What's the next realignment domino to fall?

[MoValley John]

I'm going to fix your list by bolding the times you missed as non football schools, and pointing out which teams are FBS, partial/non scholly teams, and D2 transitionals

bold = no football
red = FBS, partial/non scholly football and hardly considered FCS by 98% of the FCS world...essentially in the FCS equivalent of the SBC or old WAC...FCSINO

Looking further, the bottom of the basketball RPI is riddled with FCS schools.
300  Niagara
301  Long Island----------No football
302  Tennessee St.
303  SE Louisiana
304 St Francis (PA) - only partial scholly football
305  Austin Peay - only partial scholly football
306  North Kentucky
307 NJIT------------No Football
308  TX San Antonio - FBS
309  Georgia Southern - FBS
310  Texas St.- FBS
311  Texas Pan Amer.
312  Ball St. - FBS
313  Liberty
314  Samford
315  Alcorn St.
316  Campbell - NON SCHOLLY FOOTBALL
317  Illinois-Chicago---------------No Football
318  Jacksonville St.
319  UC Riverside
320  SIU-Edwardsville
321  Navy - FBS
322  Prairie View A&M
323  IUPUI----------No football
324  Howard
325  Kennesaw St
326  Binghamton
327  UC Davis 7-22
328  Tenn-Martin
329  MD Baltimore Cty
330  S. Carolina St.
331  Stetson - non scholly football
332  Delaware St.
333  Maine
334  Central Arkansas
335  Cornell
336  Appalachian St. FBS
337  Longwood------------ Club Football only
338  Sacred Heart - partial scholly football
339  Furman
340  New Hampshire
341  N.C. A&T
342  Lamar - D2 transititional
343  Abilene Christian - D2 transitional
344  Houston Baptist - D2 Transitional
345  Miss. Valley St.
346  Bethune-Cookman
347  Citadel
348  Southern Utah
349  MD Eastern Shore--------No Football.... Controversy over reinstating football has been a distraction.
350  Grambling St.
351  Presbyterian

Only six teams from 300-351 lack football. 11% of the bottom. But based on your numbers, 100 not - football schools out of 351, if everything else was equal, there would be 15 schools or 28%. Navy is in the bottom 50, other than that, it's all non P-5 teams, FCS teams and a measly 6 non- football playing schools. Extract the P-5 schools from the math and the percentages of football playing schools at the bottom looks much, much worse.

Made your list accurate...it's like you didn't try.


The football schools you are left with are HBCUs, Big South, SoCon, and CAA football schools...all of which are in dog s*** athletic conferences across the board.

Soooo, we are going to ignore that I was NOT differentiating FCS, FCS or transitional schools. I was differentiating non P-5 schools that play football from D-1 schools that don't offer football. Transitional schools count, period. They wont be transitional forever and they will still play football, count them without bitching about the company non P-5 conferences keep. Furthermore, since my point was teams outside the P-5, we must subtract 65 P-5 teams from the 351 to get a clearer picture. The 65 includes Notre Dame, but no other independents. 286 teams comprise D-1 outside of the P-5. Based on your number, 100 do not play football. 100 of 286 is 35%. So 65% play football and 35% do not. By percentage, the bottom of the list is riddled with football schools. Period.

[MoValley John]

A more startling difference would be to look at the top 50 of the RPI. Count how many non P-5 teams that play football are included in the top 50, then count how many non football schools are in the top 50. You really don't have to do any math beyond knowing that 65% of all non P-5 teams play football. Add them up. Lots more non football schools in the top 50 than non P-5 teams in the top 50.

So, what we know. More non P-5 teams at the bottom of the RPI. Could be explained that there are more football teams than non football teams. But.............. There are more non basketball only teams at the top of the RPI than non P-5 football programs.

Correlation?

[DoubleJayAlum]

Wouldn't it be something that they'd get into the SBC and still not make the NCAAs because they don't win their conference tournament?

Actually, this already happened to MSU a few years ago in the Valley and could be part of the reason that some of their fans don't see that much of a difference in moving. (I don't agree with that, but I wouldn't be surprised if some MSU posters do).

I used to opine a lot about the impact of football on some of the MVC schools. I have no idea what MSU's motivations and strategies may be, but at least they are willing to spend some money.

Where I think the whole MSU to the Sunbelt discussion fails from the logic perspective is when certain posters call it a mere stepping stone move. The idea that the *last* team into the Sunbelt somehow will jump most, if not all, other Sunbelt members if an opening in a better conference presents itself seems like a Grand Canyon sized leap in logic. If you want to go to the Sunbelt, do it because you want to be a member of the Sunbelt, not because you think it is some magic step that will put you one inch away from an invite from a BCS or Football-5 conference.

[uniftw]

Correlation?

It might correlate...but there's a HUGE difference between it correlating and being the cause.


14 of the bottom 51 are non football schools.

