The PAC/MWC Dominoes Begin to Fall

[stingthemgood]

Ya’ll are on some drugs

 

[SDHornet]

CalNow agreement made any chance for CSU’s to keep top level football very difficult. Applaud those that did, but LB never could get a stadium, and Fullerton cut FB as their stadium opened, which isn’t really FBS ready, but is a good starting point. UCSB also had an acceptable stadium at the time, but again cut football in early 70’s, and then played in lower divisions during a brief revival as non scholarship.

In new NIL and revenue world, all Big West schools are effectively lower divisions. Most can’t afford the new scholarship limits.

This is an awful take that lets weak/poor admin off the hook for not having the balls to keep football. Sac State, and all the other CA publics that still have football, faced the same issues from the CalNow fallout. It all boils down to having admin with the balls to do what it takes to keep football. Any CA public that had/has a field with 5k+ capacity was/is capable of sponsoring a football program. CalNow was just used as an out by weak/pathetic admin to cut football, I'll never believe otherwise on this topic.

I'm not buying the scholarship limit comment either. With the House Agreement, there are no longer scholarship limits but roster limits. Programs that "opt-in" can maintain a roster size of 105 players; how many of those are put on scholarship are limited by 2 factors:

1. How many their respective conference will allow. My speculation is that this was part of our decision to leave the BSC as it doesn't sound like the BSC is budging from its FCS scholarship limit of 63. You can't maximize the advantage of opting in if you are still limited by the conference you are in.
2. How many scholarships leadership is willing to fund. There are Title IX implications here, but as with CalNow, this circles back to the wherewithal of the leadership and the effort they are willing to take to be on the leading edge of the changes related to the House Agreement. Note that all NCAA sponsored sports roster limits were also adjusted, so the Title IX balance will still need to be maintained in conjunction with football scholarships.

Interesting tidbit for the "opt outs" moving forward:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1951672863972335968

 

[StockonLB]

This is an awful take that lets weak/poor admin off the hook for not having the balls to keep football. Sac State, and all the other CA publics that still have football, faced the same issues from the CalNow fallout. It all boils down to having admin with the balls to do what it takes to keep football. Any CA public that had/has a field with 5k+ capacity was/is capable of sponsoring a football program. CalNow was just used as an out by weak/pathetic admin to cut football, I'll never believe otherwise on this topic.

I'm not buying the scholarship limit comment either. With the House Agreement, there are no longer scholarship limits but roster limits. Programs that "opt-in" can maintain a roster size of 105 players; how many of those are put on scholarship are limited by 2 factors:

1. How many their respective conference will allow. My speculation is that this was part of our decision to leave the BSC as it doesn't sound like the BSC is budging from its FCS scholarship limit of 63. You can't maximize the advantage of opting in if you are still limited by the conference you are in.
2. How many scholarships leadership is willing to fund. There are Title IX implications here, but as with CalNow, this circles back to the wherewithal of the leadership and the effort they are willing to take to be on the leading edge of the changes related to the House Agreement. Note that all NCAA sponsored sports roster limits were also adjusted, so the Title IX balance will still need to be maintained in conjunction with football scholarships.

Interesting tidbit for the "opt outs" moving forward:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1951672863972335968

CalNow affected CSU’s, not the UC’s, so not all public’s were affected the same. UC’s could still use on of the three prong approaches for Title IX compliance. Most used the progress model to gradually get in compliance (or still are showing progress each year and really aren’t truly in compliance on roster or spending amount) . CSU’s had to up the roster spots or cut sports in 6 years.

CSU system agrees to equity in sports programs - UPI Archives

The California State University system Thursday announced a landmark lawsuit settlement with the National Organization of Women in which it agrees to reach...

www.upi.com

Now I agree it was a hard change that needed tough leadership. LB had no stadium. Fullerton got the stadium and played four games in theirs and still couldn’t make it work… https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-mar-08-sp-titans-football8-story.html
They needed leaders who could rally the alumni community around the idea of division 1 football. They failed.

