(09-22-2021 08:04 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Take the top 12 from Remaining AAC/SBC/CUSA:

App St.
GS
CCU
WKU
USM
LT
Troy
MTSU
ODU
USF
Marshall
ECU

Works for me for football, add 2 basketball solid programs we have a deal. When do we start?

(09-22-2021 10:28 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:13 AM)banker Wrote:  Winning percentage rank of CUSA teams against current FBS teams only in the century. Takes out FCS results, long enough to be meaningful, not to long to take in ancient history:

Marshall 36
USM 56
La Tech 58
WKU 68
Middle 72
UAB 88
UTSA 89
FAU 91
ODU 97
UNT 103
Rice 107
FIU 111
UTEP 119
Charlotte NA

Other notables:

Boise 1
App 4
BYU 26
Toledo 27
Cincinnati 28
NIU 31
UCF 37
Ga Southern 42

Is there a filter for that or just your hard work? If the latter, thanks!

I use Stassen.com. They have several filters.

We’ve made up a lot of ground since 2017. Another couple of seasons & we should be above .500.

Louisiana Tech's Division I/I-A/FBS record (1975-1981, 1989-present) is 242-213-5 (.532) through last week's game.

(09-21-2021 09:39 PM)topper1296 Wrote:  Saw a thread on the realignment board about this and will put it over here as well for the CUSA programs. I was shocked that WKU has the best all time winning % in football in CUSA. I really thought USM would have been first and they were second and I was surprised to see Marshall this low. Note this ranking doesn't take into account that different programs played at different levels at different times. This is all time.

http://www.winsipedia.com/ranking/all-time-record
*min of 100 games

The top 5
1.Ohio State(933-328-53).730
2.Alabama(932-331-43).730
3.Notre Dame(921-329-42).729
4.Boise State(467-173-2).729
5.Michigan(967-350-36).728

CUSA
31.Western Kentucky(589-412-31).586
39.Southern Miss(605-440-27) .577
45.Louisiana Tech(633-473-37).570
50.Middle Tennessee(587-446-28).566
53.Old Dominion(120-94-4).560
73.Marshall(609-554-47).523
89.North Texas(525-522-33).501
104.UAB(154-170-2).475
112.UTSA(55-66-0).455
115.Florida Atlantic(110-134-0).451
119.Rice(477-632-32).432
127.UTEP(401-615-28).398
129.FIU(80-145-0).356

the last program ranked
130.Georgia State(43-89-0).326

not ranked - not enough games
Charlotte(33-59-0).359

So, Louisiana Tech has won more football games (633) than any CUSA school in history. Hmm. I didn't know that. Thanks for the update.

(09-24-2021 12:19 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:39 PM)topper1296 Wrote:  Saw a thread on the realignment board about this and will put it over here as well for the CUSA programs. I was shocked that WKU has the best all time winning % in football in CUSA. I really thought USM would have been first and they were second and I was surprised to see Marshall this low. Note this ranking doesn't take into account that different programs played at different levels at different times. This is all time.

http://www.winsipedia.com/ranking/all-time-record
*min of 100 games

The top 5
1.Ohio State(933-328-53).730
2.Alabama(932-331-43).730
3.Notre Dame(921-329-42).729
4.Boise State(467-173-2).729
5.Michigan(967-350-36).728

CUSA
31.Western Kentucky(589-412-31).586
39.Southern Miss(605-440-27) .577
45.Louisiana Tech(633-473-37).570
50.Middle Tennessee(587-446-28).566
53.Old Dominion(120-94-4).560
73.Marshall(609-554-47).523
89.North Texas(525-522-33).501
104.UAB(154-170-2).475
112.UTSA(55-66-0).455
115.Florida Atlantic(110-134-0).451
119.Rice(477-632-32).432
127.UTEP(401-615-28).398
129.FIU(80-145-0).356

the last program ranked
130.Georgia State(43-89-0).326

not ranked - not enough games
Charlotte(33-59-0).359

So, Louisiana Tech has won more football games (633) than any CUSA school in history. Hmm. I didn't know that. Thanks for the update.

