The State of FCS?

[IdaGriz01]

Gut feeling, but in terms of programs, the FCS has declined since the 90s. However, in terms of on-field performance, the FCS is much better.

I tend to agree, as noted in a previous posting:

While I would have to look more, you may be right that a lot of new teams have been lunch meat, or too many of them. However, I think the overall quality of the rest of the teams has improved generally. You and I may be measuring things differently. My measure is the number of good teams and conferences in FCS and over all strength of the better teams, not the percentage.
...

As suggested before, I totally agree that the overall playing quality of the best teams has improved greatly ... think about how many more drop-downs there are now compared to past years. In my view, the problem is that the process has only made the good teams better and mostly done nothing for the weaker programs. (What kid would want to drop down to a crappy program?)

And, while I do use the "eye test" to judge a "quality" team, I prefer long-term numbers to judge the overall quality of a program.
...

With the thought of overall improvement at the top, I got to thinking about some stat that might show such an improvement. So I wondered if the frequency of upsets of FBS teams by FCS opponents might work. After all, if the quality of FCS athletes and their teams was really better, perhaps we’d see more upsets. To prove that, of course, we’d need more numbers … which I really didn’t want to dig out for myself. But a search turned up someone who had already done the numbers … at least through 2012.

But, I have to say (if his numbers are accurate), we have not seen a dramatic increase in the relative number of upsets. Updating the list (generally 100-120 games):
2013 … 16 upsets
2014 … only 8 upsets
2015 … 9 upsets
2016 … 10 upsets in 123 games.

In fact, three things stand out from his graph and the updated stats. First, the percentage of upsets actually looked better before the big 1-AA/FCS expansion in 1993-1995. Many of those earlier years show quite a few losses by the FBS team. (That makes me a bit uneasy about the compilers methodology, BTW, since the 16 upsets in 2013 was touted as a “record” number. Perhaps “FootballGeography” was a bit shaky on who was FBS vs 1-AA back then.) The more recent numbers seem pretty reasonable.

Anyway, the second feature that stands out is how the number of such matchups dropped drastically in the 1990s. Which leads to point #3: Despite the conferences that have banned or discouraged such matchups, the number has risen pretty steadily since 1997.

Getting back to the original point: The number of upsets does not really support the notion that the overall quality of FCS football has improved. Perhaps it has ... but not enough to produce more upsets.

Beyond that, my guess -- and it’s just a guess -- is that the increased number of games played involves more weak-sister FCS teams. The good teams are still getting the same “share” of upsets, but $$$ games by weak-a** teams just add to the total of FCS losses.

 

[IdaGriz01]

I’m still “mining” my 1-AA/FCS football database, when I get a few minutes. So here’s a bit that will lead to a “profound” question. The culprit is Austin Peay State University, which sits fourth from the bottom of my DB with a winning percentage of 22.8% (68-230) since 1990.

Austin Peay claims to have fielded a football team since 1930, three years after the state of Tennessee created Austin Peay Normal School. So they have a lot of tradition. In case you’re wondering, the school is in Clarksville, Tennessee, northwest of Nashville (their campus is about forty miles from Vanderbilt). They have mostly been a member of the Ohio Valley Conference, although they spent 1997-2006 as an independent or in the Pioneer League.

Their media guide says their overall record since 1970 is 151-303-1 (33%). Even that sad record is inflated by the fact that the Governors typically played at least one NAIA or D-II opponent every season between about 1995 and 2012. Overall since 1970, the Governors have had just four winning seasons against D-I opponents. They last won a game on October 18, 2014. Their only win for the 2014 season, BTW, and they were also winless in 2013. A pretty awful football program. uke:

So the obvious question is: Why does this school even have football? Tradition is a very powerful thing, and maybe you can’t recruit students in the state of Tennessee unless you do have a team … but C’mon!

 

[NDSUSR]

I think the FCS at this point is somewhat overbloated and a shadow of what it used to be. I know it's unpopular to some but I think we should be looking to FBS/G5 before long as I feel more of the top FCS Programs will start doing the same.

