FBS/FCS Debate

[ZachTheZip]

There are currently 124 FBS football programs with three still reclassifying (Charlotte, Georgia State, Old Dominion).

There are 122 FCS football teams, with four reclassifying into it (Mercer, Stetson, Houston Baptist, Kennesaw State).

There are 168 D-II football teams, with five reclassifying (Alderson-Broaddus, Florida Tech, UVA-Wise, Limestone, Paine).

There are 239 D-III football teams.

There are 84 NAIA football teams.

FBS isn't as crowded as you think.

[Dave in Green]

@ZachTheZip, it's the distribution of resources that's the critical factor. How many high quality players are available to fill the rosters of those 124 (and growing) FBS teams? Are they equally distributed among all those teams or are they concentrated among a small number of teams at the top? The best coaches go to the programs with the most resources to get the biggest paychecks and the ability to recruit the best players, who in turn gravitate to the programs with the most resources and best coaches. At some point the resource gap becomes so great that there's virtually no chance for those at the bottom to compete with those at the top. That's why different level divisions are created in the first place. The question here is where the lines should be drawn in college football in order to avoid absurd mismatches in resources and competitiveness between the top and bottom of each division. In professional sports, they at least make some effort to balance things by allowing the weakest teams to get the top draft choices. In college, the best teams recruit the best players.

[ZachTheZip]

@ZachTheZip, it's the distribution of resources that's the critical factor. How many high quality players are available to fill the rosters of those 124 (and growing) FBS teams? Are they equally distributed among all those teams or are they concentrated among a small number of teams at the top? The best coaches go to the programs with the most resources to get the biggest paychecks and the ability to recruit the best players, who in turn gravitate to the programs with the most resources and best coaches. At some point the resource gap becomes so great that there's virtually no chance for those at the bottom to compete with those at the top. That's why different level divisions are created in the first place. The question here is where the lines should be drawn in college football in order to avoid absurd mismatches in resources and competitiveness between the top and bottom of each division. In professional sports, they at least make some effort to balance things by allowing the weakest teams to get the top draft choices. In college, the best teams recruit the best players.

There are have's and have-nots at every level, and systems designed to keep it that way. By dropping from the FBS, you also drop the resources you are using to compete. The resources are not purely monetary, either, especially when talking about recruiting. By taking yourself off of TV and out of the sports media, who will only cover the top division, you severely limit your ability to recruit beyond your immediate locality. Unless you're in an area absolutely overflowing with football talent and you have enough goodwill that the local high school coaches aren't actively trying to send their players elsewhere even if it's at a lower level than you're at, your ability to compete with the upper tier of schools in whatever division you're in will diminish.

What makes you think that a program willing to forsake the FBS is still willing to spend FBS-level resources? (The top of the FCS spends just as much as, or more than the MAC schools).

[GP1]

What makes you think that a program willing to forsake the FBS is still willing to spend FBS-level resources? (The top of the FCS spends just as much as, or more than the MAC schools).

There is a difference between what you call yourself and what you are willing to spend.

The non bcs schools have a lot bigger problems than whether or not they are on the ESPNU Tuesday night game (which I believe is a disaster for those teams, but we can argue that on another thread). Non BCS schools tend to get non bcs talent regardless of their exposure on espn. Again, the espn argument falls into the "exposure" category. Other than "in theory", is there any evidence that playing on Tuesday night espn games is good for recruiting at the non bcs level or does it increase the quality of player? My evidence saying it doesn't would be that the Zips played in their share of those games in recent years and we just finished 1-11 two years in a row. How did that "exposure" work out for us?

[Dave in Green]

@ZachTheZip, in no way have I advocated for UA to voluntarily drop down from FBS to FCS.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

test test test

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

I don't know what's going on, but for the last day I've been getting "403 error/forbidden" messages whenever I try to post. Hopefully this will actually get posted:

-The arguments about exposure of the program are nuts. Akron gets zero positive exposure in the media. From here in California, it's much easier to see Mount Union on the FiOS lineup in the Fall than it is to find Akron. In fact, the MAC is on minimally at all here, while there is tons of D-II and D-III coverage.

