QUESTION CONCERNING MOVING UP?

[RockCampAPP]

Had an interesting debate with a friend which lead to this question. Lets say for the sake of argument that ASU makes the move up. Then after a number of years of less than stellar seasons we begin to lose fan support and miss the FCS championship run. Lets say we have ten seasons of dwelling with the mediocre land of the Marshall's and Tulane's. Now the question. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A TEAM ONCE MOVED UP TO THEN REQUEST TO MOVE BACK DOWN TO THE FCS? IF SO WHAT WOULD A LIKELY PROCESS BE? Now please don't get the hackles up this is meant as a legit question. We all know that this is not going to happen ASU will be a top ten team heading for a major bowl every year..... so how about the question? Has a team ever moved back once deciding to move up?

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I would assume it would take a few years to unwind the schollys to get back to the number FCS allows. I would guess just taking a scholly away from 20-some students would not be allowed. It would certainly be in bad form.

Then one would need to find a home conference that would have us.

But I think that would be the two major items to deal with.

[t4pizza]

Yes, a school can go back to FCS from FBS. But there is a reason that it has never happened before. There are teams that most likely should return to FCS (Idaho comes to mind first and foremost, Buffalo, and others) but none of those administrations or fan bases would make the move. I would equate the mindset with the bench player on the varsity team, he/she could go down to JV and get significant playing time and improve and most likely be a better player but that never happens unless a coach forces it to happen. Same thing in FBS, even the bottom dwellers are just happy to be on the same level and take pride in being FBS. When we make the move, we won't ever go back to FCS. It just doesn't happen.

[AppGrad78]

No team has ever moved from FCS to FBS and back. However, several schools have considered it. Idaho has an on-going conversation on the topic. There are some folks at UMass who would like to see the Minutemen return to FCS. I've talked to folks from Marshall who wish they'd never left FCS, but no school official admits to that. Even Vanderbilt, although never an FCS school, once considered it.

Moving down a division is a fairly simple process from an economic standpoint. It's far more complicated from an emotional standpoint.

I predict it'll not happen in my lifetime. Too much ego involved.

[RockCampAPP]

All very good points and I appreciate the comments and the taking of the question seriously. The fact that it has never previously done speaks very loudly. Thanks for replying without all the negative crap. Just the facts sir, just the facts. Appreciated your thoughts.

[tromboneman]

Yes, a school can go back to FCS from FBS. But there is a reason that it has never happened before. There are teams that most likely should return to FCS (Idaho comes to mind first and foremost, Buffalo, and others) but none of those administrations or fan bases would make the move. I would equate the mindset with the bench player on the varsity team, he/she could go down to JV and get significant playing time and improve and most likely be a better player but that never happens unless a coach forces it to happen. Same thing in FBS, even the bottom dwellers are just happy to be on the same level and take pride in being FBS. When we make the move, we won't ever go back to FCS. It just doesn't happen.

Remember, pride goeth before the fall.

[AppinVA]

All very good points and I appreciate the comments and the taking of the question seriously. The fact that it has never previously done speaks very loudly. Thanks for replying without all the negative crap. Just the facts sir, just the facts. Appreciated your thoughts.

Winston Salem State moved from Division II to Division I, but didn't complete the transition process and returned to D-II a couple of years ago.

[cbarrier90]

One important thing to note here: in order to move down, you would have to take away scholarships and thus take away opportunities for 30 or so young men on the team who, without that scholarship might not otherwise have an opportunity to attend college. This process then negates the need for any sports added to comply with Title IX and all of a sudden they could end up on the chopping block, meaning more scholarships for athletes are lost.

Everyone wants to say that the move isn't made purely out of pride, but IMO it has more to do with the idea of being a school that ends up having to deny the educational opportunities to athletes via the scholarships.

Also have to consider the bowl revenue generated for the conference and if and how that revenue is split between teams. Five years ago Idaho could go 0-12 and still rake in a large sum of cash thanks to the bowl performances of Boise.

[Dmanuhone]

Yep, the pride thing can go both ways.

[Michael Martin]

Even Vanderbilt, although never an FCS school, once considered it.

That never happened. I grew up in Nashville and didn't miss a Vanderbilt football or basketball game from the time I was four years old to the time we moved away from Nashville.

Some writers & fans (mostly of other schools) suggested that Vandy make that move in the leanest of years for the football program (even though the basketball program was very competitive in the SEC at that time). Nobody with power at Vanderbilt ever seriously contemplated the move because it would have meant giving up a ton of bowl money and other shared revenue. No teams have left the SEC since the 1960's and I'm sure there are large segments of the fan bases at Tulane and Georgia Tech that really wish they had never left.

[AppState89]

Even Vanderbilt, although never an FCS school, once considered it.

