This is one thing I HATE about the tiers of the NCAA with football, not even sports fans understand them.

(07-07-2013 10:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 09:10 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  NMSU should move down to FCS football.

What FCS conference do you propose they join, and what reason do you have to think that the conference would invite NMSU?

Going to FCS for NMSU doesn't save travel costs (like it would for Idaho).

The closest FCS schools (NAU, Abliene are still 6=8 hours away, and the rest are far, far further.

(07-08-2013 02:36 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Georgetown doesn't play D-III football - it is Division I, just without scholarships.

G'town plays football in the Patriot League, which allows schollies now - they used to allow grants-in-aid based on academic, which were schollie equivalent, but need based. G'town offers schollies in football, but not the full allotment.

And if you are DI in basketball, you can't be lower than DI in any other sport.

(07-08-2013 09:26 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 02:36 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Georgetown doesn't play D-III football - it is Division I, just without scholarships.

G'town plays football in the Patriot League, which allows schollies now - they used to allow grants-in-aid based on academic, which were schollie equivalent, but need based. G'town offers schollies in football, but not the full allotment.

And if you are DI in basketball, you can't be lower than DI in any other sport.

This is absolutely correct. I was very mistaken earlier, as I was speaking to past NCAA regulations. Georgetown was D3 from 1973-1992. However, they have been playing FCS since as they are required to house all sports at the Division I level.

As such, NMSU's only real option is FCS. As a previous poster pointed out, that is a losing proposition.

We often see calls for weak FBS schools to drop down to FCS, but NONE of them ever do. Instead, the push is from the other direction with FCS schools constantly trying to find ways to move up to FBS. Almost no one would voluntarily choose to be a FCS school at this point - if you're starting from scratch, you'd either go big (FBS) or go cheap (Division III) and you certainly wouldn't willingly drop down. FCS is turning into financial purgatory.

(07-08-2013 09:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  We often see calls for weak FBS schools to drop down to FCS, but NONE of them ever do. Instead, the push is from the other direction with FCS schools constantly trying to find ways to move up to FBS. Almost no one would voluntarily choose to be a FCS school at this point - if you're starting from scratch, you'd either go big (FBS) or go cheap (Division III) and you certainly wouldn't willingly drop down. FCS is turning into financial purgatory.

Frank, did you ever read the McKinsey report for Rice? They said the only viable financial options are FBS or D3. And the cost of D3 is not less than our current deficit in FBS.

http://professor.rice.edu/images/professor/report.pdf

(07-07-2013 09:53 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  I can tell you this much: Doug Martin is a good coach. I've met him personally, as have many other ECU fans. he has a tough job but he might be a perfect it there...

He is alright. He will help in many ways but he is a terrible game day coach. He could not get a winning season in the MAC with Kent State so I don't like his odds with NMSU. He may make them non-bowl eligible but almost respectable. NMSU might consider that an upgrade (Kent did for a little while but even Kent eventually wants you to turn the corner and win).

They would be too restricted in Division III. Wiki says,
"There are 449 member institutions (both full and provisional), making it the largest of the three divisions in the NCAA.
D-III schools range in size from fewer than 500 to over 20,000 students. D-III schools compete in athletics as a non-revenue-making, extracurricular activity for students; hence, they may not offer athletic scholarships, they may not redshirt freshmen, and they may not use endowments or funds whose primary purpose is to benefit their athletic programs. Also, under NCAA rules, D-III schools "shall not award financial aid to any student on the basis of athletics leadership, ability, participation or performance". Financial aid given to athletes must be awarded under the same procedures as for the general student body, and the proportion of total financial aid given to athletes "shall be closely equivalent to the percentage of student-athletes within the student body." As an example of how seriously the NCAA takes the scholarship ban, in 2005 MacMurray College became only the fifth school to be slapped with a "death penalty" after its men's tennis program was found to have given grants to foreign-born players."

(07-07-2013 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  Sounds like an academic who doesn't like sports. Moving to Division II would be monumentally stupid for NMSU.

Sounds like someone who has been talking to NMSU BBall fans blowing their mouth off, without understanding that dropping FB down to Division II means dropping BBall to Division II and no tickets to the Big Dance ever again.

(07-08-2013 01:49 AM)DrEvilGuapo Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 11:10 PM)RUfan03 Wrote:  I believe that a school classified as Div I in basketball (and all other sports) must also be in a Div I football conference either FBS OR FCS. Thus, NMSU could not drop down to Div II football and remain in Div I basketball. Apparently, neither the politician or writer are aware of that.

