Thoughts about moving up to FBS

[my view]

Boise State receives more than $4 million because they negotiated exclusive broadcast contracts to disincentivize their exit from MWC, and rumors were that the Rams and Air Force were among teams considering an eventual exit.

You may notice that this report also mentions that AAC (the rumored destination of at least a couple MWC teams) was likely to be renegotiated following Central Florida, Cincinnati, and Houston exits, so there's no assurance reconstituted MWC membership would continue to receive $4m after Boise State and San Diego State left (unless the Bison could argue their FCS championship bona fides merit FBS financial reward and Jacks can say "the media's been referring to us as 'San Diego State' for years anyway, so we should be paid accordingly").

The argument could be made that SDSU's FBS academic peers, particularly those with ag., pharmacy, and nursing foci aren't in the MWC, they're in the Big Ten and 12 (Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, and Iowa State), and no, I'm not saying that means Jacks should strive for Big 10/12 invitations; my argument is that one's academic peers aren't necessarily indicative of what their athletic conference affiliation is/should be

You're right in that Boise State is the cash cow of that conference and that the $4 mil given to each team annually would dramatically decrease if they left the conference. That value could go down to $1 million/team/year pretty easily. However, this is still a lot of tv revenue and likely a lot more than we're making in our existing conferences.

Yes, the Big 10 and Big 12 both have the schools that we identify with most academically. However, SDSU and NDSU would probably never be taken seriously by those two conferences (for membership). The point I'm trying to make is that Wyoming, Colorado St., Utah St., and Nevada (all land-grants) are more of our peers than places such as UNI, SIU, WIU, Youngstown, etc.

[jakejc795]

You're right in that Boise State is the cash cow of that conference and that the $4 mil given to each team annually would dramatically decrease if they left the conference. That value could go down to $1 million/team/year pretty easily. However, this is still a lot of tv revenue and likely a lot more than we're making in our existing conferences.

Yes, the Big 10 and Big 12 both have the schools that we identify with most academically. However, SDSU and NDSU would probably never be taken seriously by those two conferences (for membership). The point I'm trying to make is that Wyoming, Colorado St., Utah St., and Nevada (all land-grants) are more of our peers than places such as UNI, SIU, WIU, Youngstown, etc.

I'd just as soon have the Valley drop Youngstown and WIU (or have both move to another conference) and try to entice other teams nearer our region to join.

I also have little confidence CSU would remain in MWC long term, and if they left, who's to say Nevada and Wyoming wouldn't follow.

I've mentioned multiple times that it's a mistake thinking we have to follow NDSU if/when they ascend to FBS, and Stig has mentioned vast differences in resources between teams (in football alone) that should give anyone pause. Are the Jacks decreasing those "deficiencies"? Yes, but that doesn't mean a concomitant leap to FBS is prudent

[Jackedforlife]

I was skeptical with the move to FCS but that turned out well. A move to FBS would not. I really hope the powers that be realize this.

[JackJD]

Following today’s game, I don’t have much interest in thinking about FBS. We have big challenges each Saturday in the rest of this season.

I haven’t formed a strong opinion on whether SDSU should consider moving up to FBS..still feeling a little sick about losing yesterday. This discussion however, is interesting reading..

[filbert]

Here's my absolute wild guess at how college sports might look, either next fall or transitioning to it in the next year or three:

1: A non-NCAA college football association (Let's call it the College Football Association)-CFA) consisting of the current ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-12 members, possibly with some of the more desirable schools from other conferences pulled up into this level including those schools which can afford to ante up into what will basically be the NFL's AAA minor league. The CFA will raise the requirements for membership in the club from the current NCAA D-I FBS (probably primarily more scholarships, and possibly a larger minimum average attendance requirement, maybe with an "Or, membership in a qualified CFA Conference" that won't include the MAC, CUSA, MWC, Sun Belt, etc. conferences. In non-football sports, The CFA schools would continue to participate in NCAA Division I to grab their handful of that sweet sweet NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament money--perhaps considered by the NCAA to be non-football schools like Gonzaga for purposes of NCAA classification. These are the schools that will get most of the TV revenue.

