Guess I'm bored now that college hoops season has ended, so I tracked the evolution of FBS/Div 1-A membership since 1981 using information from sports-reference.com. Here it is:

2015 130(?) +Charlotte, +12th SBC school(tbd)
2014 128 +ODU, +App.St., +Ga.Southern
2013 125 +Georgia St.
2012 124 +UMass, +Texas St., +UTSA, +So.Alabama
2011 120
2010 120
2009 120
2008 120
2007 120 +WKU
2006 119
2005 119 -FAMU
2004 120 +FAU, +FIU, +FAMU
2003 117
2002 117
2001 117 +Troy
2000 116 +USF, +UConn
1999 114 +MTSU, +Buffalo
1998 112
1997 112 +Marshall
1996 111 -Pacific, +UCF, +UAB, +Boise, +Idaho
1995 108 +UNT
1994 107 +ULM
1993 106 -CS Fullerton
1992 107 -Long Beach, +Nevada
1991 107
1990 107 +Ark.St.
1989 106 +SMU
1988 105 +La.Tech
1987 104 -SMU, -Wichita, +Akron
1986 105 -MVC(Drake, WTAMU, Ind.St., Ill.St., SIU)
1985 110
1984 110 -W&M, -Richmond
1983 112 -UNT
1982 113 -Ivy League, -SoCon, -Southland(excl. ULL), -Holy Cross, -Colgate, -ULM
1981 137 -Villanova
1980 138

1982 appears to be the year that schools and conferences had to meet the new Division 1-A requirements or move down to 1-AA.

A couple of comments. First, the current realignment period has experienced the greatest number of upgrades from FCS since the late 1990's. This is based somewhat on the need for conferences to add schools to survive. More importantly, though, it suggests that the financial benefits of FBS membership outweigh the costs for many schools. In particular, the new BCS pool of money covers the cost of additional scholarships. There will probably be other revenue streams as well, such as increased payouts for one-and-done road games vs. major schools, increased tv money, and increased donations and ticket revenue for home games. I dare say that the current group of schools moving up to FBS is one of the big winners in the current round of realignment and the new BCS system.

It keeps growing and more likely a breakaway happens among the big 6 or 7 conferences.

Some of those shown going I-AA after 1982 actually were reclassified I-AA in 1982 but many websites list them I-A after that date because of the schedule they played even though they were forced to conform to I-AA rules.

The 1982 scenario will never happen again. The new criteria was adopted after the 1981 season effective 1982 season. There was no opportunity provided to comply. The reason for it was the ABC TV money. The hope was reducing the number of schools sharing would boost income sufficiently that OU and UGA would give up their fight to break the TV monopoly. If there had been a compliance opportunity the number moving down would have been lower. Schools had built their schedules and stadiums in reliance on the rules of the day. Today people would sue.

The other reason it is unlikely is there is no similar pot of gold in football. The CFP agreement provides no new money for the have nots if the gang of 5 becomes the gang of 6 or 7. Increasing the number of FBS takes no money out of the Rich 5 pocket. That wasn't the case in 1981.

There are three potential flash points today.
1. Power. The stipend reform wasn't killed by the Sun Belt's and CUSA's of the world. It was the Horizon's and MEAC's who led that fight. At more than 340 schools and 31 or so leagues the FBS group is limited in what it can do in the NCAA power structure by the 220+ non-FBS schools.
2. NCAA Basketball Tournament. The non-FBS leagues (leagues other than the rich 5 and Gang of 5) are guaranteed 15% of the basketball unit money even if every one of them loses their first game. If they win that number climbs. Compare that to the CFP where the gang of 5 receives less than 9% of the money
3. O'Bannon. If the O'Bannon case grabs a piece of the TV revenue stream the whole thing spins apart. The Big 10, Pac-12, and probably ACC aren't going into a pro structure. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN. The SEC and Big XII you can't be so confident about them. The other leagues don't generate enough TV revenue for it to matter. If O'Bannon splits the world schools will have to choose whether to align with the leagues that are going to restructure to assure amateurism remains or those who will consider dipping a toe into professionalism.

I would remove SMU or at least put an asterick - Football suspended, instead of dropping down to 1-AA like the others

Thanks for the information. Interesting to see the timeline of evolution.

I can see that the Group of 5 may be the gatekeeper of future FBS upgrades as the Big 5 aren't losing their money with more moveups. Each moveup from FCS to FBS will be in the Group of 5 and that pie gets smaller with each move up. I don't see the Big 5 splitting away, but if the O'Bannon case forces some conferences to change then that will be the monumental shift that will happen. I'm sure there are a quite a few Big 5 universities that don't want to be classified as a professional sports association that will jeporadize some the thier tax exempt status or the educational/research money they will get from the goverment.

Villanova dropped 1-A football after the 1980 season in which they beat BC, Cincy, and Temple.

(04-16-2013 08:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Some of those shown going I-AA after 1982 actually were reclassified I-AA in 1982 but many websites list them I-A after that date because of the schedule they played even though they were forced to conform to I-AA rules.