That and Louisiana Tech has lost more games (473) than all but four teams in CUSA

(09-22-2021 01:22 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:05 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 12:01 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  Generally teams that didn't play FCS/lower divisions for a decent amount of their football history almost always will have worse win percentages.

FCS/1AA and then moving up usually means you were ahead of the pack when it came to funding and padded your stats beating lesser programs. Teams that went straight to FBS after just a few lower division seasons typically started at the bottom of the barrel.

I imagine most of the teams in CUSA have around a 40 to 50% win rate versus FBS at best. Southern Miss is probably #1 though in that category if I had to guess.

I dont see moving up as an advantage its not like the NCAA is letting those teams that are moving up stock pile players or transfers. They are under the same recruiting rules and most are under funded and it takes a few years before that equals out.

Western's 51% since moving up and that includes a 0-17 streak (0-26 counting move up year) . Since starting 0-17 in FBS Western's winning % is 58% and only 5 FCS wins out of the 58% covering 13 seasons.
S. Miss 55%
Marshall 47%
Middle 48%
UAB 44%
Tech 52%
UNT 43%
ODU 42%
UTSA 45%
UTEP 31%
Rice 42%

My point was it is simply easier to win in FCS. If you played 300-500 games in FCS your all time win percentage is almost guaranteed to be much better than a program that only had a few seasons FCS (since the all time % is counting games played in lower divisions). Playing primarily FBS games is just a lot harder considering all of us are generally at the bottom of the pecking order.

I think that's BS. I can appreciate the fact that some you guys are squirming and trying to find an ANY angle where your school looks better, but that's not it.

When some of our schools were in FCS/Div II/College Division, we were playing most of the SAME schools that you now consider FBS --or even conference mates-- today. For example, LA Tech routinely played ULL, ULM, USM, Arkansas St, UNT, and many others that are well known FBS schools today. The wins weren't any easier because they happened 30 or 40 years ago. We all had the same FCS scholarship limitations and still played by the same rules. Nobody had an advantage.

However, if your school today includes wins over those SAME schools, you want to count them on your schools record? You think you really accomplished something bigger? LOL! That's laughable. Does that not seem a bit hypocritical to you?

LA Tech won 3 straight NCAA College Division (2) and Div II (1) national championships games in 1971, '72 and '73. Those victories were over Eastern Michigan (14-3), Tennessee Tech (35-0) and Western Kentucky (34-0) respectively. EMU & WKU are FBS schools today. Should those wins not count on LA Tech's record? Your school's W-L record today includes wins over those schools (or schools in the same category) today, doesn't it?

And why shouldn't the NC win over Tennessee Tech count? It's not like LA Tech had a scholarship advantage over Tennessee Tech, because we didn't. We all played by the same NCAA rules. The biggest difference was, when we did play against an occasional Div 1 school (Alabama, Miss St, Rice, Kansas, etc...) we did so with a huge scholarship disadvantage.

So, stop the nonsense.

(09-24-2021 12:48 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:22 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:05 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 12:01 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  Generally teams that didn't play FCS/lower divisions for a decent amount of their football history almost always will have worse win percentages.

FCS/1AA and then moving up usually means you were ahead of the pack when it came to funding and padded your stats beating lesser programs. Teams that went straight to FBS after just a few lower division seasons typically started at the bottom of the barrel.

I imagine most of the teams in CUSA have around a 40 to 50% win rate versus FBS at best. Southern Miss is probably #1 though in that category if I had to guess.

I dont see moving up as an advantage its not like the NCAA is letting those teams that are moving up stock pile players or transfers. They are under the same recruiting rules and most are under funded and it takes a few years before that equals out.