2: An NCAA-sponsored D-I football championship subdivision (let's call it oh, maybe something like Division I-A) consisting of the NCAA Division I FBS schools unable or unwilling to meet the probably increased qualification levels that will be required for membership in the CFA, and with possibly the more desirable FCS schools pulled in to back-fill the losses to the CFA. SDSU/NDSU, Montana/Montana State, and a handful of other like schools will go here. This will be the top level of NCAA-sponsored college football.

3: Current NCAA D-I FCS (let's call it Division 1 Plus -- heaven forfend we call it something like I-AA (heh)), possibly pulling in some of the more desirable current D-II schools to backfill the losses to the new D-IA. (Now, what would be kinda cool would be if between the two NCAA D-I football leagues, some kind of European-Soccer-League relegation pulled the best of the "lower" subdivision up and sent the worst of the "higher" subdivision down. Of course, this won't work because it looks like they're committed to preserving the general organization of college sports into conferences.

4: Current Division II, more or less unchanged except for those schools that can afford to move up to D-I+.

5: Possible split of Division III into two independent divisions...maybe one continuing to be non-athletic scholarship and the other being more or less D-II-Lite, offering some scholarships but fewer than the new D-II...or possibly between public and private institutions...or by some other calculus too impenetrable for mortals like us to understand.

Otherwise, the NCAA's purview will likely be trimmed back somewhat. The various divisions themselves will assume more responsibility for setting and enforcing the rules and regulations pertaining specifically to those divisions--with primary enforcement of those rules and regulations coming from the conferences, with the NCAA Divisions stepping in only when absolutely necessary.

[jakejc795]

Here's my absolute wild guess at how college sports might look, either next fall or transitioning to it in the next year or three:

1: A non-NCAA college football association (Let's call it the College Football Association)-CFA) consisting of the current ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-12 members, possibly with some of the more desirable schools from other conferences pulled up into this level including those schools which can afford to ante up into what will basically be the NFL's AAA minor league. The CFA will raise the requirements for membership in the club from the current NCAA D-I FBS (probably primarily more scholarships, and possibly a larger minimum average attendance requirement, maybe with an "Or, membership in a qualified CFA Conference" that won't include the MAC, CUSA, MWC, Sun Belt, etc. conferences. In non-football sports, The CFA schools would continue to participate in NCAA Division I to grab their handful of that sweet sweet NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament money--perhaps considered by the NCAA to be non-football schools like Gonzaga for purposes of NCAA classification. These are the schools that will get most of the TV revenue.

2: An NCAA-sponsored D-I football championship subdivision (let's call it oh, maybe something like Division I-A) consisting of the NCAA Division I FBS schools unable or unwilling to meet the probably increased qualification levels that will be required for membership in the CFA, and with possibly the more desirable FCS schools pulled in to back-fill the losses to the CFA. SDSU/NDSU, Montana/Montana State, and a handful of other like schools will go here. This will be the top level of NCAA-sponsored college football.

3: Current NCAA D-I FCS (let's call it Division 1 Plus -- heaven forfend we call it something like I-AA (heh)), possibly pulling in some of the more desirable current D-II schools to backfill the losses to the new D-IA. (Now, what would be kinda cool would be if between the two NCAA D-I football leagues, some kind of European-Soccer-League relegation pulled the best of the "lower" subdivision up and sent the worst of the "higher" subdivision down. Of course, this won't work because it looks like they're committed to preserving the general organization of college sports into conferences.

4: Current Division II, more or less unchanged except for those schools that can afford to move up to D-I+.

5: Possible split of Division III into two independent divisions...maybe one continuing to be non-athletic scholarship and the other being more or less D-II-Lite, offering some scholarships but fewer than the new D-II...or possibly between public and private institutions...or by some other calculus too impenetrable for mortals like us to understand.

Otherwise, the NCAA's purview will likely be trimmed back somewhat. The various divisions themselves will assume more responsibility for setting and enforcing the rules and regulations pertaining specifically to those divisions--with primary enforcement of those rules and regulations coming from the conferences, with the NCAA Divisions stepping in only when absolutely necessary.