Serious? You cant even compete at the FCS level and you are wanting FBS?
Whats that going to do your program? Kill it. Wake up.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Ida, amazing research. I agree with you completely because your numbers point out the obvious. The FCS has become watered down and the cream that has risen to the top is beginning to thin out. Interesting how PR disappeared once it became obvious he was losing his argument that was based off just his desire to debate despite a complete lack of substantial evidence. I also get your "resentment" about the lack of discussion on a great thread that you obviously spent a lot of time researching. I've started a couple of threads that I think are pretty interesting reads.

The first I posted in Oct of 2015 and is slightly outdated but for the most part still relevant. It discusses the success, or lack there of for all the teams that had moved up to the FBS since the split.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72079

The second is an all time top 25 for all FCS schools. It dosnt include results from last year and I've been trying to motivate myself to update it but fare warning, it's rather extensive. Hope you read them and enjoy them.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73048

Feel free to add to the comments on either thread if you have any input though an old thread bump always confuses some folks.

 

[bgbigdog]

I think the FCS at this point is somewhat overbloated and a shadow of what it used to be. I know it's unpopular to some but I think we should be looking to FBS/G5 before long as I feel more of the top FCS Programs will start doing the same.

Serious? You cant even compete at the FCS level and you are wanting FBS?
Whats that going to do your program? Kill it. Wake up.

Good question. So not competing in the FBS is better for everyone than not competing in the FCS? How a school struggling to hold on to relevance in higher education @ this level is going to right the ship by spending money it doesn't have on moving to the next level. I'm also waiting for the companion analysis that has to follow regarding the state of the FBS and how the haves (Power 5) and the have nots (everyone else) is working out, not just how well everyone who moved up is doing.. Or what might happen to the FBS if the haves decide to tell the hypocrites @ NC2A to go pound sand?

Sorry to have gotten "off topic." This was just a thread about competitiveness and how teams do or don't belong given their inability to see the forest for the trees.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Ida, amazing research. I agree with you completely because your numbers point out the obvious. The FCS has become watered down and the cream that has risen to the top is beginning to thin out. Interesting how PR disappeared once it became obvious he was losing his argument that was based off just his desire to debate despite a complete lack of substantial evidence. I also get your "resentment" about the lack of discussion on a great thread that you obviously spent a lot of time researching. I've started a couple of threads that I think are pretty interesting reads.

The first I posted in Oct of 2015 and is slightly outdated but for the most part still relevant. It discusses the success, or lack there of for all the teams that had moved up to the FBS since the split.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72079

The second is an all time top 25 for all FCS schools. It dosnt include results from last year and I've been trying to motivate myself to update it but fare warning, it's rather extensive. Hope you read them and enjoy them.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73048

Feel free to add to the comments on either thread if you have any input though an old thread bump always confuses some folks.

Jumped over and read both threads. What an amazing amount of research! (More than mine, by far.) Rather than re-up the thread, I decided to put a quick summary here. I don’t see much to change in the “top 25” assessment, and very little change in terms of the “move up” results.

The “uglies” (Charlotte, Georgia State, FIU, etc.) have mostly stayed ugly since mid-2015. Georgia State did manage a 6-6 record with a run at the end of 2015, then they lost a “consolation bowl” to San Jose State. But they were back to 3-9 in 2016.

Among the “too early to tell” teams (Old Dominion, UT-San Antonio), only ODU has a glimmer. After going 5-7 in 2015, they went 10-3 in 2016, with a win in the Bahamas Bowl. (And getting to play in the Bahamas has to be an extra plus.)

Your “pretty bad” teams with long football traditions (UMass, Buffalo, Idaho, etc.) are still pretty bad, except possibly for Arkansas State. They had pretty good records in 2015 and 2016, then split in two bowl games.

The “aren’t awful” teams with some tradition (Texas State, Middle Tennessee, Troy, etc.) have mostly continued with okay results. MTSU, for example, had decent records in 2015-2016, and split their bowl games. Some teams, however, turned bad to awful: Texas State went 5-19 for the two years. UConn managed a 6-6 season in 2015 and lost their consolation bowl to end with a losing record. Then, in 2016, they went 3-9, including a six-game losing streak to end the season. Ouch!