Western's 51% since moving up and that includes a 0-17 streak (0-26 counting move up year) . Since starting 0-17 in FBS Western's winning % is 58% and only 5 FCS wins out of the 58% covering 13 seasons.
S. Miss 55%
Marshall 47%
Middle 48%
UAB 44%
Tech 52%
UNT 43%
ODU 42%
UTSA 45%
UTEP 31%
Rice 42%

My point was it is simply easier to win in FCS. If you played 300-500 games in FCS your all time win percentage is almost guaranteed to be much better than a program that only had a few seasons FCS (since the all time % is counting games played in lower divisions). Playing primarily FBS games is just a lot harder considering all of us are generally at the bottom of the pecking order.

I think that's BS. I can appreciate the fact that some you guys are squirming and trying to find an ANY angle where your school looks better, but that's not it.

When some of our schools were in FCS/Div II/College Division, we were playing most of the SAME schools that you now consider FBS --or even conference mates-- today. For example, LA Tech routinely played ULL, ULM, USM, Arkansas St, UNT, and many others that are well known FBS schools today. The wins weren't any easier because they happened 30 or 40 years ago. We all had the same FCS scholarship limitations and still played by the same rules. Nobody had an advantage.

However, if your school today includes wins over those SAME schools, you want to count them on your schools record? You think you really accomplished something bigger? LOL! That's laughable. Does that not seem a bit hypocritical to you?

LA Tech won 3 straight NCAA College Division (2) and Div II (1) national championships games in 1971, '72 and '73. Those victories were over Eastern Michigan (14-3), Tennessee Tech (35-0) and Western Kentucky (34-0) respectively. EMU & WKU are FBS schools today. Should those wins not count on LA Tech's record? Your school's W-L record today includes wins over those schools (or schools in the same category) today, doesn't it?

And why shouldn't the NC win over Tennessee Tech count? It's not like LA Tech had a scholarship advantage over Tennessee Tech, because we didn't. We all played by the same NCAA rules. The biggest difference was, when we did play against an occasional Div 1 school (Alabama, Miss St, Rice, Kansas, etc...) we did so with a huge scholarship disadvantage.

So, stop the nonsense.

Winning in FCS is easier because the resources required to win are lesser. There's a reason why people tell Uconn, Umass, etc that they'd have more success dropping down to FCS.

I'm not going to sit there and separate out every win or loss a team had to a team that was FCS then, but is FBS now, because in the end who really cares. But you can literally just look at the historical trends and see nearly any team that played in FCS had an easier time winning then than when they were in FBS. It is easier when you're one of the teams at the top of the food chain or at least in the hop half as opposed to the bottom (CUSA).

That doesn't discount FCS teams or discount winning those games. They're still important and there are a lot of great FCS programs, but it is comparing apples to oranges.

The fact that you're using your lower division national championships in your argument should make that clear to you. You don't even have the possibility to play in a national championship in FBS and your ceiling is lower simply because you're considered one of the lower class. You're playing in a bottom of the barrel FBS conference where the resource gap is monstrous instead of playing as one of the upper half teams in FCS with the resource and recruiting advantage.

(09-24-2021 02:15 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 12:48 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:22 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:05 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 12:01 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  Generally teams that didn't play FCS/lower divisions for a decent amount of their football history almost always will have worse win percentages.

FCS/1AA and then moving up usually means you were ahead of the pack when it came to funding and padded your stats beating lesser programs. Teams that went straight to FBS after just a few lower division seasons typically started at the bottom of the barrel.

I imagine most of the teams in CUSA have around a 40 to 50% win rate versus FBS at best. Southern Miss is probably #1 though in that category if I had to guess.

I dont see moving up as an advantage its not like the NCAA is letting those teams that are moving up stock pile players or transfers. They are under the same recruiting rules and most are under funded and it takes a few years before that equals out.