I'd be interested in hearing more about whether you envision:

• An expanded pseudo-FCS-esque playoff format for Group 2 teams
  • If so, what size "field" would you have at outset?
    • Keep it at 24 but make the bulk of the teams top two conference finishers?
• Group 2 (NCAA-sponsored) institutions continuing to receive guarantee payments (after any currently scheduled "guarantee" games) or if the expanded scheduling options would ensure Group 2 teams exclusively play other Group 2 teams (with very rare exceptions)
• Group 2 bylaws formalizing universal stipulations regarding NIL and coaching salary thresholds in an attempt to stabilize Group 2 membership rather than having stratification whereby former FBS schools, and potentially FCS "elites," contribute to circumstances (e.g., conference "arms races") like we're seeing now in the FBS
• Group 2 redshirt rules to limit CFA poaching of Group 2 rosters, which would almost inevitably increase during such realignment [particularly if the CFA is framed as NFL's farm system (and receives formal/informal NFL investment)]

[filbert]

I'd be interested in hearing more about whether you envision:

• An expanded pseudo-FCS-esque playoff format for Group 2 teams
  • If so, what size "field" would you have at outset?
    • Keep it at 24 but make the bulk of the teams top two conference finishers?
• Group 2 (NCAA-sponsored) institutions continuing to receive guarantee payments (after any currently scheduled "guarantee" games) or if the expanded scheduling options would ensure Group 2 teams exclusively play other Group 2 teams (with very rare exceptions)
• Group 2 bylaws formalizing universal stipulations regarding NIL and coaching salary thresholds in an attempt to stabilize Group 2 membership rather than having stratification whereby former FBS schools, and potentially FCS "elites," contribute to circumstances (e.g., conference "arms races") like we're seeing now in the FBS
• Group 2 redshirt rules to limit CFA poaching of Group 2 rosters, which would almost inevitably increase during such realignment [particularly if the CFA is framed as NFL's farm system (and receives formal/informal NFL investment)]

Playoffs? PLAYOFFS! -- darned if I know, your guess is as good as mine. Could be 8, 12, 16, 24, 32 . . . maybe not 32. I think it would depend on how many schools sort themselves out into the various divisions. I'd guess it would wind up being between 10 and 20% of the total division membership, because that's where the D-I and D-II football championship fields as well as the D-I basketball tournament field all sit now..

Guarantee payments -- if I had to guess, they'd still exist pretty much the same as today. Maybe the big guys (continue to) cut down on the "lower-division" games but I don't think they'll eliminate them entirely. I could be very wrong, though.

Bylaws -- from what I can tell right now, each division will be given more flexibility to formulate their own bylaws to cover NIL, etc. Don't have any idea what that will mean in practice.

Redshirt rules -- I'm not sure how you can really prevent CFA poaching without placing unenforceable restrictions on the players' agreements with their current school. My comment about being the NFL's AAA farm system was intended to be flippant/smart-a**ed. Colleges are already providing the NFL with the effective equivalent of a farm system, without the NFL spending any money at all on it. Why would they (the NFL) change?

[jakejc795]

Redshirt rules -- I'm not sure how you can really prevent CFA poaching without placing unenforceable restrictions on the players' agreements with their current school. My comment about being the NFL's AAA farm system was intended to be flippant/smart-a**ed. Colleges are already providing the NFL with the effective equivalent of a farm system, without the NFL spending any money at all on it. Why would they (the NFL) change?

I agree that the rules would essentially be unenforceable in the existing governance environment, but the Group 2 teams could stipulate that they'd only play guarantee games if the CFA group abided by specific transfer restrictions. Of course, the influence of this would be dependent upon the need for CFA teams to fill schedules with Group 2 teams. Who's to say the CFA wouldn't opt to reduce regular season games and institute their own playoff model with more lucrative matchups and sponsorships, thereby eliminating the need for guarantee games.