The “success” teams (App State, Boise State, etc.) continued to do well.

Good stuff! :thumb:

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Ida, amazing research. I agree with you completely because your numbers point out the obvious. The FCS has become watered down and the cream that has risen to the top is beginning to thin out. Interesting how PR disappeared once it became obvious he was losing his argument that was based off just his desire to debate despite a complete lack of substantial evidence. I also get your "resentment" about the lack of discussion on a great thread that you obviously spent a lot of time researching. I've started a couple of threads that I think are pretty interesting reads.

The first I posted in Oct of 2015 and is slightly outdated but for the most part still relevant. It discusses the success, or lack there of for all the teams that had moved up to the FBS since the split.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72079

The second is an all time top 25 for all FCS schools. It dosnt include results from last year and I've been trying to motivate myself to update it but fare warning, it's rather extensive. Hope you read them and enjoy them.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73048

Feel free to add to the comments on either thread if you have any input though an old thread bump always confuses some folks.

Jumped over and read both threads. What an amazing amount of research! (More than mine, by far.) Rather than re-up the thread, I decided to put a quick summary here. I don’t see much to change in the “top 25” assessment, and very little change in terms of the “move up” results.

The “uglies” (Charlotte, Georgia State, FIU, etc.) have mostly stayed ugly since mid-2015. Georgia State did manage a 6-6 record with a run at the end of 2015, then they lost a “consolation bowl” to San Jose State. But they were back to 3-9 in 2016.

Among the “too early to tell” teams (Old Dominion, UT-San Antonio), only ODU has a glimmer. After going 5-7 in 2015, they went 10-3 in 2016, with a win in the Bahamas Bowl. (And getting to play in the Bahamas has to be an extra plus.)

Your “pretty bad” teams with long football traditions (UMass, Buffalo, Idaho, etc.) are still pretty bad, except possibly for Arkansas State. They had pretty good records in 2015 and 2016, then split in two bowl games.

The “aren’t awful” teams with some tradition (Texas State, Middle Tennessee, Troy, etc.) have mostly continued with okay results. MTSU, for example, had decent records in 2015-2016, and split their bowl games. Some teams, however, turned bad to awful: Texas State went 5-19 for the two years. UConn managed a 6-6 season in 2015 and lost their consolation bowl to end with a losing record. Then, in 2016, they went 3-9, including a six-game losing streak to end the season. Ouch!

The “success” teams (App State, Boise State, etc.) continued to do well.

Good stuff! :thumb:

Nice quick research/updates. That shows that their trends are staying on course for what I was trying to conclude. A move up is only warranted if offered the perfect situation, which in our case would be the Mountain West.

Ultimately I think the answer to the trend you've noticed with the FCS being watered down (am I correct in assuming that's what your trying to portray?) is also the answer to the separation between the power 5's and non power 5's. Unfortunately the vast majority of non P5's probably wouldn't be on board, but really the NCAA can do whatever they want. Restructuring division 1 into three levels separating the haves, the have nots, and the have not quites. In 1978, there were 191 teams between 1-A and 1-AA. Now there is 254 with more teams still planning on moving up from D2. Putting the power 5's in their own level and separating the rest between two divisions would put us in a much more competitive level without having the fear of never playing for a championship again. We can still have a playoff structure and keep the lesser bowls that the non P5's normally play in as the FBS has shown. The one major hang up would be how to decide who goes to tier 2 and tier 3. I'll take on that responsibility but I doubt they would have the foresight to trust me with the task.

 

[PlayerRep]

Ida, amazing research. I agree with you completely because your numbers point out the obvious. The FCS has become watered down and the cream that has risen to the top is beginning to thin out. Interesting how PR disappeared once it became obvious he was losing his argument that was based off just his desire to debate despite a complete lack of substantial evidence. I also get your "resentment" about the lack of discussion on a great thread that you obviously spent a lot of time researching. I've started a couple of threads that I think are pretty interesting reads.