Western's 51% since moving up and that includes a 0-17 streak (0-26 counting move up year) . Since starting 0-17 in FBS Western's winning % is 58% and only 5 FCS wins out of the 58% covering 13 seasons.
S. Miss 55%
Marshall 47%
Middle 48%
UAB 44%
Tech 52%
UNT 43%
ODU 42%
UTSA 45%
UTEP 31%
Rice 42%

My point was it is simply easier to win in FCS. If you played 300-500 games in FCS your all time win percentage is almost guaranteed to be much better than a program that only had a few seasons FCS (since the all time % is counting games played in lower divisions). Playing primarily FBS games is just a lot harder considering all of us are generally at the bottom of the pecking order.

I think that's BS. I can appreciate the fact that some you guys are squirming and trying to find an ANY angle where your school looks better, but that's not it.

When some of our schools were in FCS/Div II/College Division, we were playing most of the SAME schools that you now consider FBS --or even conference mates-- today. For example, LA Tech routinely played ULL, ULM, USM, Arkansas St, UNT, and many others that are well known FBS schools today. The wins weren't any easier because they happened 30 or 40 years ago. We all had the same FCS scholarship limitations and still played by the same rules. Nobody had an advantage.

However, if your school today includes wins over those SAME schools, you want to count them on your schools record? You think you really accomplished something bigger? LOL! That's laughable. Does that not seem a bit hypocritical to you?

LA Tech won 3 straight NCAA College Division (2) and Div II (1) national championships games in 1971, '72 and '73. Those victories were over Eastern Michigan (14-3), Tennessee Tech (35-0) and Western Kentucky (34-0) respectively. EMU & WKU are FBS schools today. Should those wins not count on LA Tech's record? Your school's W-L record today includes wins over those schools (or schools in the same category) today, doesn't it?

And why shouldn't the NC win over Tennessee Tech count? It's not like LA Tech had a scholarship advantage over Tennessee Tech, because we didn't. We all played by the same NCAA rules. The biggest difference was, when we did play against an occasional Div 1 school (Alabama, Miss St, Rice, Kansas, etc...) we did so with a huge scholarship disadvantage.

So, stop the nonsense.

Winning in FCS is easier because the resources required to win are lesser. There's a reason why people tell Uconn, Umass, etc that they'd have more success dropping down to FCS.

I'm not going to sit there and separate out every win or loss a team had to a team that was FCS then, but is FBS now, because in the end who really cares. But you can literally just look at the historical trends and see nearly any team that played in FCS had an easier time winning then than when they were in FBS. It is easier when you're one of the teams at the top of the food chain or at least in the hop half as opposed to the bottom (CUSA).

That doesn't discount FCS teams or discount winning those games. They're still important and there are a lot of great FCS programs, but it is comparing apples to oranges.

The fact that you're using your lower division national championships in your argument should make that clear to you. You don't even have the possibility to play in a national championship in FBS and your ceiling is lower simply because you're considered one of the lower class. You're playing in a bottom of the barrel FBS conference where the resource gap is monstrous instead of playing as one of the upper half teams in FCS with the resource and recruiting advantage.

Whew, someone needs to tell Idaho that it's easier to win in FCS. Their winning and losing is pretty much the same as when they played FBS ball. Its true enough that resources help ease the difficulty of play, but it's not the most important thing, or else the Vanderbilts of the world would be more successful than they are, especially when playing against lesser schools

(09-24-2021 02:15 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 12:48 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:22 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:05 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 12:01 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  Generally teams that didn't play FCS/lower divisions for a decent amount of their football history almost always will have worse win percentages.

FCS/1AA and then moving up usually means you were ahead of the pack when it came to funding and padded your stats beating lesser programs. Teams that went straight to FBS after just a few lower division seasons typically started at the bottom of the barrel.

I imagine most of the teams in CUSA have around a 40 to 50% win rate versus FBS at best. Southern Miss is probably #1 though in that category if I had to guess.

I dont see moving up as an advantage its not like the NCAA is letting those teams that are moving up stock pile players or transfers. They are under the same recruiting rules and most are under funded and it takes a few years before that equals out.