The difference in the nature of NFL's CFA farm "yield" (and related investment) would be that it would be unemcumbered by the current NCAA structure/regulations. I'm guessing that Congress would eventually be pressured to develop some form of legislation to rein that in, but doing so could take several years. I'd argue that the Group 2 institutions and fans would be among the most vocal proponents of that because they'd stand to lose even more ticket and broadcast revenue than they do now if marquee players (and coaches, for that matter) hold out or bolt for CFA.

[filbert]

I agree that the rules would essentially be unenforceable in the existing governance environment, but the Group 2 teams could stipulate that they'd only play guarantee games if the CFA group abided by specific transfer restrictions. Of course, the influence of this would be dependent upon the need for CFA teams to fill schedules with Group 2 teams. Who's to say the CFA wouldn't opt to reduce regular season games and institute their own playoff model with more lucrative matchups and sponsorships, thereby eliminating the need for guarantee games.

The difference in the nature of NFL's CFA farm "yield" (and related investment) would be that it would be unemcumbered by the current NCAA structure/regulations. I'm guessing that Congress would eventually be pressured to develop some form of legislation to rein that in, but doing so could take several years. I'd argue that the Group 2 institutions would be among the most vocal proponents of that because they'd stand to lose even more ticket and broadcast revenue than they do now if marquee players hold out or bolt for CFA.

I think a fairly significant part of what's going on is exactly that the CFA schools want to have (and get the TV revenue from) their own football championship without any involvement from the NCAA.

It's entirely possible that the CFA will freeze out the NCAA-only divisions from guarantee games. But there are substantial arguments to be made for continuing to have maybe one a year (think: pre-season game). Anyway, the point about the potential for Congressional intervention is a good one. The CFA schools have a ***lot*** of political pull, but compared to the rest of the NCAA schools? Dunno.

It all boils down to $$$. As usual.

[gabe01]

@MattBrownEP
Hearing the CUSA candidate pool among FCS teams could expand beyond just Texas and Louisiana. Don't be surprised if Missouri State, or even potentially other FCS programs, get into the mix soon as well.

https://twitter.com/MattBrownEP/stat...HMc8Nt6QQ&s=19

[mitchell]

Here's my absolute wild guess at how college sports might look, either next fall or transitioning to it in the next year or three:

1: A non-NCAA college football association (Let's call it the College Football Association)-CFA) consisting of the current ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-12 members, possibly with some of the more desirable schools from other conferences pulled up into this level including those schools which can afford to ante up into what will basically be the NFL's AAA minor league. The CFA will raise the requirements for membership in the club from the current NCAA D-I FBS (probably primarily more scholarships, and possibly a larger minimum average attendance requirement, maybe with an "Or, membership in a qualified CFA Conference" that won't include the MAC, CUSA, MWC, Sun Belt, etc. conferences. In non-football sports, The CFA schools would continue to participate in NCAA Division I to grab their handful of that sweet sweet NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament money--perhaps considered by the NCAA to be non-football schools like Gonzaga for purposes of NCAA classification. These are the schools that will get most of the TV revenue.

2: An NCAA-sponsored D-I football championship subdivision (let's call it oh, maybe something like Division I-A) consisting of the NCAA Division I FBS schools unable or unwilling to meet the probably increased qualification levels that will be required for membership in the CFA, and with possibly the more desirable FCS schools pulled in to back-fill the losses to the CFA. SDSU/NDSU, Montana/Montana State, and a handful of other like schools will go here. This will be the top level of NCAA-sponsored college football.

3: Current NCAA D-I FCS (let's call it Division 1 Plus -- heaven forfend we call it something like I-AA (heh)), possibly pulling in some of the more desirable current D-II schools to backfill the losses to the new D-IA. (Now, what would be kinda cool would be if between the two NCAA D-I football leagues, some kind of European-Soccer-League relegation pulled the best of the "lower" subdivision up and sent the worst of the "higher" subdivision down. Of course, this won't work because it looks like they're committed to preserving the general organization of college sports into conferences.

4: Current Division II, more or less unchanged except for those schools that can afford to move up to D-I+.