-Akron is in no way resourced as an FBS program, but neither is it FCS. FBS coaches earn, on average, 1 million dollars a year. Terry is paid 375K. The highest paid FCS coaches are in the 200-230K range plus bonuses. While we are MUCH closer to the FCS level than FBS, we are still resourced at what I call the FCS-Plus level, along with WAC and the worst Sunbelt programs. Why not find a way to truly compete at that level then? Why not play commensurate to how we pay to run the program? As the college football universe explodes, why not be innovative and seek out FCS-Plus programs, plus some of the better FCS ones, to form a new paradigm. At that level, Akron would be appropriately resourced, and competitive.

[pdt1420]

Why not play commensurate to how we pay to run the program? As the college football universe explodes, why not be innovative and seek out FCS-Plus programs, plus some of the better FCS ones, to form a new paradigm. At that level, Akron would be appropriately resourced, and competitive.

So that crystallizes my view... I would not be in favor of dropping a level in the current structure, but I would be open to not being in the top level if there was a new level between FBS and FCS that other MAC/WAC/Sunbelt/Half the Big10 were in and competed for a playoff championship. I would be even more behind that if there was a mechanism in place to move up levels based on performance.

If I'm honest, that's the caliber of teams I want to play against anyways. I'm tired of playing OSU just to hope for a close loss. I much rather enjoy when I see Indiana on the schedule because I know we could get to a level where we beat them consistently and then you have some bragging rights with the "big boys" that, yeah, I can regularly beat the schools that you always crowed about regularly beating.

[Dave in Green]

A reasonable consensus appears to be developing. Another point to consider is UA's vision for the future, and how sports in general and football in particular fit into the total vision.

[zippy5]

A reasonable consensus appears to be developing. Another point to consider is UA's vision for the future, and how sports in general and football in particular fit into the total vision.

Is it? I feel like the people that want to stay D-1 don't want to really argue about it. Football belongs in the MAC, everything else should be moved to the A-10 or MVC. We can be a competitive MAC team and have the type of season that Can't or NIU had once in a while. Even being ranked would stir way more excitement around town than winning a 1-AA championship.

[GP1]

A reasonable consensus appears to be developing. Another point to consider is UA's vision for the future, and how sports in general and football in particular fit into the total vision.

You have touched upon the central question nobody has asked for years at Universities. Are universities in existence to make discoveries in the various fields of science in their colleges and then educate the future leaders of our country about those discoveries. Or, are they in existence to provide young adults a place to go play for a few years while they get degrees in fields that aren't much use in the real world? Or, are they places where administrators can mask their incompetence and lack of ability to see the future by building one open air building after another (looks great from the outside, but there is nothing inside)?

I guess it is a lot of things. The problem is, the focus on the building process and not the discovery/education process.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

So that crystallizes my view... I would not be in favor of dropping a level in the current structure, but I would be open to not being in the top level if there was a new level between FBS and FCS that other MAC/WAC/Sunbelt/Half the Big10 were in and competed for a playoff championship. I would be even more behind that if there was a mechanism in place to move up levels based on performance.

If I'm honest, that's the caliber of teams I want to play against anyways. I'm tired of playing OSU just to hope for a close loss. I much rather enjoy when I see Indiana on the schedule because I know we could get to a level where we beat them consistently and then you have some bragging rights with the "big boys" that, yeah, I can regularly beat the schools that you always crowed about regularly beating.