The 1982 scenario will never happen again. The new criteria was adopted after the 1981 season effective 1982 season. There was no opportunity provided to comply. The reason for it was the ABC TV money. The hope was reducing the number of schools sharing would boost income sufficiently that OU and UGA would give up their fight to break the TV monopoly. If there had been a compliance opportunity the number moving down would have been lower. Schools had built their schedules and stadiums in reliance on the rules of the day. Today people would sue.

The other reason it is unlikely is there is no similar pot of gold in football. The CFP agreement provides no new money for the have nots if the gang of 5 becomes the gang of 6 or 7. Increasing the number of FBS takes no money out of the Rich 5 pocket. That wasn't the case in 1981.

There are three potential flash points today.
1. Power. The stipend reform wasn't killed by the Sun Belt's and CUSA's of the world. It was the Horizon's and MEAC's who led that fight. At more than 340 schools and 31 or so leagues the FBS group is limited in what it can do in the NCAA power structure by the 220+ non-FBS schools.
2. NCAA Basketball Tournament. The non-FBS leagues (leagues other than the rich 5 and Gang of 5) are guaranteed 15% of the basketball unit money even if every one of them loses their first game. If they win that number climbs. Compare that to the CFP where the gang of 5 receives less than 9% of the money
3. O'Bannon. If the O'Bannon case grabs a piece of the TV revenue stream the whole thing spins apart. The Big 10, Pac-12, and probably ACC aren't going into a pro structure. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN. The SEC and Big XII you can't be so confident about them. The other leagues don't generate enough TV revenue for it to matter. If O'Bannon splits the world schools will have to choose whether to align with the leagues that are going to restructure to assure amateurism remains or those who will consider dipping a toe into professionalism.

I don't see the Big 12 doing it either. And the SEC can't do it alone.

With regard to 1982, the NCAA record book shows 97 in 1982 and 105 in 1983-difference from the OP being the schools moved down for 1 year (mainly MAC schools) and the schools you mention like the MVC schools that were officially I-AA even if they played I-A schedules.

Just goes to show that there's too much revenue sharing going on in the BCS era.

The big schools are making a killing but it's the tiny schools that are benefiting. The schools getting left out in the cold are the non-power conference teams that have invested in their programs for 100+ years and are self-sustaining, but are now being treated the same as the johnny-come-latelies. These new programs that have jumped in the last 5 years are not self-sustaining; they're leeches who are feeding off the giants.

(04-16-2013 09:57 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Just goes to show that there's too much revenue sharing going on in the BCS era.

The big schools are making a killing but it's the tiny schools that are benefiting. The schools getting left out in the cold are the non-power conference teams that have invested in their programs for 100+ years and are self-sustaining, but are now being treated the same as the johnny-come-latelies. These new programs that have jumped in the last 5 years are not self-sustaining; they're leeches who are feeding off the giants.

Agreed...most are leeches. A few like UTSA and ODU do seem to have some fan bases. I think minimum attendance needs to get ratcheted up to 25-30k.

Do you think teams like CS Fullerton and Pacific will ever have football again?

(04-16-2013 10:57 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 09:57 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Just goes to show that there's too much revenue sharing going on in the BCS era.

The big schools are making a killing but it's the tiny schools that are benefiting. The schools getting left out in the cold are the non-power conference teams that have invested in their programs for 100+ years and are self-sustaining, but are now being treated the same as the johnny-come-latelies. These new programs that have jumped in the last 5 years are not self-sustaining; they're leeches who are feeding off the giants.

Agreed...most are leeches. A few like UTSA and ODU do seem to have some fan bases. I think minimum attendance needs to get ratcheted up to 25-30k.

Do we want to see the best teams out there, or the biggest crowds?

(04-16-2013 11:18 AM)gatek99 Wrote:  Do you think teams like CS Fullerton and Pacific will ever have football again?

Maybe if there is a FCS football conference only besides the Big Sky. They would have a few Big Sky Schools to pull from.
Cal-Poly, Sac. St, PSU, NAU, S. Utah, ...CS-Fullerton, CSULB. Perhaps a couple others. The Big Sky would shift over from E. Wash to the Dakotas, especially if the Summit may get plundered.

(04-16-2013 10:57 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Agreed...most are leeches. A few like UTSA and ODU do seem to have some fan bases. I think minimum attendance needs to get ratcheted up to 25-30k.

How about just enforce the rules we have now?

(04-16-2013 11:29 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 10:57 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Agreed...most are leeches. A few like UTSA and ODU do seem to have some fan bases. I think minimum attendance needs to get ratcheted up to 25-30k.

How about just enforce the rules we have now?

IMO the reason is the NCAA does not want lawsuits from Georgia State and Eastern Michigan when they try to force them back down to the FCS.

(04-16-2013 11:28 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:18 AM)gatek99 Wrote:  Do you think teams like CS Fullerton and Pacific will ever have football again?