Western's 51% since moving up and that includes a 0-17 streak (0-26 counting move up year) . Since starting 0-17 in FBS Western's winning % is 58% and only 5 FCS wins out of the 58% covering 13 seasons.
S. Miss 55%
Marshall 47%
Middle 48%
UAB 44%
Tech 52%
UNT 43%
ODU 42%
UTSA 45%
UTEP 31%
Rice 42%

My point was it is simply easier to win in FCS. If you played 300-500 games in FCS your all time win percentage is almost guaranteed to be much better than a program that only had a few seasons FCS (since the all time % is counting games played in lower divisions). Playing primarily FBS games is just a lot harder considering all of us are generally at the bottom of the pecking order.

I think that's BS. I can appreciate the fact that some you guys are squirming and trying to find an ANY angle where your school looks better, but that's not it.

When some of our schools were in FCS/Div II/College Division, we were playing most of the SAME schools that you now consider FBS --or even conference mates-- today. For example, LA Tech routinely played ULL, ULM, USM, Arkansas St, UNT, and many others that are well known FBS schools today. The wins weren't any easier because they happened 30 or 40 years ago. We all had the same FCS scholarship limitations and still played by the same rules. Nobody had an advantage.

However, if your school today includes wins over those SAME schools, you want to count them on your schools record? You think you really accomplished something bigger? LOL! That's laughable. Does that not seem a bit hypocritical to you?

LA Tech won 3 straight NCAA College Division (2) and Div II (1) national championships games in 1971, '72 and '73. Those victories were over Eastern Michigan (14-3), Tennessee Tech (35-0) and Western Kentucky (34-0) respectively. EMU & WKU are FBS schools today. Should those wins not count on LA Tech's record? Your school's W-L record today includes wins over those schools (or schools in the same category) today, doesn't it?

And why shouldn't the NC win over Tennessee Tech count? It's not like LA Tech had a scholarship advantage over Tennessee Tech, because we didn't. We all played by the same NCAA rules. The biggest difference was, when we did play against an occasional Div 1 school (Alabama, Miss St, Rice, Kansas, etc...) we did so with a huge scholarship disadvantage.

So, stop the nonsense.

Winning in FCS is easier because the resources required to win are lesser. There's a reason why people tell Uconn, Umass, etc that they'd have more success dropping down to FCS.

I'm not going to sit there and separate out every win or loss a team had to a team that was FCS then, but is FBS now, because in the end who really cares. But you can literally just look at the historical trends and see nearly any team that played in FCS had an easier time winning then than when they were in FBS. It is easier when you're one of the teams at the top of the food chain or at least in the hop half as opposed to the bottom (CUSA).

That doesn't discount FCS teams or discount winning those games. They're still important and there are a lot of great FCS programs, but it is comparing apples to oranges.

The fact that you're using your lower division national championships in your argument should make that clear to you. You don't even have the possibility to play in a national championship in FBS and your ceiling is lower simply because you're considered one of the lower class. You're playing in a bottom of the barrel FBS conference where the resource gap is monstrous instead of playing as one of the upper half teams in FCS with the resource and recruiting advantage.

Then you shouldn't count ANY of your school's wins against the former FCS/Div II schools either. Remove 'em from your schools record, completely, and only include wins over traditional schools known as P5's today. Get 'em out. NOW! LOL!!

These "FCS" games and championships were won on the field, and produced such NFL players as Terry Bradshaw, Roger Carr, Pat Tilley, and many more. It would be foolish not to include their wins. It may not be perfect, but --like it or not-- you've just got to include all the wins. If you don't like that, that's just too bad.

(09-24-2021 02:35 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 02:15 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 12:48 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:22 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:05 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  I dont see moving up as an advantage its not like the NCAA is letting those teams that are moving up stock pile players or transfers. They are under the same recruiting rules and most are under funded and it takes a few years before that equals out.