OK, so let's talk about Indiana and its resourcing, compared to Akron. The Indiana head coach is paid $1,260,000 per year, plus is eligible for bonus payments of $830,000 every year. Terry is paid $375,000. Indiana, the doormat of the B10, pays their beleaguered head coach 3.3 times as much as Akron pays theirs. It's SO eye-opening to see the numbers behind all of this. No coaching continuity, worse recruiting, lesser attendance and fewer and smaller revenue streams; there is simply no way for the MAC to compete. It's actually a disgrace that they even call it FBS football at all. I also wondered why it seemed so difficult to recruit a few difference makers. Well hell, the recruiting process surely makes all of this crystal clear to recruits and their families. It surely looks to me like Akron does not recruit true FBS players at all, because FBS players with any other options choose to play in programs that more closely resemble the FBS averages. Akron recruits tweeners, exactly commensurate with their level in all of the other areas we've talked about. Akron players are a little too good to play in FCS, or would likely be starters/dominant players in FCS. They aren't good enough to be recruited by genuine, average FBS programs, and so they end up at Akron or another MAC school. Match Akron up with the WAC programs, the lesser Sunbelt teams, a couple of the lesser MAC teams, a handful of the better FCS programs in the country, and NOW WE'RE TALKING! Similar resource commitments by the member universities, recruiting parity, high level of play, much more of a competitive balance in all aspects. I would LOVE to see a paradigm like this, and there is absolutely ZERO reason it wouldn't work, and zero reason Akron and other schools in the same position don't pursue it. Call it FCS and let this "conference" dominate the FCS universe. The big boys are already carving us out of the bigger picture. We can be the bigger fish in the slightly smaller pond. I would be a blast.

[Spin]

@DIG, you are saying, and advocating for, nothing. Of course, the easiest thing to do is to sit on your hands and wait. The power brokers in college football are striking out and creating the world they want to dominate. Akron is nothing more than the dirt under their shoes, as long as Akron, and other programs in similar situations, allow themselves to be so. The winners are aggressive, as is normally the case in life, and the losers, the "contemplators (yes I made that word up)," hoping that Akron will somehow not end up in the big pile of shit that remains when the larger programs are done doing their business, are going to get the shaft. This is not a time to be cerebral. It's time to go get ours.

We're a day late and a dollar short for that...

[Dave in Green]

A reasonable consensus can start developing when the discussion becomes more data-based and less personal. The more good data presented here, the more likely we are to be able to formulate educated opinions. But people are still going to push back if they think someone is trying to rush them into buying something without sufficient data.

[johnnyzip84]

OK, so let's talk about Indiana and its resourcing, compared to Akron. The Indiana head coach is paid $1,260,000 per year, plus is eligible for bonus payments of $830,000 every year. Terry is paid $375,000. Indiana, the doormat of the B10, pays their beleaguered head coach 3.3 times as much as Akron pays theirs. It's SO eye-opening to see the numbers behind all of this. No coaching continuity, worse recruiting, lesser attendance and fewer and smaller revenue streams; there is simply no way for the MAC to compete.

What's interesting about comparing IU and UA football, to me, is that the Zips under FREAKING IANELLO competed very well with the Hoosiers in Bloomington when several of us were there in 2010. I know it's just one game, but IU football has been so bad for so long that I wouldn't exclude them from a proposed "second tier" (based only on football).

[Spin]

What makes you think that changing levels or divisions would make us any more competitive. I'm still waiting for an explanation from somebody.

It would take far less $$$ to be competitive at the I-AA level.

You're never going to recruit with the SEC/PAC-10/tOSU's, but with a winning program you CAN compete for the players we are recruiting now. Let's say you're recruiting tOSU scraps at the I-A level, competing against Toledo, Ohio, Can't, Miami, and BGSU with a 3-33 team. I am recruiting them to the same team at I-AA with a 10-2 team that plays in the postseason, draws more fans, and is on TV more often. Same scholarships, same facilities, same campus. These kids realize they're never going to sniff a BCS Title bowl. I like my chances.

Let's just look at the team as it was this season. The one direct comparison (I-A and I-AA) that I found is the Sagarins. Akron would be mid-pack in the Colonial, Southland, and OVC, second in the Mid-Eastern and Northeast, and tops in the Patriot, Pioneer, and Southwest. The only conference we wouldn't improve our standing would be the MV. Unless you really want to travel to the Dakota's three times a year, that's not your choice anyway.

