New requirements for FBS teams?

[darell1976]

Do you think with the money problems in college football from state budgets to low attendance that the NCAA would either raise its attendance requirements to force teams to the FCS level (example MAC teams) or merge into one league like every other sport and get rid of its attendance requirement.

[49RFootballNow]

I don't think the NCAA will change anything.

[TexasTerror]

I don't think the NCAA will change anything.

The NCAA is changing requirements for FBS. There's a whole thread about it...

Now the points brought up in the initial thread are not part of those.

[tarmac]

The NCAA is changing requirements for FBS. There's a whole thread about it...

Now the points brought up in the initial thread are not part of those.

where is the thread about changes?

[TexasTerror]

where is the thread about changes?

Going to look for them, since searching this board is not easy. Here's one thread on Div I requirements...

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?67953-DI-Membership-Standards

And this one...

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?67953-DI-Membership-Standards&p=1542213&viewfull=1#post1542213

[henfan]

Do you think with the money problems in college football from state budgets to low attendance that the NCAA would either raise its attendance requirements to force teams to the FCS level (example MAC teams) or merge into one league like every other sport and get rid of its attendance requirement.

As I mentioned in another thread, the attendance requirement means next to nothing to schools already in the FBS classification. Attendance numbers are self-audited, so schools can pretty much report any numbers they want to preserve FBS membership.

[darell1976]

As I mentioned in another thread, the attendance requirement means next to nothing to schools already in the FBS classification. Attendance numbers are self-audited, so schools can pretty much report any numbers they want to preserve FBS membership.

Maybe the NCAA needs to review this rule. Its simple the NCAA is losing money at the FBS level and its not the USC's, the Nebraskas or the Floridas, its the Kent States, the Eastern Michigans, and the Ball States that are losing money by not putting people in the stands so why not either remove the rule or have 1 football division like basketball.

[nwFL Griz]

Maybe the NCAA needs to review this rule. Its simple the NCAA is losing money at the FBS level and its not the USC's, the Nebraskas or the Floridas, its the Kent States, the Eastern Michigans, and the Ball States that are losing money by not putting people in the stands so why not either remove the rule or have 1 football division like basketball.

The FCS division exists to allow smaller schools to keep division I athletics, by providing an option for lower cost football. The amount of scholarships and amount of sports required for FBS are significant differences.

If you combined the FCS and FBS into one again, you would probably see a loss of several programs...like all the pioneer schools.

[darell1976]

The FCS division exists to allow smaller schools to keep division I athletics, by providing an option for lower cost football. The amount of scholarships and amount of sports required for FBS are significant differences.

If you combined the FCS and FBS into one again, you would probably see a loss of several programs...like all the pioneer schools.

Good point, how about eliminating the attendance requirements to allow more teams to move up to the FBS and send the non-money making schools down to the FCS. The NCAA is all about money so I see this as a way to weed out the drain on the NCAA numbers where some teams in the FCS who make good money but can't move up due to a stadium under 15,000 could replace these teams and increase the NCAA income. Just a thought. If the NCAA did this in basketball you would see a total shift in teams in D-I and D-IAA bball.

[JSU02]

D-IAA bball.

What is D-IAA bball?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

To me, it's less about the detail, nuts-and-bolts aspects of this issue as the overall big picture. There have been a multitude of studies that show that only a few football programs "make money", a bit more than a dozen in FBS and enough to count on one hand in FCS. With FBS the expenses are generally double, sometimes triple, the expenses at FCS.

And don't think the NCAA has been asleep with all this talk of super-conferences driven by money - money which the NCAA is not getting. This is why I think the NCAA is going to eventually come up with something to get the worlds more in alignment.

An emasculated WAC is the ideal test subject, too. Especially if Hawai'i leaves, there really isn't any good reason to keep them at FBS.

[henfan]

Maybe the NCAA needs to review this rule. Its simple the NCAA is losing money at the FBS level...

The rule WAS reviewed and it was gutted by the lower level fbs programs and conferences to allow attendance self-auditing. FBS power conferences don't care enough to press the issue because it has no impact on them financially.

The NCAA as an organization isn't losing money at the FBS level; individual schools certainly are.