They could, however, play Division III football like Georgetown does.

Georgetown plays what is considered Div I FCS (not div III)

I'm one of those few UTEP fans who wish well to NMSU. For selfish reasons, I always thought UTEP beating a strong NMSU in FB and BB makes us look better than beating very weak NMSU teams. NMSU has UTEP and UNM (the thee Rio Grande schools) on their schedule every year in both FB and BB and that makes for good regional games for each school since all three schools are far and isolated from their respective conferences.

(07-09-2013 10:42 PM)RUfan03 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 01:49 AM)DrEvilGuapo Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 11:10 PM)RUfan03 Wrote:  I believe that a school classified as Div I in basketball (and all other sports) must also be in a Div I football conference either FBS OR FCS. Thus, NMSU could not drop down to Div II football and remain in Div I basketball. Apparently, neither the politician or writer are aware of that.

They could, however, play Division III football like Georgetown does.

Georgetown plays what is considered Div I FCS (not div III)

Technically yes.
But that's the problem with FCS, some leagues do 63 scholarships, some zero, and some somewhere in between. It's a mess.

I'm not advocating changing it necessarily, that would just result in more schools dropping football. But the Patriot, Ivy, and Pioneer don't really belong in the same division as the BSC, SoCon, MVFC, SLC, and CAA.

Do the SWAC schools use all the available scholarships?

(07-10-2013 12:45 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  I'm not advocating changing it necessarily, that would just result in more schools dropping football. But the Patriot, Ivy, and Pioneer don't really belong in the same division as the BSC, SoCon, MVFC, SLC, and CAA.

FCS/1-AA was created as a place to move the Ivies that would allow them to remain D1 when the leading conferences wanted to increase the requirements for qualification to play in FBS/1-A. The opportunity to compete in football on a non-scholarship basis is therefore fundamental to what FCS is. The fact that there is a range of competitive levels among conferences in the Division is really no different than any other division.

(07-10-2013 07:48 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 12:45 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  I'm not advocating changing it necessarily, that would just result in more schools dropping football. But the Patriot, Ivy, and Pioneer don't really belong in the same division as the BSC, SoCon, MVFC, SLC, and CAA.

FCS/1-AA was created as a place to move the Ivies that would allow them to remain D1 when the leading conferences wanted to increase the requirements for qualification to play in FBS/1-A. The opportunity to compete in football on a non-scholarship basis is therefore fundamental to what FCS is. The fact that there is a range of competitive levels among conferences in the Division is really no different than any other division.

The ivy doesn't even participate in the playoffs. It's called the FCS, no? But instead 8 is used as a catchall so schools can play D1, but not really have D1 football.

(07-10-2013 12:45 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  But that's the problem with FCS, some leagues do 63 scholarships, some zero, and some somewhere in between. It's a mess.

I'm not advocating changing it necessarily, that would just result in more schools dropping football. But the Patriot, Ivy, and Pioneer don't really belong in the same division as the BSC, SoCon, MVFC, SLC, and CAA.

The Pioneer League wanted the NCAA to add a third D-I football subdivision for football teams that don't offer athletic scholarships.

But instead of doing that, the NCAA just gave the Pioneer League an autobid in the FCS playoffs starting this year.

I like how this article opens!

I don't understand what cost savings they'd have by going FCS.

The only thing they would save money on is scholarships. At an average cost of $12k/yr (splitting the difference between in state and out of state tuition) x 22 scholarships saved (63 vs 85) that saves them roughly $265K/yr.

The facilities aren't going to be any cheaper to operate.

The travel won't be any easier at all. They are going to have to travel just as far for most FCS opponents as they would for Sun Belt opponents. Most teams don't take their full roster on road trips so it's not like the 22 scholarship savings helps much.

What they give up is enormous:

1. Guaranteed conference income of $1.5MM/yr
2. Increased "body bag" income from higher profile games (would make more as a FBS opponent than FCS)
3. Exposure (Sun Belt's exposure is limited but FCS is worse)
4. Potential bowl game revenue
5. Attendance/Program giving/etc income - While the Sun Belt ain't the SEC, it's members are likely more recognizable than the Big Sky and/or Southland, the only two conference remotely close to NMSU


The only way for NMSU to really save money is to either (A) close down the athletics program completely or (B) drop to a D3 type division where they could play almost all of their games in Texas and not have any scholarships. At D3, they wouldn't have to do anything for a decade to the facilities but keep them in good working order.

