(05-06-2018 09:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 12:06 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:00 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 08:49 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 01:08 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  No, it is not easy to fund football. For FCS, you are looking at a $4 million per year at a minimum. Then there are are the facilities and the equipment. There is also the lack of revenue, which was a key reason that Long Beach State, Cal State Fullerton and Cal State Northridge dropped football. None of these schools could draw fans to games. No one in their right mind is going to start up a football program at these schools.

Exactly. This^ “No one in their right mind will start FB out there”

When the California schools dropped football? It was not of the cost of the sport. It was the school leaders mainly school Presidents and ADs who were anti-football. The only reason is mainly the anti-football people who do not realized that the money drain are the non-revenue sports. Now, those schools are really struggling to fund their programs at all levels. Without football, there is no money coming in to support those sports. Men's basketball can't sustain the other sports. The Big West is hurting because they are a one bid league. As for football? Going to a bowl game could help the schools fund the other sports. I could see in the future a Big West champ Vs. a MWC champ or second place or a low level PAC 12 team.

Those schools would be bringing in family and friends (especially student friends of the players) and not much more. Football is a money loser and at their level the publicity is simply not enough to offset the loss as the UC's and CSU schools are about as famous without football as they would be with football.

We're at the point where if you aren't on the right side of the rope or knocking on the door (or fibbing that you're actually VIP and don't have to wait in line if you follow the analogy), you're not getting in, even if you go 12-0 every year for a full decade.

None of the would-be Big West schools are state flagships, de facto or de jure. A former BW school is San Jose State, the de jure/technical flagship of the Cal State system. Look at them, they obviously have no business in D-I. If any of the LA Cal States or UC's had a program, it'd look just like them. If you aren't a Notre Dame imitator, like Liberty or BYU, or the only game in town like UTSA, you shouldn't be moving up.

Fullerton State, UC-Irvine and Long Beach State might go far if they were not in the Big West. As large the LA area is? They could have 4 or 5 FBS teams. You can't fit everybody in the only 2 FBS stadiums in town. It seems Bakersfield could sraw a large football crowd. If CSU-Bakerfield merge with Bakerfield College? They would inherit the JC's football team and the stadium that seats 20,000. I think that town is starving for big time football at a higher level.
I also think that either UC-Riverside or CSU-San Bernardino are far enough away from the two larger FBS schools to have an FBS team in the east side of the Valley.One of these schools need to go on a winning streak like Boise State if they restart or add football? The fans will show up.

No, they won’t, they never did before, all they care about is USC and UCLA. Ever lived in Ca?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-06-2018 08:23 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 09:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 12:06 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:00 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 08:49 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Exactly. This^ “No one in their right mind will start FB out there”

When the California schools dropped football? It was not of the cost of the sport. It was the school leaders mainly school Presidents and ADs who were anti-football. The only reason is mainly the anti-football people who do not realized that the money drain are the non-revenue sports. Now, those schools are really struggling to fund their programs at all levels. Without football, there is no money coming in to support those sports. Men's basketball can't sustain the other sports. The Big West is hurting because they are a one bid league. As for football? Going to a bowl game could help the schools fund the other sports. I could see in the future a Big West champ Vs. a MWC champ or second place or a low level PAC 12 team.

Those schools would be bringing in family and friends (especially student friends of the players) and not much more. Football is a money loser and at their level the publicity is simply not enough to offset the loss as the UC's and CSU schools are about as famous without football as they would be with football.

We're at the point where if you aren't on the right side of the rope or knocking on the door (or fibbing that you're actually VIP and don't have to wait in line if you follow the analogy), you're not getting in, even if you go 12-0 every year for a full decade.

None of the would-be Big West schools are state flagships, de facto or de jure. A former BW school is San Jose State, the de jure/technical flagship of the Cal State system. Look at them, they obviously have no business in D-I. If any of the LA Cal States or UC's had a program, it'd look just like them. If you aren't a Notre Dame imitator, like Liberty or BYU, or the only game in town like UTSA, you shouldn't be moving up.

Fullerton State, UC-Irvine and Long Beach State might go far if they were not in the Big West. As large the LA area is? They could have 4 or 5 FBS teams. You can't fit everybody in the only 2 FBS stadiums in town. It seems Bakersfield could sraw a large football crowd. If CSU-Bakerfield merge with Bakerfield College? They would inherit the JC's football team and the stadium that seats 20,000. I think that town is starving for big time football at a higher level.
I also think that either UC-Riverside or CSU-San Bernardino are far enough away from the two larger FBS schools to have an FBS team in the east side of the Valley.One of these schools need to go on a winning streak like Boise State if they restart or add football? The fans will show up.

If they don't win, UCLA and USC's attendance goes down, naturally. And those are two big league teams, LA people are not gonna care about small time football. Maybe LBSU, Irvine or Fullerton could build a niche. Long Beach would be a major city if it wasn't overshadowed by LA, so maybe it'd be civic pride. Irvine and Fullerton could represent OC college football. But it's not gonna happen imo.

