jimdahl Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 Big Dream, Rude Awakening The anecdotal focus is on UMass moving to I-A, but it contains some interesting thoughts about FCS vs. FBS in general. In an unforeseen convergence, nearly a dozen institutions of limited football renown are trying to force their way into the cutthroat, unrestrained arena dominated by college football monoliths like Alabama, Notre Dame and Oregon — universities that will be on display as the sport’s most prestigious bowl games are held over the next eight days. As many as 15 other institutions across the country are publicly or privately discussing such a move. “What any school moving up in football should ask itself is this: What are the real costs of the benefits?” Cowen said. “You will get more visibility and exposure, and at first, that seems like a very good investment. The problem is that once you wade in for keeps at the F.B.S. level, you face facility improvements, escalating coaching salaries, added staff and more athletic scholarships. “The cost curve is extremely steep, and unless you’re in a power conference, the revenue is flat.” Then it starts to sound like a lot of us 10 years ago... In Lombardi’s view, the recent rush of lesser football programs toward college football’s holy grail is more of an indication that F.C.S. football, the old Division I-AA, does not work. “Everyone in I-AA loses money and doesn’t get much for it,” Lombardi said. “But even a crummy team in I-A football has higher visibility than a great team in I-AA. So while there are more costs to move up, the universities think that maybe they’ll at least get something for it. “The number of F.B.S.-level football teams is already too large to be sustainable,” he said. “And the teams at the top are a very strong, organized group. As more schools join at the bottom, it’s going to force the N.C.A.A. to restructure. They’ll have to start putting F.B.S. teams into categories. “So there will be a second tier again, and that’s certainly not what a lot of these people joining now had in mind. What happens then?” Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 FWIW, I hope UND NEVER moves up to FBS. It is a gigantic pot of fool's gold at the end of a bright, colorful rainbow. It looks good from a distance. And once you get your hands on it, it is pretty to look at. But once the novelty wears off, everyone will realize how worthless it really is. And I really get tired of hearing how much noteriety teams get for playing in some of these bottom of the barrel bowl games. Honestly, I think you could walk up and get tickets to some of them because nobody cares except for the fans of the teams involved and the families of the players on the teams. That is it. And those are the type of games UND would have trouble getting to on a regular basis (once every five years at best). That means we could look forward to a lot of losing records, blowout losses to the upper-end schools and the occasional conference title. The cost far exceeds the benefits (assuming there are any). We should just stick with FCS and wait for the restructuring. Then we can make intelligent choices about the future. Quote
Cratter Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 Let's get a head of the curve and be a leader in helping water down FBS. Quote
jimdahl Posted December 30, 2012 Author Posted December 30, 2012 Let's get a head of the curve and be a leader in helping water down FBS. If the hypothetical is that the BCS schools eventually form their own division and essentially leave behind the other FBS schools, it's a reasonable guess that FCS and the lower tier of FBS combine into non-Bowl D-I. In that case it wouldn't really matter whether UND is FCS or non-BCS FBS. So, if there's nothing to position ourselves for in any potential reorganization, the leading question would be where UND belongs in the interim. I think there are good arguments both ways, but of course that's wildly hypothetical because UND doesn't have a choice unless it manages to get attendance up 50% or so (not a ridiculous goal when you look at the 'SUs, though of course our situation is a bit different). So, given that FCS is the ceiling for UND for now, the more pressing impact on UND is if the top tier of I-AA peels off to I-A do we find ourselves back in a division that resembles 1980-90s D-II? I think it's quite possible, which is why it was so imperative to at least move up to I-AA when we did. I think UND is right were it belongs for now, but the landscape certainly is continuing to change. Quote
Cratter Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 Do they really make another division? I don't see that happening. There are already two divisions! There will not be three. That's just crazy. This idea is over a decade old its not new. All they will do is increase the attendance requirement and actually enforce it. How to divide schools will always be an ever-changing process... Quote
Cratter Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 The key question is how to get in an all sports conference with like schools in the region. That's the real manifest destiny. Quote
jimdahl Posted December 31, 2012 Author Posted December 31, 2012 Do they really make another division? I don't see that happening. There are already two divisions! There will not be three. That's just crazy. This idea is over a decade old its not new. All they will do is increase the attendance requirement and actually enforce it. How to divide schools will always be an ever-changing process... I agree, I don't see an increase in the number of divisions as likely. That's what I meant when I guessed that IF the BCS schools chose to separate themselves from the D-I proletariat we would see a collapsing of FBS/non-BCS and FCS into a single I-AA. However, I don't see that as even probable, either. The BCS schools have enough influence over D-I athletics that they would probably happily continue with the status quo until the end of time, BUT conference realignment plus the NCAA wanting control over a D-I football tournament are the wildcards. Quote