I just don't see the logic of this professor and agree that he's got a bent that he's just trying to unleash.

(07-11-2013 09:14 AM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  I don't understand what cost savings they'd have by going FCS.

The only thing they would save money on is scholarships. At an average cost of $12k/yr (splitting the difference between in state and out of state tuition) x 22 scholarships saved (63 vs 85) that saves them roughly $265K/yr.

The facilities aren't going to be any cheaper to operate.

The travel won't be any easier at all. They are going to have to travel just as far for most FCS opponents as they would for Sun Belt opponents. Most teams don't take their full roster on road trips so it's not like the 22 scholarship savings helps much.

What they give up is enormous:

1. Guaranteed conference income of $1.5MM/yr
2. Increased "body bag" income from higher profile games (would make more as a FBS opponent than FCS)
3. Exposure (Sun Belt's exposure is limited but FCS is worse)
4. Potential bowl game revenue
5. Attendance/Program giving/etc income - While the Sun Belt ain't the SEC, it's members are likely more recognizable than the Big Sky and/or Southland, the only two conference remotely close to NMSU


The only way for NMSU to really save money is to either (A) close down the athletics program completely or (B) drop to a D3 type division where they could play almost all of their games in Texas and not have any scholarships. At D3, they wouldn't have to do anything for a decade to the facilities but keep them in good working order.

I just don't see the logic of this professor and agree that he's got a bent that he's just trying to unleash.

Actually, they don't impact roster size. FCS schools have 63 scholarships, but they can spread them over the same #-85.

The impact would be reduced salaries for coaches in addition to the scholarships as well as future facilities upgrades.

(07-11-2013 09:14 AM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  I don't understand what cost savings they'd have by going FCS.

The only thing they would save money on is scholarships. At an average cost of $12k/yr (splitting the difference between in state and out of state tuition) x 22 scholarships saved (63 vs 85) that saves them roughly $265K/yr.

The facilities aren't going to be any cheaper to operate.

The travel won't be any easier at all. They are going to have to travel just as far for most FCS opponents as they would for Sun Belt opponents. Most teams don't take their full roster on road trips so it's not like the 22 scholarship savings helps much.

What they give up is enormous:

1. Guaranteed conference income of $1.5MM/yr
2. Increased "body bag" income from higher profile games (would make more as a FBS opponent than FCS)
3. Exposure (Sun Belt's exposure is limited but FCS is worse)
4. Potential bowl game revenue
5. Attendance/Program giving/etc income - While the Sun Belt ain't the SEC, it's members are likely more recognizable than the Big Sky and/or Southland, the only two conference remotely close to NMSU


The only way for NMSU to really save money is to either (A) close down the athletics program completely or (B) drop to a D3 type division where they could play almost all of their games in Texas and not have any scholarships. At D3, they wouldn't have to do anything for a decade to the facilities but keep them in good working order.

I just don't see the logic of this professor and agree that he's got a bent that he's just trying to unleash.

Not a professor, a politician. "New Mexico State Sen. Howie Morales", according to the article lined by the OP. The "logic" is that of a politician. If I was cynical, I might say that this state senator is trying to gain favor from UNM fans by pushing for NMSU to drop FBS football.

NMSU could also drop football altogether, and become a D-I school with no football, and perhaps try to join the Summit League or (re)join the Missouri Valley. Would that save them a lot of money? Probably not.

NMSU has one option for making a real difference financially and that is the MWC and that doesn't look likely.

I think the Big Sky would probably welcome them but the travel won't be reduced enough for any significant savings.

The Southland might shave some of their costs but I can't see the Southland agreeing to go that far west.

The Valley would produce no savings.

Only thing other than status quo that makes any sense is joining the Valley and dropping football OR joining the Valley and just accepting that football won't experience any big savings as an FCS. But if they can get in the Valley, staying Sun Belt football only makes more sense than playing MVFC football.

I've thought this thing over from a bunch of angles and the only "drop football" scenario I've come up with that seems plausible would be if NMSU joined the Valley for everything except football and the Sun Belt were to have a change of heart and extend a full membership offer which was rejected by NMSU that then resulted in NMSU being booted from the Sun Belt.

Maybe then NMSU would say the heck with it, but nothing else makes sense.

Otherwise