The first I posted in Oct of 2015 and is slightly outdated but for the most part still relevant. It discusses the success, or lack there of for all the teams that had moved up to the FBS since the split.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72079

The second is an all time top 25 for all FCS schools. It dosnt include results from last year and I've been trying to motivate myself to update it but fare warning, it's rather extensive. Hope you read them and enjoy them.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73048

Feel free to add to the comments on either thread if you have any input though an old thread bump always confuses some folks.

Actually, Idaho and I agreed for several important aspects. Did you miss that? In case you did, here was my main point, which Idaho agreed with. Below is what he said.

"First: I totally agree that the upper tier of FCS is as good as it’s ever been, perhaps even better."

On the other hand, Idaho provided some good info and good stats. He's seems to be right the bottom part of FCS is not very good, and perhaps even worse than it was (alto I'm not sure he provided info on how the bottom part was in the old days). And, if he's right that the bottom part is bad and worse than it was, then I would agree that all of FCS is worse than it worse. However, I was addressing the top part of FCS, which is what the Griz, Big Sky, MVC, and several other top conferences essentially play in. I loved Idaho's stats and analysis. I just misinterpreted, early on, what he was saying and addressing.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

I loved Idaho's stats and analysis. I just misinterpreted, early on, what he was saying and addressing.

PR, did you just admit you were wrong?

 

[IdaGriz01]

Ida, amazing research. I agree with you completely because your numbers point out the obvious. The FCS has become watered down and the cream that has risen to the top is beginning to thin out. ...

... On the other hand, Idaho provided some good info and good stats. He's seems to be right the bottom part of FCS is not very good, and perhaps even worse than it was (alto I'm not sure he provided info on how the bottom part was in the old days). And, if he's right that the bottom part is bad and worse than it was, then I would agree that all of FCS is worse than it was. However, I was addressing the top part of FCS, which is what the Griz, Big Sky, MVC, and several other top conferences essentially play in. I loved Idaho's stats and analysis. I just misinterpreted, early on, what he was saying and addressing.

I did make one (sort of) comparison of the "old guard" versus the new:

... Playoff participation offers an even bigger point of departure. Of the 54 add-ons, over half have not yet made the playoffs. (This despite the expanded playoff field.) Another 13 that did make the playoffs have accumulated an 0-20 record. That’s nearly 80% of the add-ons that have not won a playoff game. And among the add-ons, only NDSU has won a national championship (several, of course).

In contrast, nearly 60% of the base teams have won at least one playoff game since 1990. Also, since that time, base teams have won 12 national championships.
...

My terminology was to call the block of teams that were 1-AA in 1990 the "base teams." Of course, this does not focus on the worst of those base teams vs the worst of the add-ons. I think the overall numbers are strongly suggestive of the weakness of the add-ons, but they do not address the specific issue of who might be the "worst of the worst." [More later.]

 

[SoldierGriz]

Ida, amazing research. I agree with you completely because your numbers point out the obvious. The FCS has become watered down and the cream that has risen to the top is beginning to thin out. Interesting how PR disappeared once it became obvious he was losing his argument that was based off just his desire to debate despite a complete lack of substantial evidence. I also get your "resentment" about the lack of discussion on a great thread that you obviously spent a lot of time researching. I've started a couple of threads that I think are pretty interesting reads.

The first I posted in Oct of 2015 and is slightly outdated but for the most part still relevant. It discusses the success, or lack there of for all the teams that had moved up to the FBS since the split.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72079

The second is an all time top 25 for all FCS schools. It dosnt include results from last year and I've been trying to motivate myself to update it but fare warning, it's rather extensive. Hope you read them and enjoy them.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73048

Feel free to add to the comments on either thread if you have any input though an old thread bump always confuses some folks.

Jumped over and read both threads. What an amazing amount of research! (More than mine, by far.) Rather than re-up the thread, I decided to put a quick summary here. I don’t see much to change in the “top 25” assessment, and very little change in terms of the “move up” results.

The “uglies” (Charlotte, Georgia State, FIU, etc.) have mostly stayed ugly since mid-2015. Georgia State did manage a 6-6 record with a run at the end of 2015, then they lost a “consolation bowl” to San Jose State. But they were back to 3-9 in 2016.

