(02-01-2024 08:19 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote: (02-01-2024 08:02 AM)Bearkat21 Wrote: (02-01-2024 07:42 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote: My post wasnt to say any of these programs were good or bad in FCS/IAA but for everyone to recognize most of G5 now has a history at a lower level. Nothing to be ashamed of just history.
This was my point of posting the FCS D-1AA history too. It would interesting to see how well teams that did better in DII are faring vs teams who did well at the FCS level vs teams who played less than 5 seasons at FCS when developing a football then moving up. Someone should put this together. I think it may be telling for what the best route is for building up to G5/ FBS football.
If you want to find evidence supporting either route, you can probably find it. That's the beauty of passionate opinions and few data points...you can make it fit whatever narrative you want. Now, if the question to fans becomes, "While your program is being built up to G5 competitiveness, would you rather compete in FBS or FCS?"...I suspect most fanbases would prefer the former. But...i.have no data to support that, just my own observations and feelings. The "you should have spent more time in FCS" argument typically comes across like an Amway member trying to feel less screwed by screwing other people.
While there are exceptions (like NDSU) who were dominant at one level, moved up, and were just as dominant (or moreso) at the next level, I think if anyone were to break down all the numbers for all teams moving from D-II to FCS to FBS, they'd see that, overall, there's not a lot of correlation between the two.
Jax State was DOMINANT -- on a national level -- in D-II. We only had one championship to show for it, but we made it to the championship game so many times in the late 80s and early 90s we literally took it for granted.
When we moved up to I-AA, the administration thought what was working so well in D-II would work well at the next level.
Narrator: It did not, in fact, work well.
It took us 10 years (and a move to a pitifully weak conference) before we tasted a conference championship again, and another 10 years beyond that before we even got our first playoff win.
With some hard lessons learned, we didn't approach our move to FBS by repeating the things that had worked well for us in FCS. We hired an FBS-level coach, paid him the best FBS-level salary we could afford, made sure he had an FBS-level staff, etc etc. The result was a winning season and unexpected bowl win in Year 1.
It's FAR too early to say we're going to be "dominant" at this level. That's not my point.
My point is that we had to approach FBS completely differently than we approached FCS to achieve success.
Some of the other FBS teams who've made the move up from I-AA/FCS had to learn the hard way how to do that. (Just as we learned during our D2 to I-AA transition.) Some are still trying to figure it out.
Others used their short FCS stay primarily to get the infrastructure in place for the move up, and didn't focus as much on wins until they were already at this level. Once here, they turned the amps to 11 and fully committed.
A team that's constantly in the FCS playoffs could move to FBS and become decidedly mediocre.
A team that's never made it past the first round of the FCS playoffs could move to FBS and become champions.
It's interesting to compare how teams have done it in the past, but you can't really forecast how an FCS (or even D-II) program will do at the next level without fully examining their operational plans for the next level.
But it's clear if they don't change what they've been doing, they're going to struggle. That's practically guaranteed.
/
A Look back at CUSA and Sun Belt FCS History