Which is why Sac has a good chance. Their leaders are all in. They don’t care if the effort fails, they know they have to make the effort to raise athletics.

 

[SDHornet]

LBSU played in Veteran's Memorial Stadium, which wasn't theirs but nothing was preventing them from continued use until they figured out an on-campus venue. They had (and still have) the field space for a multi-sport facility if their leadership had the wherewithal to get it done.

Good article on Fullerton, thanks for posting that. They had the facility coming on-line which makes their failure more significant.

Both LBSU and Fullerton always had strong enrollments, so it has always been a matter of having the fortitude to implement an athletics fee to fund football. That's what Sac State did when they were in the same situation back in the day. My point is that if a program like ours was able to keep football alive then those universities could have figured it out. All lot of it falls on their respective leadership, or lack thereof, at the time.

 

[HornetFootballFan]

Yes. Last we checked the Las Vegas Bowl and Humanitarian Bowl (now Famous Idaho Potato) were both FBS bowl games originally sponsored by the Big West.

"But the Big West was only 1A at the time. It wasn't FBS." FBS wasn't a thing then, but fine. In the early 90s it briefly had eight full members with football and three women's team sports. Meaning, it met the future qualifications of FBS standards.

So Sac State should be allowed to join FBS because technically speaking, the Big West meets the requirement of previously being an FBS conference.

They should submit that unofficially / humorously to NCAA Charlie baker update as a way to let them know. If Charlie loves CFB then he should whisker some loop holes that he be aware of that could get us FBs. This is not over. We expect fairness

 

[Hornet25]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1952936116535083465

Five years is the window to get into FBS.

 

[jdgaucho]

They should submit that unofficially / humorously to NCAA Charlie baker update as a way to let them know. If Charlie loves CFB then he should whisker some loop holes that he be aware of that could get us FBs. This is not over. We expect fairness

Nothing to lose by stating the Big West qualifies.

 

[SDHornet]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1952936116535083465

Five years is the window to get into FBS.

Now that the clock is official, we'll see what Dr. Wood can conjure up. Expiring/renewal of TV contracts with the A4 conferences will drive realignment, as they have been for over the past decade. Here are the current TV durations for the FBS conferences:

• ACC deal through 2036
• SEC deal through 2034
• American deal through 2032
• Big 12 deal through 2031
• Pac 12 deal through 2031
• SBC deal through 2031
• B1G deal through 2030
• CUSA deal through 2029
• MAC deal through 2027
• MW deal through 2026

The recent rumors are that the SEC and B1G will carve up the ACC and take some of the more valuable members from that conference. That will of course trigger a realignment ripple effect down the line as the ACC will in turn poach American and maybe even Sub Belt members. Big 12 might make moves as well. Maybe something opens up for us out west, maybe not. Nothing really for Hornet admin to do but to continue investing in football.

The other threat to FBS/tier 2 college football membership is Federal legislation that would grant the NCAA an anti-trust exemption. If that happens then I don't think anyone from FCS gets the call. Interesting times ahead.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

So glad we thumbed the Big Sky. FCS Indy will be a lonely road.

 

[Kadeezy]

So glad we thumbed the Big Sky. FCS Indy will be a lonely road.

We'll see, we're about to be in the most unique situation in all of college football.

 

[Kadeezy]

Chat GPT Ranks the top 10 FCS Move Up Candidates:

Rank	School	FBS Wins	Power 5 Wins	Market Size	Attendance	Best Fit
1	North Dakota State	9	2	Small (state-dominant)	~18,000	MWC, MAC
2	Sacramento State	4	3	Top 20 (Sacramento DMA)	~10,000+	MWC, AAC
3	South Dakota State	1	1	Modest	~15,000	MWC
4	Montana	1	1	Statewide loyalty	~23,000+	MWC
5	UC Davis	3	0	NorCal/Bay Area	~9,000	MWC, AAC
6	Eastern Kentucky	1	0	SE U.S.	~10,000	C-USA, Sun Belt
7	Chattanooga	0	0	Near ATL/Nash	~9,000	Sun Belt
8	Tarleton State	0	0	Texas (DFW edge)	~9,000	C-USA
9	Florida A&M	~0	0	Florida	~16,000	C-USA, Sun Belt
10	Eastern Washington	3	1	Spokane area	~8,000	MWC

