations, or whomever) need to buy up enough unused tickets to meet any deficit. A school can thus make the FBS attendance rule without having actual butts in the seats (and not necessarily even have 15,000 seats in their stadium). This is how schools like Idaho (when they were FBS), Akron, EMU, etc, make the attendance rule. It is another (and very valid) point entirely that the financials for FBS may not work well for a school with a small stadium, who can't draw well, and who has a small operating budget. It means they are likely dependent on 2 or more "body bag" games a year just to fund their AD and they are likely to be noncompetitive. However, the financial realities of most teams in FCS make an FBS existence possibly more sustainable than in the FCS (where there is much less income available and expenses are still considerable). This is the hard lesson the the University of Idaho has learned.

Who really audits these numbers anyway? It’s never seemed like these rules have been enforced IF the conference is willing to back the school in question. Even then, Idaho never referenced those rules when returning football to the Big Sky.

I’ve had a hard time believing SUU would really accept the trajectory of the new Texas schools in the conference... but what if they just moved up without any of the requirements fulfilled? Would the NCAA clamp down? Shrug.

Not sure, I'd bet that if schools didn't upgrade their facilities and/or up their attendance and what not then they might struggle to get home and homes with other FBS schools which would defeat the purpose of going FBS in the first place.

When Idaho was still FBS they had the smallest stadium in that subdivision (except for a brief time when Coastal Carolina had the smallest). Moscow is isolated and very difficult to get to. There are no nearby fertile recruiting grounds. Despite all this, they were able to get other FBS schools to play home and home with them. Notably, MAC and MWC teams consistently played them. There were schools who refused publicly to play in Moscow and in part blamed the stadium size, i.e. Washington State (just 8 miles away), Boise State, and BYU. Nonetheless, if UI could create legitimate FBS schedules when they were in the Sun Belt or even when they were independent, then almost anyone could.

The reasons to enlarge a stadium are generally to impress a conference the school would like to join and/or to enhance revenue. This worked for several schools including Boise State because that is what the BWC wanted them to do. It was not enough of an advantage for NMSU when the SBC chose CCU over them despite the Aggies having a legitimate 30,000 seat stadium. Montana, who can fill up a 26,000 seat stadium, makes a lot more at the gate than virtually all of the MAC, most of the SBC, and many other FBS teams.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2021 04:43 PM by Bronco85.)
05-27-2021 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 829
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 03:06 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 12:34 PM)Pounder Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 10:53 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 09:08 PM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  Ironically the only one of the Texas schools that meet the minimum stadium size is Lamar. But to meet the average attendance number they would need to be sold out almost every game. I know Sam is planning to expand their stadium and I believe SFA might be also, but are they going to say a target of 20,000 seats? Last time I looked, the minimum stadium capacity was either 15 or 16K with an average attendance of 15k. To expand any of these stadiums is going to take some large donors and since most of them are in the Texas State system I wouldn't think the system could afford to expand all of them.

The NCAA FBS attendance rule has not had a stadium size requirement for a long time. The attendance rule states a school must average 15,000 persons in paid (not turnstile count) attendance in a two year period (rolling average). This means schools (boosters, corporations, or whomever) need to buy up enough unused tickets to meet any deficit. A school can thus make the FBS attendance rule without having actual butts in the seats (and not necessarily even have 15,000 seats in their stadium). This is how schools like Idaho (when they were FBS), Akron, EMU, etc, make the attendance rule. It is another (and very valid) point entirely that the financials for FBS may not work well for a school with a small stadium, who can't draw well, and who has a small operating budget. It means they are likely dependent on 2 or more "body bag" games a year just to fund their AD and they are likely to be noncompetitive. However, the financial realities of most teams in FCS make an FBS existence possibly more sustainable than in the FCS (where there is much less income available and expenses are still considerable). This is the hard lesson the the University of Idaho has learned.

Who really audits these numbers anyway? It’s never seemed like these rules have been enforced IF the conference is willing to back the school in question. Even then, Idaho never referenced those rules when returning football to the Big Sky.

I’ve had a hard time believing SUU would really accept the trajectory of the new Texas schools in the conference... but what if they just moved up without any of the requirements fulfilled? Would the NCAA clamp down? Shrug.