Cratter Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 Stick with me, but why is the country's "#1" sport football but more people attend live MLB games at almost a 4:1 ratio vs NFL... (Surface answers of more games doesn't give the entire answer)... I think the real solution, as unorthodox as it seems, is to get rid of FCS and have football under one umbrella. FCS is market manipulation with the blowback being felt. Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Stick with me, but why is the country's "#1" sport football but more people attend live MLB games at almost a 4:1 ratio vs NFL... (Surface answers of more games doesn't give the entire answer)... I think the real solution, as unorthodox as it seems, is to get rid of FCS and have football under one umbrella. FCS is market manipulation with the blowback being felt. Please tell me you don't really believe that the National Past-Its-Time is more popular than the NFL by a 4 to 1 margin?!?! If you believe that, I have a ski resort in Cancun, Mexico I would like to sell you. The NFL is the sports juggernaut of the television era. And saying that a 10 to 1 edge in total number of games is a "surface answer" is insane. It's one of the biggest reasons why the National Past-Its-Time has more people attending games. In a lot of markets, they also have cheap ticket deals for families because that is what they have to do to put butts in the seats. Meanwhile, NFL games are really expensive to go to for a reason; the demand is higher because people love the product, which means it prices some people out of the market, so they watch the games on television. There is a reason the Super Bowl gets mega-ratings every year and the World Series gets crap ratings unless there are two big market teams in it. As for getting rid of FCS, that is not going to happen. Football is much different than basketball. If you have one superstar in basketball, you can build a championship team around that player. But football is a numbers game. If you don't have the numbers, if you don't have the depth, you will get killed. Putting everyone at FBS would be comical; 80% of the teams wouldn't be competitive with the top 20% and I am being charitable about that number. There is a reason we have four different divisions for football (DI FBS, DI FCS, DII, DIII): common sense. Quote
watchmaker49 Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 FWIW, I hope UND NEVER moves up to FBS. It is a gigantic pot of fool's gold at the end of a bright, colorful rainbow. It looks good from a distance. And once you get your hands on it, it is pretty to look at. But once the novelty wears off, everyone will realize how worthless it really is. And I really get tired of hearing how much noteriety teams get for playing in some of these bottom of the barrel bowl games. H onestly, I think you could walk up and get tickets to some of them because nobody cares except for the fans of the teams involved and the families of the players on the teams. T hat is it. And those are the type of games UND would have trouble getting to on a regular basis (once every five years at best). That means we could look forward to a lot of losing records, blowout losses to the upper-end schools and the occasional conference title. The cost far exceeds the benefits (assuming there are any). We should just stick with FCS and wait for the restructuring. Then we can make intelligent choices about the future. Nebraska sold only a third of their tickets for the Capital One Bowl with Georgia. Brokers (aka scalpers) were selling tickets for as low as $9.00. Look at some of those bowl games on TV and there is no one there. So this would be a good for schools? Two 6-6 teams playing for nothing would not even bring out the most ardent fan even. 1 Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Nebraska sold only a third of their tickets for the Capital One Bowl with Georgia. Brokers (aka scalpers) were selling tickets for as low as $9.00. Look at some of those bowl games on TV and their is no one there. So this would be a good for schools? Two 6-6 teams playing for nothing would not even bring out the most ardent fan even. The evidence you cited proves that FBS is a bad idea for most schools. 1 Quote
watchmaker49 Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Aren't schools on the hook for paying for unsold bowl tickets they are assigned? So better words if Nebraska only sold a third of theirs they would owe a lot of money. Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Aren't schools on the hook for paying for unsold bowl tickets they are assigned? So better words if Nebraska only sold a third of theirs they would owe a lot of money. Another reason to get rid of some of these lower-level bowl games. All they do is suck up precious resources and reward teams for 6-6 records. The FBS playoff can't come soon enough; that will make loads and loads of cash. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I still believe restructuring in DI NCAA FB is coming based on this: http://forum.siouxsports.com/topic/17266-hypothetical-conference-for-und/page__st__20#entry571808 and this: http://forum.siouxsports.com/topic/17266-hypothetical-conference-for-und/page__st__80#entry572244 Quote
watchmaker49 Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Another reason to get rid of some of these lower-level bowl games. All they do is suck up precious resources and reward teams for 6-6 records. The FBS playoff can't come soon enough; that will make loads and loads of cash. I can't see how the tv networks can make any money from showing these bowl games that no one cares about. How do they sell ad space? Quote
ScottM Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I can't see how the tv networks can make any money from showing these bowl games that no one cares about. How do they sell ad space? I have to agree. If we get everybody on this board to contribute $5, we can probably get our own Bowl too. I recall reading most schools actually lose money by going to these minor bowls when they factor in travel, lodging, etc. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I recall reading most schools actually lose money by going to these minor bowls when they factor in travel, lodging, etc. You can go to a major bowl and still end up losing money ... In the 2011 Fiesta Bowl, UConn got steamrolled by the University of Oklahoma, then reportedly lost nearly $1.7 million, largely because the school had to pay for unsold tickets. http://articles.chic...r-defensive-end Quote
Cratter Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Virtually all FCS schools lose money too..and baseball and track and... Quote
Cratter Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 They can decline going to the bowl game? So they don't lose money but they don't. Quote
watchmaker49 Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 They can decline going to the bowl game? So they don't lose money but they don't. They think like many city leaders that if you give away a million and get 500K back you are ahead. Quote
Cratter Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Yeah I guess its called long term investments. Quote
ScottM Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I didn't want to start another thread, and it seems like this story can fit well here. Some of the numbers are pretty sobering. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/education/top-public-colleges-in-ncaa-favor-sports-over-academics.html?ref=us&_r=0 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.