FBS/FCS Debate

[Spin]

Never been to an Aeros game in my life. Could care less about minor leagues.

Good. The last thing we need is some yahoo yelling "WHY AREN'T YOU PLAYING THE YANKEES!!!! YOU BUNCH OF UNDERACHIEVERS!!!"

And if you found out the food is ten times better there than at the Pro, you won't leave.

[LZIp]

Because of he football program?

Yes, I am talking about the football program, not the school. Not hard to see considering Akron gets much more exposure on tv than they did while in the FCS.

Good. The last thing we need is some yahoo yelling "WHY AREN'T YOU PLAYING THE YANKEES!!!! YOU BUNCH OF UNDERACHIEVERS!!!"

And if you found out the food is ten times better there than at the Pro, you won't leave.

Im sad wing warehouse shut down. Loved that place.

[Zips Win!]

??? Where/how do you draw Toledo into this, based on what I said in that post? Toledo is one of the vaunted (he said facetiously)

MAC powerhouse programs right? Isn't becoming Toledo the goal, almost 30 years later? Do you suppose we'll get there by year 60? Will you or I be alive when we get there? Were the University presidents fools who, for decades, did not try to compete with the likes of Ohio State and even the MAC? IN what ways has it benefited the university to have become D-1A/FBS? Has revenue increased? Has attendance grown? The prestige of the program?

Well, is this answer a yes or a no. Is U. of Toledo a FBS school or a FCS school as it pertains to college football?

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

Well, is this answer a yes or a no. Is U. of Toledo a FBS school or a FCS school as it pertains to college football?

Here's a question for you then Zips Win: when exactly did you stop beating your wife?

That question has nothing to do with the topic at hand, you say? Well then, neither does Toledo's status have anything to do with the path that Akron should take. However, I will add a point or two.

First, even the best MAC football is, to my eyes, a substantial cut below large, "prestige" major college football. I don't consider the MAC, even the pinnacle of the conference, to be "major" football. Look at attendance, facilities, staff salaries, television exposure, media coverage, athletic department budgets, players making it to the NFL, in all of these categories the MAC teams are not in the same "league" with the major programs. So, in spite of the fact that many posters here would love it for Akron to become Toledo-like in football, no, I don't consider Toledo, nor any MAC team, to be true FBS. Let's also remember that the MAC had an unprecedentedly good year in football, our of nowhere, and that if past is prologue, the MAC will fall back to its rightful place, probably next season. The MAC is, after all, the conference where big-time coaches get their start, so that guys like Hazell have a good year and bolt. The flip side is that the MAC is the conference from which big-time talent flees when they have their chance.

Second, knowing that the MAC is, in fact, FBS Tier II at best, Akron has never been one of the average programs in the MAC. You might have an argument if Akron were able to hold its own in the MAC, but it has never even held up its part of the bargain. No MAC program envies Akron. They surely envy the practice facilities, but not the program. So, even if I were to grant you that I believe that Toledo is a genuine FBS program, you would still be facing the chasm that has always existed between programs like Toledo and Akron's. Most of the other athletic programs have more than done their share. Why the football program has remained sad sack is still something of a mystery to me, but it's been too long.

[Spin]

Yes, I am talking about the football program, not the school. Not hard to see considering Akron gets much more exposure on tv than they did while in the FCS.

All programs have more exposure via TV in the last 25 years, because of cable TV. Including the Ohio Athletic Conference and D3 playoffs.

Im sad wing warehouse shut down. Loved that place.

I'm having Three Dog Night withdrawl. Screw the team shop in the winter, open a couple food stands. LOL

[GP1]

Why the football program has remained sad sack is still something of a mystery to me, but it's been too long.

I don't think it is a mystery at all. We confused building thing with winning for too long. It's the building process vs. the winning process. We chose the building process.

With that said, the question is what to do and how to do it? We made the move to D1 on our own and disaster has taken place. That tells me we should not make another move on our own. Our league has to make a move along wit other mAClike schools. Since that will never happen because it isn't healthy for ADs resumes, our only option is to unfortunately wait for the BCS schools to decide for us. If we think it is bad now, wait until the BCS schools start making decisions for us.

Please delete this duplicate.