The best thing that could possibly happen, IMO, is the elimination of Division I subdivisions to simply allow conferences to fund FB however they choose. Post season opportunities (either bowls or NCAA playoffs) would be determined by individual conferences. Of course that won't happen so long as the minor league fbs conference wield influence in NCAA committees.

[Cocky]

The WAC needs to have an East divison and a West division (football only). The west could be the current members plus the Texas schools or Missouri State, Montana, ... and the east could be the new move ups (or on here the fans who seem to want to move up) JMU, Ga Southern, App State, JSU, North Alabama, Liberty, Ga State, Kennesaw State, Old Dominon, and anyone else I'm forgetting. Then have an east v west championship game. The east schools could form an all other sports conference to ensure an additional basketball bid (if NCAA approves). The WAC would keep it football conference status easily the east schools would be in an established FBS conference to ensure the ability to move up. There could be a few cross country games but the championship game would at least have some nationwide interest since the teams would be from everywhere.

[greenG]

Maybe the NCAA needs to review this rule. Its simple the NCAA is losing money at the FBS level and its not the USC's, the Nebraskas or the Floridas, its the Kent States, the Eastern Michigans, and the Ball States that are losing money by not putting people in the stands so why not either remove the rule or have 1 football division like basketball.

Not so fast relegating EMU to FCS. Let's check with the real world and see what the situation is. Surprise! Eastern Michigan's football program is solvent and made money last year, even with a winless season on the field. This information comes directly from university President Sue Martin. They had big paydays from games against Northwestern, Michigan, and Arkansas. They will be paid $900K by Ohio State later this year and will get similar paychecks from Vanderbilt and Virginia.

Attendance will always be a problem at EMU. With UM only six miles away and sponging up all of the fan interest, media time, and money, it still manages to keep the football program in the black and to maintain their participation in the MAC.

[gophoenix]

Good point, how about eliminating the attendance requirements to allow more teams to move up to the FBS and send the non-money making schools down to the FCS. The NCAA is all about money so I see this as a way to weed out the drain on the NCAA numbers where some teams in the FCS who make good money but can't move up due to a stadium under 15,000 could replace these teams and increase the NCAA income. Just a thought. If the NCAA did this in basketball you would see a total shift in teams in D-I and D-IAA bball.

Define money making? That's another problem, private schools cannot be forced to release that type of information and public schools can report items in any number of certain ways. Does this mean ticket sales only? Does it mean with ads, with endorsements, with all sorts of other items too?

At the end of the day, programs like Duke, Vanderbilt, UConn are either losing or breaking even or making just a little. That's the thing, where's the line. Even a school like Elon is reported to be breaking even.

The real deal is, football is the only NCAA sports where a subdivision exists, where other sports matter for qualification (have to offer 16 and not 14), and where attendance matters. You can offer 0 scholarships in any other sport and still be division I. Football should be the same way.

So what if Oklahoma has 85 scholarships, Appalachian has 63, UT Martin has 40, Albany has 25 and Davidson has 0. Does it really matter? Does the difference in 63 to 0 make much of a difference in our division now? And that's really another NCAA problem the difference from Campbell to Montana is just as big as Montana to Texas. So really, why the need for a subdivision other than reduce the ways to divide money (and reduce the chance of the non-BCS schools being able to out-vote the BCS schools and conferences).

[WestCoastAggie]

Define money making? That's another problem, private schools cannot be forced to release that type of information and public schools can report items in any number of certain ways. Does this mean ticket sales only? Does it mean with ads, with endorsements, with all sorts of other items too?

At the end of the day, programs like Duke, Vanderbilt, UConn are either losing or breaking even or making just a little. That's the thing, where's the line. Even a school like Elon is reported to be breaking even.

The real deal is, football is the only NCAA sports where a subdivision exists, where other sports matter for qualification (have to offer 16 and not 14), and where attendance matters. You can offer 0 scholarships in any other sport and still be division I. Football should be the same way.

So what if Oklahoma has 85 scholarships, Appalachian has 63, UT Martin has 40, Albany has 25 and Davidson has 0. Does it really matter? Does the difference in 63 to 0 make much of a difference in our division now? And that's really another NCAA problem the difference from Campbell to Montana is just as big as Montana to Texas. So really, why the need for a subdivision other than reduce the ways to divide money (and reduce the chance of the non-BCS schools being able to out-vote the BCS schools and conferences).