Among the “too early to tell” teams (Old Dominion, UT-San Antonio), only ODU has a glimmer. After going 5-7 in 2015, they went 10-3 in 2016, with a win in the Bahamas Bowl. (And getting to play in the Bahamas has to be an extra plus.)

Your “pretty bad” teams with long football traditions (UMass, Buffalo, Idaho, etc.) are still pretty bad, except possibly for Arkansas State. They had pretty good records in 2015 and 2016, then split in two bowl games.

The “aren’t awful” teams with some tradition (Texas State, Middle Tennessee, Troy, etc.) have mostly continued with okay results. MTSU, for example, had decent records in 2015-2016, and split their bowl games. Some teams, however, turned bad to awful: Texas State went 5-19 for the two years. UConn managed a 6-6 season in 2015 and lost their consolation bowl to end with a losing record. Then, in 2016, they went 3-9, including a six-game losing streak to end the season. Ouch!

The “success” teams (App State, Boise State, etc.) continued to do well.

Good stuff! :thumb:

Just 2 small points reference UT-San Antonio in your "too early to tell" bucket. First, they might have had a FCS designation, but it was very brief an was simply to facilitate program initiation. They were FBS bound from the beginning. Second, their new coach (former LSU assistant Frank Wilson) took them to their first bowl game last year, and just had a hell of a recruiting year. Whispers that Wilson is headed back to SEC at some point. But, right now they are a team with rising stock.

 

[LowellVandal]

Bitter Vandal fan here.

Unless an university administration is willing to commit to the financial wherewithal in facilities upgrading and coaching salaries they won't be competitive over the long haul, at any level of competition. Idaho proves that perfectly. OTOH, look at yourselves, before the new stadium and hiring of Don Read. Pretty mediocre overall. Pretty successful overall since.

I've never been much of Big Sky fan and probably less so now especially with adding teams such as UNC. And sitting in the Quonset Hut to watch a game vs say Central Washington makes me,well want to upchuck.

Alot of Idaho people I know can't wait to renew the old BSC rivalries and the 1980s glory days. Well, the facilities still suck. Most people on the Palouse and in the Quad Cities can go 8 miles west to watch Pac 12 football...

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Ida, amazing research. I agree with you completely because your numbers point out the obvious. The FCS has become watered down and the cream that has risen to the top is beginning to thin out. Interesting how PR disappeared once it became obvious he was losing his argument that was based off just his desire to debate despite a complete lack of substantial evidence. I also get your "resentment" about the lack of discussion on a great thread that you obviously spent a lot of time researching. I've started a couple of threads that I think are pretty interesting reads.

The first I posted in Oct of 2015 and is slightly outdated but for the most part still relevant. It discusses the success, or lack there of for all the teams that had moved up to the FBS since the split.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72079

The second is an all time top 25 for all FCS schools. It dosnt include results from last year and I've been trying to motivate myself to update it but fare warning, it's rather extensive. Hope you read them and enjoy them.
http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73048

Feel free to add to the comments on either thread if you have any input though an old thread bump always confuses some folks.

Jumped over and read both threads. What an amazing amount of research! (More than mine, by far.) Rather than re-up the thread, I decided to put a quick summary here. I don’t see much to change in the “top 25” assessment, and very little change in terms of the “move up” results.

The “uglies” (Charlotte, Georgia State, FIU, etc.) have mostly stayed ugly since mid-2015. Georgia State did manage a 6-6 record with a run at the end of 2015, then they lost a “consolation bowl” to San Jose State. But they were back to 3-9 in 2016.

Among the “too early to tell” teams (Old Dominion, UT-San Antonio), only ODU has a glimmer. After going 5-7 in 2015, they went 10-3 in 2016, with a win in the Bahamas Bowl. (And getting to play in the Bahamas has to be an extra plus.)

Your “pretty bad” teams with long football traditions (UMass, Buffalo, Idaho, etc.) are still pretty bad, except possibly for Arkansas State. They had pretty good records in 2015 and 2016, then split in two bowl games.