Maybe if there is a FCS football conference only besides the Big Sky. They would have a few Big Sky Schools to pull from.
Cal-Poly, Sac. St, PSU, NAU, S. Utah, ...CS-Fullerton, CSULB. Perhaps a couple others.

I'd be shocked if any college or university in California that doesn't compete in FBS/FCS football now decides to do so at any point in the next 30-40 years. The budget constraints within the California State University system are strict and getting worse each year. If anything, the trend will be in the opposite direction and Cal State campuses in San Diego and Fresno will have to make some hard decisions about their athletic future.

University of the Pacific in Stockton CA is a private college with <4,000 undergraduates. The idea of Pacific adding football at even the FCS level seems all-but-impossible to me.

(04-16-2013 11:36 AM)GaSouthern Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:29 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 10:57 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Agreed...most are leeches. A few like UTSA and ODU do seem to have some fan bases. I think minimum attendance needs to get ratcheted up to 25-30k.

How about just enforce the rules we have now?

IMO the reason is the NCAA does not want lawsuits from Georgia State and Eastern Michigan when they try to force them back down to the FCS.

Within 5-6 years, Georgia State will consistently have 20,000-25,000 actual people in the stands for their home games. Wait and see.

(04-16-2013 11:49 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:36 AM)GaSouthern Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:29 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 10:57 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Agreed...most are leeches. A few like UTSA and ODU do seem to have some fan bases. I think minimum attendance needs to get ratcheted up to 25-30k.

How about just enforce the rules we have now?

IMO the reason is the NCAA does not want lawsuits from Georgia State and Eastern Michigan when they try to force them back down to the FCS.

Within 5-6 years, Georgia State will consistently have 20,000-25,000 actual people in the stands for their home games. Wait and see.

I agree, I think this new coach will turn them around in 2 or 3 seasons. If they have two more seasons of 3 wins or less they could be in trouble. I'm sure they could get one of their bit time corporate graduates to buy 5,000+ tickets just to have the required claimed attendance. As Eastern Michigan has proven, there are lots of ways around the NCAA attendance rules.

(04-16-2013 11:57 AM)GaSouthern Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:49 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Within 5-6 years, Georgia State will consistently have 20,000-25,000 actual people in the stands for their home games. Wait and see.

I agree, I think this new coach will turn them around in 2 or 3 seasons. If they have two more seasons of 3 wins or less they could be in trouble.

I agree that Georgia State has made a good hire with Trent Miles and I think he will do well there. But even if that turns out not to be the case, and even if the teams sucks for many years, I still think attendance will increase to the 16-18k level.

(04-16-2013 11:29 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 10:57 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Agreed...most are leeches. A few like UTSA and ODU do seem to have some fan bases. I think minimum attendance needs to get ratcheted up to 25-30k.

How about just enforce the rules we have now?

They do.

There are two sets of numbers. The numbers you and I look at on the NCAA website that come from box score reports which may or may not have any basis in reality.

The second set is the certified set that comes in February. The school will show they've met attendance by certifiying a clicker count of students plus tickets sold. Of course some of those tickets sold are never sold. Joe Booster gives $1000. The school will report Joe Booster bought 200 tickets at $5 and donated that to the booster club.

It is within the rules as they exist today, so yeah, they ARE enforcing the rules they have.

One of the new members of CUSA got in a crack because one year the person doing the certifying forgot to account for those sham transactions and reported the lower number (clicker count of students plus tickets sold) and they got a letter from the NCAA letting them know that if they failed to meet attendance the next year they would be reclassified. They fixed their reporting.

Someone go FOI Eastern Michigan for their certified attendance numbers submitted to the NCAA as well as any correspondence from the NCAA on the matter. Bet they've never missed on the attendance figure or at least no more than once in the past decade.

(04-16-2013 12:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:29 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 10:57 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Agreed...most are leeches. A few like UTSA and ODU do seem to have some fan bases. I think minimum attendance needs to get ratcheted up to 25-30k.

How about just enforce the rules we have now?

They do.

There are two sets of numbers. The numbers you and I look at on the NCAA website that come from box score reports which may or may not have any basis in reality.

The second set is the certified set that comes in February. The school will show they've met attendance by certifiying a clicker count of students plus tickets sold. Of course some of those tickets sold are never sold. Joe Booster gives $1000. The school will report Joe Booster bought 200 tickets at $5 and donated that to the booster club.

It is within the rules as they exist today, so yeah, they ARE enforcing the rules they have.

One of the new members of CUSA got in a crack because one year the person doing the certifying forgot to account for those sham transactions and reported the lower number (clicker count of students plus tickets sold) and they got a letter from the NCAA letting them know that if they failed to meet attendance the next year they would be reclassified. They fixed their reporting.

Someone go FOI Eastern Michigan for their certified attendance numbers submitted to the NCAA as well as any correspondence from the NCAA on the matter. Bet they've never missed on the attendance figure or at least no more than once in the past decade.

Eastern Michigan would be better off trying to get into the MVC and dropping football while using those resources on other sports.