Idaho went to the Big Sky in football in 2018 because that was the only D1 conference that would have them (and the majority of their sports were already in the BSC) and their president at the time wanted to move down and devalue athletics. (The WAC looked to be at death's door when UI left for the BSC in their non-football sports). The excuse was it would be a financially prudent move. The lesson Idaho learned was the financials are worse in the BSC (FCS) and they now have a significant deficit since they moved down (they will get much less for payday games, their attendance is worse, their is no revenue to share in the BSC, and athletic donations have collapsed). The notion the NCAA does not enforce the attendance rule is somewhat overinflated since almost any school can make the ridiculously easy to meet FBS attendance rules.

Idaho's move showed a lack of leadership, however I recall them having a harder time filling a schedule than NMSU did as both were in the same boat following the WAC FBS collapse. Of course NMSU having two nearby rivals that were still willing to play home and homes made it a bit easier for them.
05-27-2021 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco85 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 218
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 41
I Root For: COI, BSU
Location: Parts Unknown
Post: #38
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 03:21 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 03:06 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 12:34 PM)Pounder Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 10:53 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 09:08 PM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  Ironically the only one of the Texas schools that meet the minimum stadium size is Lamar. But to meet the average attendance number they would need to be sold out almost every game. I know Sam is planning to expand their stadium and I believe SFA might be also, but are they going to say a target of 20,000 seats? Last time I looked, the minimum stadium capacity was either 15 or 16K with an average attendance of 15k. To expand any of these stadiums is going to take some large donors and since most of them are in the Texas State system I wouldn't think the system could afford to expand all of them.

The NCAA FBS attendance rule has not had a stadium size requirement for a long time. The attendance rule states a school must average 15,000 persons in paid (not turnstile count) attendance in a two year period (rolling average). This means schools (boosters, corporations, or whomever) need to buy up enough unused tickets to meet any deficit. A school can thus make the FBS attendance rule without having actual butts in the seats (and not necessarily even have 15,000 seats in their stadium). This is how schools like Idaho (when they were FBS), Akron, EMU, etc, make the attendance rule. It is another (and very valid) point entirely that the financials for FBS may not work well for a school with a small stadium, who can't draw well, and who has a small operating budget. It means they are likely dependent on 2 or more "body bag" games a year just to fund their AD and they are likely to be noncompetitive. However, the financial realities of most teams in FCS make an FBS existence possibly more sustainable than in the FCS (where there is much less income available and expenses are still considerable). This is the hard lesson the the University of Idaho has learned.

Who really audits these numbers anyway? It’s never seemed like these rules have been enforced IF the conference is willing to back the school in question. Even then, Idaho never referenced those rules when returning football to the Big Sky.

I’ve had a hard time believing SUU would really accept the trajectory of the new Texas schools in the conference... but what if they just moved up without any of the requirements fulfilled? Would the NCAA clamp down? Shrug.

Idaho went to the Big Sky in football in 2018 because that was the only D1 conference that would have them (and the majority of their sports were already in the BSC) and their president at the time wanted to move down and devalue athletics. (The WAC looked to be at death's door when UI left for the BSC in their non-football sports). The excuse was it would be a financially prudent move. The lesson Idaho learned was the financials are worse in the BSC (FCS) and they now have a significant deficit since they moved down (they will get much less for payday games, their attendance is worse, their is no revenue to share in the BSC, and athletic donations have collapsed). The notion the NCAA does not enforce the attendance rule is somewhat overinflated since almost any school can make the ridiculously easy to meet FBS attendance rules.

Idaho's move showed a lack of leadership, however I recall them having a harder time filling a schedule than NMSU did as both were in the same boat following the WAC FBS collapse. Of course NMSU having two nearby rivals that were still willing to play home and homes made it a bit easier for them.

Idaho was able to create good FBS schedules for years in the SBC and as an independent. It was a strength of their AD (who was otherwise inept, IMO). Had they gone FBS independent again in 2018, that same AD claimed he already had the schedules built for next few years. Frankly, they were in much the same situation as NMSU (other than stadium size and having a home and home with 2 regional rivals) in that they are isolated and difficult to get to, they have no recruiting base around them, and they are not an exciting school for the fans of other teams. Nonetheless, both schools have had little difficulty in making schedules as independents.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2021 04:42 PM by Bronco85.)
05-27-2021 03:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
coogkat14 Online
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 59
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Houston/SHSU
Location:
Post: #39
Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB conference?
(05-27-2021 01:31 PM)Todor Wrote:  
(05-23-2021 11:17 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(05-22-2021 06:49 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  I honestly don’t feel the need to add anything but constantly reiterate that the WAC schools need to follow through with the commitment to study FBS and be transparent with what they learned.