Western's 51% since moving up and that includes a 0-17 streak (0-26 counting move up year) . Since starting 0-17 in FBS Western's winning % is 58% and only 5 FCS wins out of the 58% covering 13 seasons.
S. Miss 55%
Marshall 47%
Middle 48%
UAB 44%
Tech 52%
UNT 43%
ODU 42%
UTSA 45%
UTEP 31%
Rice 42%

My point was it is simply easier to win in FCS. If you played 300-500 games in FCS your all time win percentage is almost guaranteed to be much better than a program that only had a few seasons FCS (since the all time % is counting games played in lower divisions). Playing primarily FBS games is just a lot harder considering all of us are generally at the bottom of the pecking order.

I think that's BS. I can appreciate the fact that some you guys are squirming and trying to find an ANY angle where your school looks better, but that's not it.

When some of our schools were in FCS/Div II/College Division, we were playing most of the SAME schools that you now consider FBS --or even conference mates-- today. For example, LA Tech routinely played ULL, ULM, USM, Arkansas St, UNT, and many others that are well known FBS schools today. The wins weren't any easier because they happened 30 or 40 years ago. We all had the same FCS scholarship limitations and still played by the same rules. Nobody had an advantage.

However, if your school today includes wins over those SAME schools, you want to count them on your schools record? You think you really accomplished something bigger? LOL! That's laughable. Does that not seem a bit hypocritical to you?

LA Tech won 3 straight NCAA College Division (2) and Div II (1) national championships games in 1971, '72 and '73. Those victories were over Eastern Michigan (14-3), Tennessee Tech (35-0) and Western Kentucky (34-0) respectively. EMU & WKU are FBS schools today. Should those wins not count on LA Tech's record? Your school's W-L record today includes wins over those schools (or schools in the same category) today, doesn't it?

And why shouldn't the NC win over Tennessee Tech count? It's not like LA Tech had a scholarship advantage over Tennessee Tech, because we didn't. We all played by the same NCAA rules. The biggest difference was, when we did play against an occasional Div 1 school (Alabama, Miss St, Rice, Kansas, etc...) we did so with a huge scholarship disadvantage.

So, stop the nonsense.

Winning in FCS is easier because the resources required to win are lesser. There's a reason why people tell Uconn, Umass, etc that they'd have more success dropping down to FCS.

I'm not going to sit there and separate out every win or loss a team had to a team that was FCS then, but is FBS now, because in the end who really cares. But you can literally just look at the historical trends and see nearly any team that played in FCS had an easier time winning then than when they were in FBS. It is easier when you're one of the teams at the top of the food chain or at least in the hop half as opposed to the bottom (CUSA).

That doesn't discount FCS teams or discount winning those games. They're still important and there are a lot of great FCS programs, but it is comparing apples to oranges.

The fact that you're using your lower division national championships in your argument should make that clear to you. You don't even have the possibility to play in a national championship in FBS and your ceiling is lower simply because you're considered one of the lower class. You're playing in a bottom of the barrel FBS conference where the resource gap is monstrous instead of playing as one of the upper half teams in FCS with the resource and recruiting advantage.

Then you shouldn't count ANY of your school's wins against the former FCS/Div II schools either. Remove 'em from your schools record, completely, and only include wins over traditional schools known as P5's today. Get 'em out. NOW! LOL!!

These "FCS" games and championships were won on the field, and produced such NFL players as Terry Bradshaw, Roger Carr, Pat Tilley, and many more. It would be foolish not to include their wins. It may not be perfect, but --like it or not-- you've just got to include all the wins. If you don't like that, that's just too bad.

The OP can include any wins he likes. It's just a post on a message board

Playing FCS as a top dog vs FBS as a peasant class is a giant gap though. There is no debate really.

(09-24-2021 02:15 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 12:48 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:22 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 01:05 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 12:01 AM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  Generally teams that didn't play FCS/lower divisions for a decent amount of their football history almost always will have worse win percentages.