The “aren’t awful” teams with some tradition (Texas State, Middle Tennessee, Troy, etc.) have mostly continued with okay results. MTSU, for example, had decent records in 2015-2016, and split their bowl games. Some teams, however, turned bad to awful: Texas State went 5-19 for the two years. UConn managed a 6-6 season in 2015 and lost their consolation bowl to end with a losing record. Then, in 2016, they went 3-9, including a six-game losing streak to end the season. Ouch!

The “success” teams (App State, Boise State, etc.) continued to do well.

Good stuff! :thumb:

Just 2 small points reference UT-San Antonio in your "too early to tell" bucket. First, they might have had a FCS designation, but it was very brief an was simply to facilitate program initiation. They were FBS bound from the beginning. Second, their new coach (former LSU assistant Frank Wilson) took them to their first bowl game last year, and just had a hell of a recruiting year. Whispers that Wilson is headed back to SEC at some point. But, right now they are a team with rising stock.

Yes Soldier, if you would have read the original post that Ida was commenting on, you would see that it was already split into two separate lists; those that have had long history's before making the jump and those that just used the FCS as a springboard.

Here's the original disclaimer-

There are two types of teams that have decided to make the jump. Some teams have had a long history of football at their school before their move and others started in the FCS specifically to move up to the FBS level. I have divided the teams into these two groups and then separated those by level of success.

Here is my original comments on UT-SA-

UT-San Antonio only played one year of football before moving to the FBS in '12 going 4-6 in 2011. They showed early signs of success in the now defunct WAC winning the con in their one and only year going 8-4 but we're bowl ineligible. The next year they moved to C-USA and have steadily gone down hill posting consecutive records of 7-5, 4-8, and now currently 1-6. They did share the con title their first year in C-USA but again were ineligible to play in the championship game. Playing in Texas, they have a chance to turn it around with all the great athletes in the region but they have some work to do.

Thank you for the update. It'll be interesting to see how long they can hang on to the current coach if he continues to succeed there and then if they can maintain and build on the success after he's gone.

 

[IdaGriz01]

[The “more later.” ]
I think we all generally think that the better FCS teams are as good or better than ever. And most seem to agree that the top-to-bottom competitive balance has been hurt by the loss of good teams to FBS and the addition of overly-weak teams to the division. But, so far, the numbers have failed to pinpoint where the weakness really lies. That is, are the add-ons totally to “blame,” or was a lot of the weakness already there before the big 1-AA expansion in the early 1990s? So let’s see.

As noted in the original post, there were 80 teams classed as 1-AA in 1990. Later, two would discontinue football but 15 would move up to FBS. Be that as it may, we can use the lower third (in W-L percentage) as a basis for comparison, that is, the bottom 27 out of the original 80. These teams had a cumulative 2,661-4,465 (37.3%) won-lost record at the 1-AA/FCS level for the period 1990-2016.

Their playoff history can also serve as another measure of how bad/good they were for that period. Of these 27, over half (14) have made the playoffs since 1990. Still, 20 of them failed to win a playoff game during the period. The other 7 bottom-tier teams have a cumulative 14-25 (36%) won-lost record in the playoffs after 1990.

So how does that stack up against the lower third of the add-on teams?

All told, 67 schools moved into the 1-AA/FCS level during 1990-2016. Of those, 10 discontinued football while three moved up to FBS. Those numbers reinforce the notion that the add-ons were weaker, as a group, than the base teams.

But let’s also look at the W-L comparisons, using the bottom third (22) of the add-ons. These teams had a cumulative 1,003-2,285 (30.5%) won-lost record at the 1-AA/FCS level for the period 1990-2016. (The number is so much smaller because many of them did not enter the division until 2000 or later.)

Only two of these 22 bottom-tier add-ons have made the playoffs and none have won a playoff game. That’s partly due to having fewer years to even have a chance, but it’s still a pretty extreme difference.

These differences in the numbers are pretty dramatic: 37.3% vs 30.5% 1-AA/FCS winning percentage, 14 of 27 making the playoffs vs 2 of 22, and 14 playoff wins vs none. Yes, I’d say that the lower tier of add-on teams is much weaker than the lower tier of the base teams.

 

[Stop_HammerTime69]

Bitter Vandal fan here.