[GP1]

Why the football program has remained sad sack is still something of a mystery to me, but it's been too long.

I don't think it is a mystery at all. We confused building thing with winning for too long. It's the building process vs. the winning process. We chose the building process.

With that said, the question is what to do and how to do it? We made the move to D1 on our own and disaster has taken place. That tells me we should not make another move on our own. Our league has to make a move along wit other mAClike schools. Since that will never happen because it isn't healthy for ADs resumes, our only option is to unfortunately wait for the BCS schools to decide for us. If we think it is bad now, wait until the BCS schools start making decisions for us.

[Zips Win!]

Here's a question for you then Zips Win: when exactly did you stop beating your wife?

That question has nothing to do with the topic at hand, you say? Well then, neither does Toledo's status have anything to do with the path that Akron should take. However, I will add a point or two.

First, even the best MAC football is, to my eyes, a substantial cut below large, "prestige" major college football. I don't consider the MAC, even the pinnacle of the conference, to be "major" football. Look at attendance, facilities, staff salaries, television exposure, media coverage, athletic department budgets, players making it to the NFL, in all of these categories the MAC teams are not in the same "league" with the major programs. So, in spite of the fact that many posters here would love it for Akron to become Toledo-like in football, no, I don't consider Toledo, nor any MAC team, to be true FBS. Let's also remember that the MAC had an unprecedentedly good year in football, our of nowhere, and that if past is prologue, the MAC will fall back to its rightful place, probably next season. The MAC is, after all, the conference where big-time coaches get their start, so that guys like Hazell have a good year and bolt. The flip side is that the MAC is the conference from which big-time talent flees when they have their chance.

Second, knowing that the MAC is, in fact, FBS Tier II at best, Akron has never been one of the average programs in the MAC. You might have an argument if Akron were able to hold its own in the MAC, but it has never even held up its part of the bargain. No MAC program envies Akron. They surely envy the practice facilities, but not the program. So, even if I were to grant you that I believe that Toledo is a genuine FBS program, you would still be facing the chasm that has always existed between programs like Toledo and Akron's. Most of the other athletic programs have more than done their share. Why the football program has remained sad sack is still something of a mystery to me, but it's been too long.

You must be a freaking lawyer! A simple yes or no would suffice.

While I generally agree that the MAC isn't in the "major" college football class, one could also make the same argument for the bottom third of the medium ten, the big east and the ACC. All stepping stones to the biggest programs in one form or another. While were at it, are the Browns really NFL-caliber, Cavs really NBA- caliber?

As for Toledo v. Akron. This is a very legitimate argument. Both similiar state schools, similiar budgets, student bodies etc. The difference being the leadership over the past 30 years. We've had about zero..they have had a bunch. We hang out hat on ND wannabees like Fausty or tosu honks like the Vest.

How about hire a UA guy/gal that gives a damn about UA, not some other school.

Lot 9 rules!

[GP1]

How about hire a UA guy/gal that gives a damn about UA, not some other school.

Or, an AD with a major college background from where they went to school to where they have worked. An AD who "cares" isn't nearly as important as an AD who knows how to do his/her job. Mike Thomas comes to mind. Mike cared about doing a good job and had the background that helped him understand major college sports. Our current AD is a D3 basketball player with stupid ideas on what makes success in college athletics. He has a D3 mentality at a D1 school. from the Reno disaster to the hiring of Ianello, the guy has been a train wreck. He also is the "work in progress", one of the worst terms to describe someone. Like everything else we do, Proenza was hoping he would "grow" into the job. Nonsense. Mike Thomas was ready from day one, which is what a good hire should look like. With any luck, we will be going into more depth about how to hire an AD in the near future. It won't be soon enough.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

You must be a freaking lawyer! A simple yes or no would suffice.

While I generally agree that the MAC isn't in the "major" college football class, one could also make the same argument for the bottom third of the medium ten, the big east and the ACC. All stepping stones to the biggest programs in one form or another. While were at it, are the Browns really NFL-caliber, Cavs really NBA- caliber?

As for Toledo v. Akron. This is a very legitimate argument. Both similiar state schools, similiar budgets, student bodies etc. The difference being the leadership over the past 30 years. We've had about zero..they have had a bunch. We hang out hat on ND wannabees like Fausty or tosu honks like the Vest.