 

[Kadeezy]

Chat GPT Ranks the top 10 FCS Move Up Candidates:

Rank	School	FBS Wins	Power 5 Wins	Market Size	Attendance	Best Fit
1	North Dakota State	9	2	Small (state-dominant)	~18,000	MWC, MAC
2	Sacramento State	4	3	Top 20 (Sacramento DMA)	~10,000+	MWC, AAC
3	South Dakota State	1	1	Modest	~15,000	MWC
4	Montana	1	1	Statewide loyalty	~23,000+	MWC
5	UC Davis	3	0	NorCal/Bay Area	~9,000	MWC, AAC
6	Eastern Kentucky	1	0	SE U.S.	~10,000	C-USA, Sun Belt
7	Chattanooga	0	0	Near ATL/Nash	~9,000	Sun Belt
8	Tarleton State	0	0	Texas (DFW edge)	~9,000	C-USA
9	Florida A&M	~0	0	Florida	~16,000	C-USA, Sun Belt
10	Eastern Washington	3	1	Spokane area	~8,000	MWC

I asked it to consider several key factor, including program success over the last 15 years.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

We had 13,000 attendance.
E. Washington!? Credibility lost.

 

[Kadeezy]

We had 13,000 attendance.
E. Washington!? Credibility lost.

I asked it to consider success and data available since 2010. It would make sense that our attendance numbers were lower because of some of the bad years. It would also make sense that they included EWU with a Natty during that time, and multiple FBS wins.

Anyways, AI is nowhere near perfect, but I like to goof around with the prompts to see what it comes up with related to sports takes.

 

[Hornet25]

I asked it to consider success and data available since 2010. It would make sense that our attendance numbers were lower because of some of the bad years. It would also make sense that they included EWU with a Natty during that time, and multiple FBS wins.

Anyways, AI is nowhere near perfect, but I like to goof around with the prompts to see what it comes up with related to sports takes.

It's fun stuff. Keep it coming.

 

[Green Laser]

Harsh criticism of Dr. Wood on The Daily Signal You Tube Channel.

 

[Hornet25]

Criticism of Dr. Wood from the heritage foundation. What are the odds?

 

[Super Hornet 2.0]

FL A&M isn't exactly the HBCU that immediately pops into mind for a move-up to FBS. For me, the list starts and ends with Grambling State and Southern, at the very least due to name recognition. You have to have that to get teams to play you in FBS....

 

[SDHornet]

Criticism of Dr. Wood from the heritage foundation. What are the odds?

A progressive is pushing progressive ideals? In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

 

[HornetHope]

LBSU played in Veteran's Memorial Stadium, which wasn't theirs but nothing was preventing them from continued use until they figured out an on-campus venue. They had (and still have) the field space for a multi-sport facility if their leadership had the wherewithal to get it done.

Good article on Fullerton, thanks for posting that. They had the facility coming on-line which makes their failure more significant.

Both LBSU and Fullerton always had strong enrollments, so it has always been a matter of having the fortitude to implement an athletics fee to fund football. That's what Sac State did when they were in the same situation back in the day. My point is that if a program like ours was able to keep football alive then those universities could have figured it out. All lot of it falls on their respective leadership, or lack thereof, at the time.

Daughter just graduated from Fullerton, there was a major push a few years ago to bring back football, I even got one of their CSUF football thinking it would be great to see them back. It fizzled. Most of the 42k students are commuters, with most having at least an hour commute. Pipe dream. Heck their flagship sport baseball is middle of the pack Big West now. Thank God she is doing grad school at Sac.