Want to hear a sobering thought? In I-AA we would have been ranked 47th.

Reality.

[Spin]

As we speak the FCS championship game is on ESPN2.

[GP1]

Anyone watching FCS Championship? Neither of these teams could win a division in the MAC. I don't want the Zips playing at this level of football. While we haven't had much success in D1, we can do better than what is on tv right now.

[K92]

As we speak the FCS championship game is on ESPN2.

You just negated all you have argued for in this thread with one statement.

[K92]

Anyone watching FCS Championship?

When you typed these words did you hear an echo or crickets chirping?

[Wally B]

As we speak the FCS championship game is on ESPN2.

And yet, we would still garner more attention if we took care of business here in the MAC and went to a bowl game. At the very least, the FCS championship offers the same level of recognition and exposure as any MAC bowl, sans the Orange this year. The difference being, the MAC championship was televised nationally (As I watched it at a pub in Tampa, and yes locals do know the MAC and its teams) this was followed by 7 bowl appearances by MAC teams. I couldn't tell you anything about FCS conferences, who was in the playoffs or semi's. Score MAC - 8, FCS - 1. By the numbers, we have more exposure in the MAC, year-in year-out.

[K92]

Interesting to see how the discussion pertaining to where the Zips fit into the world of college football has changed. So many threads in the past centered on Akron making the move to the Big East or C-USA.

As I see it, a lot of tags, divisions & affiliations muddy the waters. I view D1-A football like this:

Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Nebraska, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Auburn, South Carolina, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, West Virginia, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon and Notre Dame.

These 26 teams have a shot at EVER winning a National Championship and some of the teams on this list don't have a very good shot. Now, before you set to critiquing my list, I will grant you some teams could be switched out, say TCU for Michigan State or Boise for Oklahoma State or Kansas State for UCLA. However, my point is two fold: 1. The number of teams capable of being champions in the division is very small. 2. The list doesn't change much over time.

Everyone else who plays FBS football is in the same boat of comparative irrelevance as compared to the previous list. Levels of success, funding & popularity may vary, but Iowa, Cincinnati, Virginia, Mississippi, Baylor, Arizona and all of the other FBS participants not on the list have the same chance of winning the ultimate prize. Zero.

Nothing magical is ever going to happen for Zips football. There is no silver bullet. We are what we are. Personally, I like the conference we are in. It is the best conference for what we are, matched with schools that we have a whole lot in common with. If the MAC switches divisions, I am good with that. If the Zips leave the MAC to join a D1-AA conference alone, I am done.

[Spin]

You just negated all you have argued for in this thread with one statement.

Only in your mind. FCS is on the four letter network. Just like the Mickey Mouse bowl games the MAC regularly plays in.

[K92]

Only in your mind. FCS is on the four letter network. Just like the Mickey Mouse bowl games the MAC regularly plays in.

There are probably some doctors in the area that might be able help you with your condition.

[Spin]

And yet, we would still garner more attention if we took care of business here in the MAC and went to a bowl game. At the very least, the FCS championship offers the same level of recognition and exposure as any MAC bowl, sans the Orange this year. The difference being, the MAC championship was televised nationally (As I watched it at a pub in Tampa, and yes locals do know the MAC and its teams) this was followed by 7 bowl appearances by MAC teams. I couldn't tell you anything about FCS conferences, who was in the playoffs or semi's. Score MAC - 8, FCS - 1. By the numbers, we have more exposure in the MAC, year-in year-out.

And Akron got a TON of exposure this year.

All of it negative.

If we could put together consecutive winning records in the MAC (or a winning record the last 8 GD years), I may be convinced that Akron could compete in a MAC/CUSA/WAC/MWC world, and worthy of praying for a FBS-lite level coming someday.