How about hire a UA guy/gal that gives a damn about UA, not some other school.

Lot 9 rules!

.

One thing we can agree on is that Lot 9 rules. It's been more than a year since I was at Lot 9 for a tailgate. Imagine if the lot were full of fans, having a blast and prepping to watch an actual FUN game, maybe a win. What a novel concept!

[Dave in Green]

Good points are still being made, and people who wanted to end the discussion are still participating. So there must still be some merit to this conversation.

[ZachTheZip]

I'm still waiting for the part where they explain just how kicking 22 players off the team and declaring that we suck and are giving up and are content to permanently be worse than Can't State will magically transform the program's culture into a winning one.

[Spin]

I'm still waiting for the part where they explain just how kicking 22 players off the team and declaring that we suck and are giving up and are content to permanently be worse than Can't State will magically transform the program's culture into a winning one.

We're still waiting for two straight winning seasons. Hell two straight Cleveland Browns-type seasons would be nice...

I'm pretty sure most people declare we suck now.

You have a hard time understanding how YSU won national championships? Or how a non-legacy school will never win one at the D1-A level? Or how Norwayne was the state football champion last year?

What part are you having trouble with? I doubt we can help you out, especially when the GoDaddy bowl beckons...

[Dave in Green]

The Sunday New York Times has a major front page sports section story today that is a must read for anyone interested in the topic of this thread. Entitled "Big Dream, Rude Awakening -- A Rush to Enter The Highest Tier Of College Football" by Bill Pennington, it uses UMass as an example of the problems faced by schools moving their football programs up from FCS to FBS. The jump head on page 10 is "Wide-Eyed Universities Chase Big-Time Football Glory in the F.B.S." It gets a little into the MAC, using Buffalo as an example of a team that made the jump and has been a perennial loser ever since, but does not mention UA at all. There are so many good points in the story that they couldn't all be copied here without violating copyright. But here are a few:

After mentioning that former FCS national champion UMass was outscored 482-152 and drew disappointing crowds after making the big investment, it says:

Such is the big time, where the newcomers take a beating and a vast majority of established football programs lose money just like their lesser-level brethren. But UMass and a flock of other institutions with far-reaching football dreams — from Texas State to Old Dominion — are undeterred.

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.

The story quotes Daniel Fulks, an accounting professor at Transylvania University who has spent the last 15 years as a research consultant for the NCAA, as follows:

“The reality is that football schools who move up a division almost always lose even more money. There’s not much defense of the economics in the short term or the long term. There are arguments for countervailing, intangible benefits — more national exposure, more admission applications, better quality students and increased alumni donations. That has definitely happened in some places, but it’s not a proven outcome. Some studies say it does work that way, some studies say it does not. There’s the risk.”

After mentioning that UMass might consider dropping back to FCS if the FBS experiment fails, the story concludes with a series of quotes from John Lombardi, a past president of UMass who was also president at Florida and LSU:

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.

“Of course, it’s an illusion that you can make money moving up. What they’re really trying to do is align themselves with the better-known institutions.”

But Lombardi sees a brewing quandary.

“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?”

NYT Link

[GP1]

NYT Link

Dave, Thanks a million for posting this article. Reinforces what I have believed for a long time.

Two interesting characters in the article...Fulks and Lombardi. Fulks is a money guy who can look at numbers and make sense of them. He is the fact based, reality character. He knows there is no financial benefit for 99% of schools jumping to D1 and has the guts to say it. He has the guts to say it because the facts are behind him. He would never get a job as an Athletic Director.

Lombardi is the pie in the sky guy. How do I know that? He uses the word "exposure" as a reason for jumping to FBS. He knows the benefits of "exposure" can never be proven so someone can hide behind it basically forever. How come nobody ever says, "Expose them to what?" "Is this exposure good exposure?" "What are the consequences of bad exposure?" "If the exposure is 100% good, will we still be able to make money at it?"

