E-Villan wrote:Drakey wrote:What is the upside of being a low level FBS program? There must be some perceived advantage. It is my understanding that they all lose money Do they lose less money than FCS programs? i don't think they get any better publicity or coverage do they?
It seems to be their goal so I assume they would jump at it. Are there other viable candidates?
I am curious to this as well. Granted, I don't have a dog in the football fight, but I don't get the advantage of moving to low-level FBS.
I would be curious the thoughts of any Western KY fan. They built their reputation and notoriety on basketball success in a basketball crazy state. Football has always taken a backseat there and will probably always will. I don't see where Western has increased their relevancy one iota, and based on the state's love of college hoops, it could be easily argued that Murray has passed them up in the Kentucky pecking order.
I can't imagine too many alums or fans get any more excited about playing Florida Atlantic or North Texas than they would Illinois State.
FBS will always be in the conversation. It's not about the quality of it or losing money. It's all about positioning. When the fallout from the superleagues shakes out, it's FBS football that will always be the first checkmark on the application. MSU could be option 150 on that list, but they'll always be on the list because that box is checked. You either have it or you don't. It's really that simple. If you want to argue about the responsibility of it, fine, but if the school isn't doing exactly what it needs to better position itself, again quality or financial viability aside, that is the very definition of not being responsible.