With the NCAA, To make money means the Athletic Department is self-sufficent. This means the Athletic department does not need any direct insitutional funding from the university to cover any decefits in the budget. Very few Athletic Departments are self-sufficent.

[gophoenix]

With the NCAA, To make money means the Athletic Department is self-sufficent. This means the Athletic department does not need any direct insitutional funding from the university to cover any decefits in the budget. Very few Athletic Departments are self-sufficent.

Which is exactly what I was driving at..... by the original guy's logic, there are few that meet this. And if it is going by a football standard, still few meet it.

[darell1976]

I was kinda going towards the attendance angle on the FBS since that is "THE" requirement to go to the FBS.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/football_records/Attendance/2009.pdf

This link is the attendance of last year and the biggest drop was at the FBS level. I figure less people = less concesssions = ticket sales= less money for the NCAA from the school.

NCAA DIVISION I-FBS TOTALS -691 avg change in attendance
NCAA DIVISION I-FCS TOTALS -169 avg change in attendance

9 FBS teams averaged under 15,000 while 11 FCS teams averaged over 15,000. Too bad those 9 teams couldn't switch with the 11 FCS teams. You could learn a lot from the numbers on that link like the PAC 10 had the biggest drop in avg attendance while the SWAC had the worst attendance drop in the FCS, the best was the Big East and the MEAC.

[gophoenix]

I was kinda going towards the attendance angle on the FBS since that is "THE" requirement to go to the FBS.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/football_records/Attendance/2009.pdf

This link is the attendance of last year and the biggest drop was at the FBS level. I figure less people = less concesssions = ticket sales= less money for the NCAA from the school.

NCAA DIVISION I-FBS TOTALS -691 avg change in attendance
NCAA DIVISION I-FCS TOTALS -169 avg change in attendance

9 FBS teams averaged under 15,000 while 11 FCS teams averaged over 15,000. Too bad those 9 teams couldn't switch with the 11 FCS teams. You could learn a lot from the numbers on that link like the PAC 10 had the biggest drop in avg attendance while the SWAC had the worst attendance drop in the FCS, the best was the Big East and the MEAC.

But that isn't "THE" requirement to go to FBS. There is also a total number of sports minimum. I believe it is 14 for FCS and 16 for FBS.

[yosef1969]

But that isn't "THE" requirement to go to FBS. There is also a total number of sports minimum. I believe it is 14 for FCS and 16 for FBS.

"THE" new requirement is to have an invite from an FBS conference. There are many FCS programs that are FBS ready in terms of requirements, save the the conference invite.

[bandit]

Many of the schools routinely mentioned as not belonging in FBS have a long history of play at that level. It's ultimately a decision for each individual school. If Eastern Michigan is happy having a losing football program in the MAC, but maintaining their other sports in a competitive position, why should the NCAA or anybody else care? If an FBS conference is willing to admit a school that plays football, and the member institutions of that league vote to accept them and to send their teams to play them on a yearly basis, then what difference does it make how many fans are in the seats? I think the requirements that currently exist for FBS membership are fine. Yeah, they are a bit toothless, but that's OK. The NCAA shouldn't get to decide for programs like EMU that they should end decades of affiliation in the MAC because of arbitrary attendance requirements or other measures.

[aceinthehole]

This whole attendance issue is meaningless and arbritarty. It has little to do with classification and more to do with revenue and butts in seats.

Why anyone here thinks the FCS teams with 15K+ attendence should 'upgrade', or FBS teams withh less than that should 'downgrade' is beyond me.

Should D-II teams like Texas A&M-Kingsville, Miles and Tuskegee reclassify as FCS because of their 10K+ attendence?

How about D-III St. John's (MN), should they move up to FCS beacuse of their 8,200 average attendence? That is more than Eastern Ill, Towson, Northern Arizona.

[henfan]

The entire concept of of D-I subclassification is outdated and needs to be eliminated. By and large, cost containment is no longer the main guiding principle separating the two subdivisions. In fact, the very names selected for the subdivisions defines their post-season preference (FCS vs. FBS).

There is little reason why D-I schools or conferences shouldn't have the option of participating in either the NCAA post-season championship tournament or non-NCAA sponsored bowls, regardless of elements such as stadium size, average attendance, or FB revenues/expenses. It probably would have happened 10+ years ago if not for a cartel of minor league FBS conferences.