I grew up in Nashville

Lucky you. I love Nashville....my fav town.....Ok...I know I'm off the subject line here....

[RichMtn]

I haven't been reading or posting regularly, so forgive me if this has been previously addressed, but I remain - after all this time - still uncertain as to what our best move is.

My gut feeling is that the best solution is a total reconfiguration of collegiate athletics with the net end result of creating three tiers at the top levels. Perhaps the proposed "BCS superconferences" will make this happen. Since football is the driving force behind much of college athletics decision-making, perhaps it is the driving force for the shakeup and this outline uses it as such.

1) I think there are 64-72 schools who are or are willing to be at the highest level of financial commitment, endowment and capacity to be the top echelon and be the equivalent of the "best of the BCS." These schools would and should compete for some type of national championship in football. What form that takes is unknown - maybe the 8-team playoff using bowls, with other schools with very good seasons (better than 6-6) continuing the bowl system with most of the mid-tier bowls as we know them.

2) I also believe there are a number of current BCS conference teams that cannot compete athletically long-term in football and need to be on a different level than the Big 64. I believe there are also a number of FCS schools that are "over the threshold" and could compete at this same level (and obviously, I see App as one of these). One of many interesting questions for this group is the postseason - is there a playoff a la FCS, or are there a new set of lesser bowls (many of the existing "lesser' bowls plus a few new ones?).

3) Then there are schools, many of the current FCS, some DII, that for one reason or another are not willing/capable by size, financesm endowment or other reasons to play at either level in the major sports. These schools wouod continue under the FCS format, with a playoff postseason.

Obviously there is much more to it than this. But could the superconferences, if they happen, trigger such an evolution of collete sports oriented around the money-maker sport?

I think there needs to be a new reorganization that creates a larger middle tier that can accommodate schools from a Wake Forest down to an up-and-coming current FCS. if that could occur, mcu hof the issues would be solved.

[Yosef84]

I haven't been reading or posting regularly, so forgive me if this has been previously addressed, but I remain - after all this time - still uncertain as to what our best move is.

My gut feeling is that the best solution is a total reconfiguration of collegiate athletics with the net end result of creating three tiers at the top levels. Perhaps the proposed "BCS superconferences" will make this happen. Since football is the driving force behind much of college athletics decision-making, perhaps it is the driving force for the shakeup and this outline uses it as such.

1) I think there are 64-72 schools who are or are willing to be at the highest level of financial commitment, endowment and capacity to be the top echelon and be the equivalent of the "best of the BCS." These schools would and should compete for some type of national championship in football. What form that takes is unknown - maybe the 8-team playoff using bowls, with other schools with very good seasons (better than 6-6) continuing the bowl system with most of the mid-tier bowls as we know them.

2) I also believe there are a number of current BCS conference teams that cannot compete athletically long-term in football and need to be on a different level than the Big 64. I believe there are also a number of FCS schools that are "over the threshold" and could compete at this same level (and obviously, I see App as one of these). One of many interesting questions for this group is the postseason - is there a playoff a la FCS, or are there a new set of lesser bowls (many of the existing "lesser' bowls plus a few new ones?).

3) Then there are schools, many of the current FCS, some DII, that for one reason or another are not willing/capable by size, financesm endowment or other reasons to play at either level in the major sports. These schools wouod continue under the FCS format, with a playoff postseason.

Obviously there is much more to it than this. But could the superconferences, if they happen, trigger such an evolution of collete sports oriented around the money-maker sport?

I think there needs to be a new reorganization that creates a larger middle tier that can accommodate schools from a Wake Forest down to an up-and-coming current FCS. if that could occur, mcu hof the issues would be solved.

Effectively, we already HAVE the three tiers you suggest: BCS, FBS (NonBCS), and FCS. Yes, there are teams at every level that are mis-aligned in football. That's due partly because football is rediculously expensive relative to other sports and requires a much bigger budget, therefore favoring very large (or very wealthy) programs. This situations is aggrevated by the NCAA's policy of requiring athletic programs to be classified as DI for all sports, which has caused small schools to seek higher classifications in order to compete in basketball.

The NCAA tried to address this in the late 70's when they created I-AA as a "cost containment" option so that mid-tier schools could compete for titles and post season play instead of being stacked down every year by the richer programs. The problem is that they failed in their execution. The I-AA programs were SUPPOSED to get more exposure by not being buried, including TV exposure. Unfortunately, the rules regarding TV contracts changed at almost the same time so that individual conferences could negotiate their own coverage, and I-AA was left out in the cold.

Bottom line is that the system seems to be broken. Regardless of which side you fall on, the issues are not as black & white as they are generally presented. Which decision is preferable generally depends on your individual perspective and priorities.