And to any TXST people, I told you guys years ago that UTSA would pass you up in short order. I was correct then (despite all the crap I got from Bobcat fans back then) and quite frankly if Sam went FBS anytime soon - they too would pass up the folks in San Marcos. It wouldn’t take much and SFA probably would too.

Congrats on the natty!

As for UTSA they might be a slight notch above us as far as football success goes but we're better at just about everything else including facilities. I think we're both in bgood place thoughs, but I doubt any Bobcat fans would want to trade places with them. Not that it really matters but ESPNs preseason FPI has us rated higher than them.

I know things are different down in Hunstville now but yall never passed us when we were still FCS. I dont think it would happen if yall moved up. Same for SFA. I guess yall just need to move up so we can see! Which brings me to ask why havent yall moved up already?

Why haven't they moved up? Because they have no fans and no one gives a crap about their program. Last pre covid season they averaged 4,XXX fans per game at home. They were a lot closer to Houston Baptist attendance than they were an average Southland school. If no one shows up to your games, then nobody cares. Wasting money even studying FBS shows nothing but delusion.

It is true, that nobody cares about FCS in general and most of the public doesn't even know what it is, but still, even other Southland schools still have much higher attendance than SH.


Woah!! “Nobody gives a crap about our program”? Sam struggled with attendance during the 3 years of our football program but we have a track record of packing the stadium when our marketing department actually makes a decent attempt at trying as evident during this years playoffs, the battle of the piney woods (when we’ve had 20k Bearkats in NRG and have packed Bowers in the early 2010s.)

We know where our problems are and are fixing them. But you miss the point assuming no one cares about Bearkat football.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2021 07:18 PM by coogkat14.)
05-27-2021 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 327
Joined: Apr 2020
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Tarleton
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Which is more likely before 2030 - a WAC FBS or some other "G6" FB confe...
(05-27-2021 03:15 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 10:47 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 09:21 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(05-27-2021 09:00 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-26-2021 07:41 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  You can study it all you want. Lamar and SHSU could have been FBS 10 years ago. Southern Utah didn’t leave the Big Sky to be left by the Texas schools, “when they join FBS”. Not happening anytime soon. Southern Utah isn’t joining FBS either.

Some of you might want to take a look at the ASUN CSNBBS board under the topic of "ASUN Expansion," or a similar thread that I started to ask them their opinions about the future direction of that conference."

It appears that the range of views over there is somewhat similar to the views on this board:

--Some of them see the ASUN as moving toward FBS status, while others disagree and think it's more likely to proceed as an FCS conference.

--One or two of them noted that they haven't yet identified a 6th football school and suggested that it might be a good idea to extend their temporary plan to play the WAC football teams.

--Both boards seem to agree that they will be FCS conferences, but to have different views about whether or when or how they would transition to FBS, if they ever do.

--It appears that both conferences are in a somewhat similar situation, and for either of them to put a FBS conference together, their best bet might be some kind of an ongoing scheduling alliance.

.

There is one big difference: the WAC still has an FBS charter apparently. The ASUN does not. Still not sure about the practicality of the FBS charter thing myself though.

There is another big difference. The WAC announced that all FCS teams would do a study to explore going to FBS. I don't think the ASUN has expressed a similar edict. So any ASUN speculation on FBS is just that...speculation. The WAC is openly looking at FBS. They explicitly told us that.

One other thing. In a couple years, the WAC will not need an alliance with the ASUN. Tarleton and Dixie will be FCS and the WAC will have 7 FCS teams which gives them an auto qualifier.

No, the WAC isn't looking at FBS, a few members who are about to join the WAC are looking at FBS. Big difference.

Incorrect sir. At the press conference announcing the five new schools, it was stated by the conference all football schools would study to see if FBS was possible. This includes Tarleton, Dixie, UTRGV, Texas4 and Southern Utah. And yes UTRGV doesn’t play football at this time, but they are considering adding FCS ball, which means they also need to look at becoming FBS.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2021 08:02 PM by TexanFan.)
05-27-2021 07:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.