14% of the non football schools in America are among the 50 worst teams in America..or over 1/4 the bottom 51.

from realtime RPI
I count 9 of the top 50 non football
I count 13 G5/FCS
28 P5

It would seem, for your correlation to become causation, there should be more non football schools than football (G5 or FCS) in the top 50, no?

[MoValley John]

No. Not raw numbers but percentages.

Look, I'm not Anti-football, not at all. I have relatives playing FCS ball. I do, however, understand that very few people care about non P-5 football, that getting games on Tuesday night TV isn't a function of broad support, but of lack of any other competition and that operating a football program is expensive.

Schools with football outside of the P-5 can, and sometimes do have very competitive across the board success. But that success is difficult and expensive. When you look at schools like North Dakota State or schools in New Mexico, they do not compete with instate P-5 schools. It is a great advantage. And for the most part, those successful non P-5 schools spend more money and have deeper coffers than their peers. For most non P-5 schools, budgets are tight, really tight. Football eats at these budgets and forces sometimes bad decisions and decisions that negatively effect the rest of the athletic department. And truth be told, a national championship in FCS ball has much less national impact than a S-16. The S-16 would cost less, but often basketball resources are pinched chasing a black hole in football.

My falling into this sinkhole has less to do with the viability of non P-5 football and everything with the silliness of the thought of moving to the Sun Belt as a wise move for Missouri State. On every facet, that move would be silly. It's Casey silly. How does a school that hasn't been able to compete in MVFC suddenly going to become viable in the Sun Belt? How is a move to the Sun Belt going to elevate anything in athletics at Missouri State except for their expenses?

If you can come up with those answers, I'm all ears. My guess is that if you weren't so defensive about your football position, you would probably agree with me more than we disagree. I would also guess that if rumors of UNI going to the Sun Belt were floated, you wouldn't think it was a great move for the Panthers.

[MoValley John]

1.Sponsor a minimum of 16 varsity intercollegiate sports, including football, based on the minimum sports sponsorship and scheduling requirements set forth in Bylaw 20. Sponsorship shall include a minimum six sports involving all male teams or mixed teams (males and females), and a minimum of eight varsity intercollegiate teams involving all female teams. Institutions may use up to two emerging sports to satisfy the required eight varsity intercollegiate sports involving all female teams. [Bylaw 20.9.7.1]
2. Schedule and play at least 60 percent of its football contests against members of Football Bowl Subdivision. Institutions shall schedule and play at least five regular season home contests against Football Bowl Subdivision opponents. [Bylaw 20.9.7.2]
3. Average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football contests over a rolling two-year period. [Bylaw 20.9.7.3]
4. Provide an average of at least 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of overall football grants-in-aid per year over a rolling two-year period. [Bylaw 20.9.7.4-(a)]
5. Annually offer a minimum of 200 athletics grants-in-aid or expend at least four million dollars on grants-in-aid to student-athletes in athletics programs. [Bylaw 20.9.7.4-(b)]

[MSUDuo]

Just going to throw this out there:

If we're in agreement that the MVFC is stronger than the SB, then why wouldn't MSU be able to compete?

We want to act like we get beat every week by 50 and are the doormat. We've knocked off NDSU, top 25 teams at home and on the road, and are, in general, competitive with everyone in the league. Do we compete for titles? No but no one has the past 3 years.

Double Jay, would you have said the same for WKU when they made the move? Should App State look to just stay in the SB?

[Championz]

If competing in the Sun Belt is your only goal, then more power to you. Competing in the Sun Belt will not translate into competing nationally.. EVER. If competing in the Sun Belt gives you a better chance at making the NCAA's in basketball, then more power to you. Eventually, your level of recruiting will drop off and caliber of play as well. I imagine already struggling attendance figures would drop further against the likes of Louisiana Monroe, Troy, and Georgia State, among others. But if being a one-and-done in the NCAA's suffices you and is an easier way out than the Valley, then more power to you.

I'm just trying to picture how a move to that conference is such a lucrative deal and such a prize. For some reason, MSU fans think a move to this conference and level guarantees them a spot in the P5 and relevancy. Neither one of those will ever happen. Ever.

Are P5 conferences really eyeing up that juggernaut of Missouri State and licking their chops?

[MSUDuo]

No, you guys seem to think that is our only goal. We've said repeatedly on that, even if it's in 50 years, to get to the top level you have to start somewhere. You think by winning at the FCS level we'd get to where we want to go? Then why didn't WKU and App State translate it into something bigger than the Sun Belt? Why isn't NDSU breaking down the doors?

It's about setting ourselves up. In reality, we should take it as a compliment that everyone seems to be looking out for us. But that is a choice we get to make. Springfield, SW MO, and Missouri in general have a lot to offer and could use a second FBS team to rally behind.

But you're right, 40-50 years ago I'm sure the PAC 8 was eyeing Utah as a member one day. We should just never try.

[Championz]

Now we're comparing Utah to Missouri State?

Goodness.

Try all you want, but it's a losing fight, especially now with the changing landscape of college football.