FCS/1AA and then moving up usually means you were ahead of the pack when it came to funding and padded your stats beating lesser programs. Teams that went straight to FBS after just a few lower division seasons typically started at the bottom of the barrel.

I imagine most of the teams in CUSA have around a 40 to 50% win rate versus FBS at best. Southern Miss is probably #1 though in that category if I had to guess.

I dont see moving up as an advantage its not like the NCAA is letting those teams that are moving up stock pile players or transfers. They are under the same recruiting rules and most are under funded and it takes a few years before that equals out.

Western's 51% since moving up and that includes a 0-17 streak (0-26 counting move up year) . Since starting 0-17 in FBS Western's winning % is 58% and only 5 FCS wins out of the 58% covering 13 seasons.
S. Miss 55%
Marshall 47%
Middle 48%
UAB 44%
Tech 52%
UNT 43%
ODU 42%
UTSA 45%
UTEP 31%
Rice 42%

My point was it is simply easier to win in FCS. If you played 300-500 games in FCS your all time win percentage is almost guaranteed to be much better than a program that only had a few seasons FCS (since the all time % is counting games played in lower divisions). Playing primarily FBS games is just a lot harder considering all of us are generally at the bottom of the pecking order.

I think that's BS. I can appreciate the fact that some you guys are squirming and trying to find an ANY angle where your school looks better, but that's not it.

When some of our schools were in FCS/Div II/College Division, we were playing most of the SAME schools that you now consider FBS --or even conference mates-- today. For example, LA Tech routinely played ULL, ULM, USM, Arkansas St, UNT, and many others that are well known FBS schools today. The wins weren't any easier because they happened 30 or 40 years ago. We all had the same FCS scholarship limitations and still played by the same rules. Nobody had an advantage.

However, if your school today includes wins over those SAME schools, you want to count them on your schools record? You think you really accomplished something bigger? LOL! That's laughable. Does that not seem a bit hypocritical to you?

LA Tech won 3 straight NCAA College Division (2) and Div II (1) national championships games in 1971, '72 and '73. Those victories were over Eastern Michigan (14-3), Tennessee Tech (35-0) and Western Kentucky (34-0) respectively. EMU & WKU are FBS schools today. Should those wins not count on LA Tech's record? Your school's W-L record today includes wins over those schools (or schools in the same category) today, doesn't it?

And why shouldn't the NC win over Tennessee Tech count? It's not like LA Tech had a scholarship advantage over Tennessee Tech, because we didn't. We all played by the same NCAA rules. The biggest difference was, when we did play against an occasional Div 1 school (Alabama, Miss St, Rice, Kansas, etc...) we did so with a huge scholarship disadvantage.

So, stop the nonsense.

Winning in FCS is easier because the resources required to win are lesser. There's a reason why people tell Uconn, Umass, etc that they'd have more success dropping down to FCS.

I'm not going to sit there and separate out every win or loss a team had to a team that was FCS then, but is FBS now, because in the end who really cares. But you can literally just look at the historical trends and see nearly any team that played in FCS had an easier time winning then than when they were in FBS. It is easier when you're one of the teams at the top of the food chain or at least in the hop half as opposed to the bottom (CUSA).

That doesn't discount FCS teams or discount winning those games. They're still important and there are a lot of great FCS programs, but it is comparing apples to oranges.

The fact that you're using your lower division national championships in your argument should make that clear to you. You don't even have the possibility to play in a national championship in FBS and your ceiling is lower simply because you're considered one of the lower class. You're playing in a bottom of the barrel FBS conference where the resource gap is monstrous instead of playing as one of the upper half teams in FCS with the resource and recruiting advantage.

That's all true today, but wasn't always. From around the early 1990s it's become more and more true.

As Lou Holtz says, "You don't have to be the best team in the nation (or conference or region or...), you just have to be the best team in the stadium that day."

That sums it up. All these comparisons are not merely comparing "apples and oranges" (they are close), it's more like comparing apples to hamburgers. Different eras, different situations...