The final point, I have been making for years...there not only needs to be, but there will be a division between I-AA and BCS level football. The writing is on the walls and if anyone can't see it, they don't want to admit it is there. If we are lucky, we will be part of that division and I believe we can compete well. The big lie that ADs have told for years is there is a way to make money in college athletics. For a handful of schools, this is correct. For everyone else, it is a money sink. As long as UofA can limit the damage, we'll be fine.

I'm dying for a real publication like the NY Times to do a story (it's probably a book) on how Athletic Directors have scammed universities across the country into the "building process". The real crooks in college athletics are the ADs my friends.

Thanks again Dave. Great read for the Great GP1. It made my day.

[Dave in Green]

@GP1, you're welcome. I thought of what you've been saying as I read the story, and knew that you'd like it. I think you may have misinterpreted what Lombardi was trying to say. He doesn't really say that he believes that exposure is a good reason for jumping to FBS. After pointing out the reality that "even a crummy team in I-A football has higher visibility than a great team in I-AA," he says that "the universities think that maybe they’ll at least get something for it." I think he's just pointing out what the universities generally believe, not necessarily what he believes. I thought that all of Lombardi's comments were pretty smart.

[ZachTheZip]

We're still waiting for two straight winning seasons. Hell two straight Cleveland Browns-type seasons would be nice...

I'm pretty sure most people declare we suck now.

You have a hard time understanding how YSU won national championships? Or how a non-legacy school will never win one at the D1-A level? Or how Norwayne was the state football champion last year?

What part are you having trouble with? I doubt we can help you out, especially when the GoDaddy bowl beckons...

YSU won a championship because they hired the right coach, not because they played in the FCS. Here'sa news flash for you: all the factors that lead to success in the FCS also work at the FBS level.

Also, the GoDaddy bowl is more beneficial to A university than an FCS championship. Football is a massive commercial for a university. FBS football creates a measurable effect on bringing in out of state students and in overall enrollment. It also marks a university as a significant academic power, as only schools with significant overall resources can afford to field a team. There's a reason universities that are considered national in scope have FBS football and the FCS is almost entirely regional or local universities.

I hope you get the chance to talk to a university president some day. Maybe you'll figure it out instead of speaking from ignorance.

[GP1]

Also, the GoDaddy bowl is more beneficial to A university than an FCS championship. Football is a massive commercial for a university. FBS football creates a measurable effect on bringing in out of state students and in overall enrollment. It also marks a university as a significant academic power, as only schools with significant overall resources can afford to field a team. There's a reason universities that are considered national in scope have FBS football and the FCS is almost entirely regional or local universities.

Has anyone ever measured the benefit of making a bowl for a university? Or is it one of those things that has just become fact because everyone has said it so much? If it creates a measurable effect, what is the final measurement? The evidence presented in Dave's link from a guy who studied it for 15 years for the NCAA of all places says there is no real benefit for almost every team.

Actually, it isn't a sign of academic power. Ever hear of the Ivy League? Case Western, Marquette, MIT, Emory, Boston University, Georgetown, etc. are all excellent schools that do not field D1 football teams. There is a difference between academic power and the ability to field a football team.

Don't believe the lies you hear from athletic directors. As someone with a website, you should be questioning those lies and not parroting them.

[GP1]

@GP1, you're welcome. I thought of what you've been saying as I read the story, and knew that you'd like it. I think you may have misinterpreted what Lombardi was trying to say. He doesn't really say that he believes that exposure is a good reason for jumping to FBS. After pointing out the reality that "even a crummy team in I-A football has higher visibility than a great team in I-AA," he says that "the universities think that maybe they’ll at least get something for it." I think he's just pointing out what the universities generally believe, not necessarily what he believes. I thought that all of Lombardi's comments were pretty smart.

I did overreach on my comments about Lombardi. My guess is he told the lie for a while and now is honest enough to back off.

[Spin]

YSU won a championship because they hired the right coach, not because they played in the FCS. Here'sa news flash for you: all the factors that lead to success in the FCS also work at the FBS level.

So if YSU had played in IA instaed of IAA theey would have won Ia championships.

If ONLY the Aeros had played Major League we would have a World Series in Akron. Dang it!!!

Oh man you live in a dream world.

YSU won a championship because they played at their level, the level they could afford to play, the level they could recruit at, the level they could compete at.