Unless an university administration is willing to commit to the financial wherewithal in facilities upgrading and coaching salaries they won't be competitive over the long haul, at any level of competition. Idaho proves that perfectly. OTOH, look at yourselves, before the new stadium and hiring of Don Read. Pretty mediocre overall. Pretty successful overall since.

I've never been much of Big Sky fan and probably less so now especially with adding teams such as UNC. And sitting in the Quonset Hut to watch a game vs say Central Washington makes me,well want to upchuck.

Alot of Idaho people I know can't wait to renew the old BSC rivalries and the 1980s glory days. Well, the facilities still suck. Most people on the Palouse and in the Quad Cities can go 8 miles west to watch Pac 12 football...

It would definitely be nice to have some of those old games back. And you are definitely right about sitting in a quonset hut to see teams like Northern Colorado and Southern Utah is not the most exciting prospect.

I think it would be nice if the Big Sky kinda reformed at the FBS level.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Since this item does concern "the state of FCS," I decided to put it here, rather than start a new thread:
http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i=20170719145255016468304&ref=hea&tm=&src=FCS

Excerpts:

FCS AD: Big Ten eases stance on scheduling
... During seasons when a Big Ten team has only four home conference games, it will be allowed to schedule an FCS opponent.
...

I realize this is not likely to matter for BSC teams ... but you never know.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Since this item does concern "the state of FCS," I decided to put it here, rather than start a new thread:
http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i=20170719145255016468304&ref=hea&tm=&src=FCS

Excerpts:

FCS AD: Big Ten eases stance on scheduling
... During seasons when a Big Ten team has only four home conference games, it will be allowed to schedule an FCS opponent.
...

I realize this is not likely to matter for BSC teams ... but you never know.

It mattered in '06 when we played #16 Iowa for 2.5 quarters 17-7 and then gave up 24 unanswered the last 1.5 quarters along with losing a couple key starters for extended amounts of time the rest of the season.

 

[Bisonation]

Nick Saban says "See Ya FCS" and advises all Power 5 schools to only play Power 5 schools.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/07/27/nick-sabans-far-out-scheduling-plan-would-be-great-for-alabama-less-so-for-everyone-else/?utm_term=.7d958d27272d

 

[SoldierGriz]

Nick Saban says "See Ya FCS" and advises all Power 5 schools to only play Power 5 schools.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/07/27/nick-sabans-far-out-scheduling-plan-would-be-great-for-alabama-less-so-for-everyone-else/?utm_term=.7d958d27272d

Seriously, why would they want to play an FCS School? There is no upside. If they beat them, they were supposed to. If they lose....

We are more-and-more an event based society. Big time games against big time programs in big time arenas....If I am Alabama, I NEVER play an FCS opponent. Ever.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Nick Saban says "See Ya FCS" and advises all Power 5 schools to only play Power 5 schools.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/07/27/nick-sabans-far-out-scheduling-plan-would-be-great-for-alabama-less-so-for-everyone-else/?utm_term=.7d958d27272d

Seriously, why would they want to play an FCS School? There is no upside. If they beat them, they were supposed to. If they lose....

We are more-and-more an event based society. Big time games against big time programs in big time arenas....If I am Alabama, I NEVER play an FCS opponent. Ever.

But let's not overlook the following excerpt from the article:

... here are some teams Alabama has played under Saban: Chattanooga (three times!), Western Carolina (three times!), Charleston Southern and Georgia Southern [addendum: when Ga-So was still FCS]. This year’s dead meat — penciled in for the SEC’s annual late-November FCS siesta weekend — is Mercer, which returned to competitive college football just four years ago. If he truly felt like it, Saban could snap his fingers and take those games off the Tide’s schedule, but doesn’t.

So Saban can talk big all he wants, but "actions speak louder than words." The coach (and AD) isn't about to give up an almost guaranteed win, so his opposition to the "six-win rule" rings pretty hollow. And there's no reason (except possibly history) for them to pick on the FCS Southern Conference. There are any number of nearby Sun Belt and Conf-USA teams that would jump at the chance for a big money game at Alabama, and most of them wouldn't give a s**t about a reciprocal home game.