5: Possible split of Division III into two independent divisions...maybe one continuing to be non-athletic scholarship and the other being more or less D-II-Lite, offering some scholarships but fewer than the new D-II...or possibly between public and private institutions...or by some other calculus too impenetrable for mortals like us to understand.

Otherwise, the NCAA's purview will likely be trimmed back somewhat. The various divisions themselves will assume more responsibility for setting and enforcing the rules and regulations pertaining specifically to those divisions--with primary enforcement of those rules and regulations coming from the conferences, with the NCAA Divisions stepping in only when absolutely necessary.

----

Thanks for sharing the details from the NCAA constitutional convention, that's the first I heard of it and it also makes me wonder why schools would be changing conferences now and not wait a few months until there's a bit more clarity. One thing that seems almost certain is that the Power 5 will break off and have more autonomy and their own division and as Filbert says, become the AAA for the NFL and likely more opportunity for players to make a bit more $. I like the breakout Filbert gives but also feel like the 'Group of 5' and top half of FCS could consolidate and bottom half of FCS could move down to DII.

If nothing changes, I wish the Ivy league, SWAC, and Pioneer were not included as 'FCS' considering they either don't join the playoffs, or in the Pioneer's case, offer scholarships. I think it muddies FCS up and confuses people. There a lot of St. Thomas alums in the cities who think they are at or close to SDSU or NDSU level because they are in the FCS.

Last point, agree with a previous poster that I think SDSU fits best with New Mexico, Colorado St, Utah St, & Wyoming as larger state institutions in the fly-over states. The travel isn't ideal but would like to see a conference of:
Colorado State, Utah State, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, Montana State, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Idaho and Nevada.

I don't know much about Univ of Wyoming, but if they can have an FBS football team and be part of a 'Group of Five' conference, why can't SDSU?

[gabe01]

I'd just as soon have the Valley drop Youngstown and WIU (or have both move to another conference) and try to entice other teams nearer our region to join.

I also have little confidence CSU would remain in MWC long term, and if they left, who's to say Nevada and Wyoming wouldn't follow.

I've mentioned multiple times that it's a mistake thinking we have to follow NDSU if/when they ascend to FBS, and Stig has mentioned vast differences in resources between teams (in football alone) that should give anyone pause. Are the Jacks decreasing those "deficiencies"? Yes, but that doesn't mean a concomitant leap to FBS is prudent

Western Illinois and Indiana State don't seem overly committed to football. Indiana State basically plays in a glorified high school stadium and Western is so far off the beaten path, they don't bring much to the Conference. At least Youngstown has a storied history, has good facilities and spend money on coaches. As mediocre as Bo Pelini was, without question he was a big name hire by a committed school who also hired Jim Tressel as President. They are also an above average draw.

If Missouri State leaves, I wouldn't be surprised to see the MVFC target SE Missouri or Eastern Illinois.

[discoDancinRabbit]

I think the move up option would be an all sports MVC deal. We do our recruiting to the east and we are already in the MVFC. Our basketball is solid and getting better. And football fits in well with the majority of the MVFC schools. If you start going west then SDSU really gets put on an island and that and the uptick in competition might not turn out so well. Not that either scenario is realistic, but the MVC situation is probably at least somewhat possible. (imo)

[ringthebells]

How strict is the NCAA in the 15000 average attendance deal? There are only a few MVFC schools who would meet that requirement. Heck, USD can't even seat 10,000 if they were ever sell a game out.

[JACKGUYII]

I think the move up option would be an all sports MVC deal. We do our recruiting to the east and we are already in the MVFC. Our basketball is solid and getting better. And football fits in well with the majority of the MVFC schools. If you start going west then SDSU really gets put on an island and that and the uptick in competition might not turn out so well. Not that either scenario is realistic, but the MVC situation is probably at least somewhat possible. (imo)

I like the idea of perhaps moving up to FBS with the MVFC, but not sure how many could afford to go to 85 scholarships. I don't believe we will be accepted into the MVC as too many private schools who don't want more "Public State Schools".