So tell me, what is Akron's football budget? What is Alabama's? Ohio State's? What is your plan to beat these teams?

[ZachTheZip]

So if YSU had played in IA instaed of IAA theey would have won Ia championships.

If ONLY the Aeros had played Major League we would have a World Series in Akron. Dang it!!!

Oh man you live in a dream world.

YSU won a championship because they played at their level, the level they could afford to play, the level they could recruit at, the level they could compete at.

So tell me, what is Akron's football budget? What is Alabama's? Ohio State's? What is your plan to beat these teams?

They would not have won a 1-A championship, and I never said they did. Your already poor credibility suffers when you make things up that other people didn't say.

In the FCS, only one team wins a championship each year, and that team doesn't get half the recognition and national publicity as any of the several dozen teams that make a lower-tier bowl game. And you can do either of those with a similar budget. So why opt for the FCS? There is no benefit.

[ZachTheZip]

Has anyone ever measured the benefit of making a bowl for a university? Or is it one of those things that has just become fact because everyone has said it so much? If it creates a measurable effect, what is the final measurement? The evidence presented in Dave's link from a guy who studied it for 15 years for the NCAA of all places says there is no real benefit for almost every team.

Actually, it isn't a sign of academic power. Ever hear of the Ivy League? Case Western, Marquette, MIT, Emory, Boston University, Georgetown, etc. are all excellent schools that do not field D1 football teams. There is a difference between academic power and the ability to field a football team.

Don't believe the lies you hear from athletic directors. As someone with a website, you should be questioning those lies and not parroting them.

It's not really about athletics. It's about having a three-hour commercial for your university in prime time. it's about connecting with alumni who otherwise might just ignore their university.

The football team does see some benefits, such as increased visibility (it's a TV game that's not overshadowed by a dozen other games happening at the same time, something schools around the country and in top conferences are bending over backwards and playing on weekdays to get). There is an extra month of practice that comes along with it as well.

[Dr Z]

What is your plan to beat these teams?

Score more points then they do.

[GP1]

It's not really about athletics. It's about having a three-hour commercial for your university in prime time. it's about connecting with alumni who otherwise might just ignore their university.

Ok, how much does it make schools? Does what it bring in outweigh what it costs? What is the long term economic benefit of a school making a bowl game?

I know all of the arguments. What is missing is any evidence that the arguments make real sense.

When I was playing football in college, I was a very good student and later graduated with an advanced degree (that's a Masters Degree for those of you who don't know what "advanced degree" means). At the age of 18, I thought many of the people working in the Athletic Department weren't very smart. The older I get, the more I realize that 18 year old was right. Not only are they not smart, but in many ways, they are dangerous to the schools they work for. The problem is not many people understand how to do their jobs, so they do what they say to do because they think they know what they are doing. The truth is, most people working in college athletics have no idea what they are doing and they are the ones spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the "building process" of which they have no idea about. It's a cycle of stupidity.

When I worked in corporate America, the last company I worked for before owning my own business had a bunch of ex GE executives working for it and they had their own Six Sigma cult going. I've never seen a bigger pack of idiots. Six Sigma has little buzz words they all speak in and if you don't know the buzz words, you are sort of out of the club. I'ts how they hide the fact they don't really know anything about the business they are managing. In college athletics, "exposure" reminds me of one of those Six Sigma buzz words. In any event, I was on a conference call and the people at the corporate headquarters were all speaking what I called Six Sigma babble. I sent a note to a counterpart of mine in Florida saying I had no idea what they were talking about. My counterpart was a really smart guy about a year from retirement and he wrote back, "Don't worry, they don't either." Whenever anyone hears a buzz word like "exposure" being used to describe why something should be done, you should see red flags. People who work in college athletics are long on buzz words and short on brains. Unfortunately, nobody else wants to work a crappy job like that.

[Dave in Green]

From the NYT story on the intangible benefits:

“There’s not much defense of the economics in the short term or the long term. There are arguments for countervailing, intangible benefits — more national exposure, more admission applications, better quality students and increased alumni donations. That has definitely happened in some places, but it’s not a proven outcome. Some studies say it does work that way, some studies say it does not. There’s the risk.”