Yep. And after a 25 year hiatus, LA has 2 NFL teams, which will end USC’s new found status they had enjoyed as an SEC like team. PAC 12 is in trouble. I see them offering Texas even with the LHN issue as they are falling behind the other big boys except the other coastal conference, the ACC.

(05-06-2018 09:37 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 09:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 12:06 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:00 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 08:49 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Exactly. This^ “No one in their right mind will start FB out there”

When the California schools dropped football? It was not of the cost of the sport. It was the school leaders mainly school Presidents and ADs who were anti-football. The only reason is mainly the anti-football people who do not realized that the money drain are the non-revenue sports. Now, those schools are really struggling to fund their programs at all levels. Without football, there is no money coming in to support those sports. Men's basketball can't sustain the other sports. The Big West is hurting because they are a one bid league. As for football? Going to a bowl game could help the schools fund the other sports. I could see in the future a Big West champ Vs. a MWC champ or second place or a low level PAC 12 team.

Those schools would be bringing in family and friends (especially student friends of the players) and not much more. Football is a money loser and at their level the publicity is simply not enough to offset the loss as the UC's and CSU schools are about as famous without football as they would be with football.

We're at the point where if you aren't on the right side of the rope or knocking on the door (or fibbing that you're actually VIP and don't have to wait in line if you follow the analogy), you're not getting in, even if you go 12-0 every year for a full decade.

None of the would-be Big West schools are state flagships, de facto or de jure. A former BW school is San Jose State, the de jure/technical flagship of the Cal State system. Look at them, they obviously have no business in D-I. If any of the LA Cal States or UC's had a program, it'd look just like them. If you aren't a Notre Dame imitator, like Liberty or BYU, or the only game in town like UTSA, you shouldn't be moving up.

Fullerton State, UC-Irvine and Long Beach State might go far if they were not in the Big West. As large the LA area is? They could have 4 or 5 FBS teams. You can't fit everybody in the only 2 FBS stadiums in town. It seems Bakersfield could sraw a large football crowd. If CSU-Bakerfield merge with Bakerfield College? They would inherit the JC's football team and the stadium that seats 20,000. I think that town is starving for big time football at a higher level.
I also think that either UC-Riverside or CSU-San Bernardino are far enough away from the two larger FBS schools to have an FBS team in the east side of the Valley.One of these schools need to go on a winning streak like Boise State if they restart or add football? The fans will show up.

No, they won’t, they never did before, all they care about is USC and UCLA. Ever lived in Ca?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

DaveySt clearly doesn’t understand California or title 9.

(05-07-2018 09:27 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 08:23 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 09:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 12:06 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:00 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  When the California schools dropped football? It was not of the cost of the sport. It was the school leaders mainly school Presidents and ADs who were anti-football. The only reason is mainly the anti-football people who do not realized that the money drain are the non-revenue sports. Now, those schools are really struggling to fund their programs at all levels. Without football, there is no money coming in to support those sports. Men's basketball can't sustain the other sports. The Big West is hurting because they are a one bid league. As for football? Going to a bowl game could help the schools fund the other sports. I could see in the future a Big West champ Vs. a MWC champ or second place or a low level PAC 12 team.

Those schools would be bringing in family and friends (especially student friends of the players) and not much more. Football is a money loser and at their level the publicity is simply not enough to offset the loss as the UC's and CSU schools are about as famous without football as they would be with football.

We're at the point where if you aren't on the right side of the rope or knocking on the door (or fibbing that you're actually VIP and don't have to wait in line if you follow the analogy), you're not getting in, even if you go 12-0 every year for a full decade.

None of the would-be Big West schools are state flagships, de facto or de jure. A former BW school is San Jose State, the de jure/technical flagship of the Cal State system. Look at them, they obviously have no business in D-I. If any of the LA Cal States or UC's had a program, it'd look just like them. If you aren't a Notre Dame imitator, like Liberty or BYU, or the only game in town like UTSA, you shouldn't be moving up.

Fullerton State, UC-Irvine and Long Beach State might go far if they were not in the Big West. As large the LA area is? They could have 4 or 5 FBS teams. You can't fit everybody in the only 2 FBS stadiums in town. It seems Bakersfield could sraw a large football crowd. If CSU-Bakerfield merge with Bakerfield College? They would inherit the JC's football team and the stadium that seats 20,000. I think that town is starving for big time football at a higher level.
I also think that either UC-Riverside or CSU-San Bernardino are far enough away from the two larger FBS schools to have an FBS team in the east side of the Valley.One of these schools need to go on a winning streak like Boise State if they restart or add football? The fans will show up.

If they don't win, UCLA and USC's attendance goes down, naturally. And those are two big league teams, LA people are not gonna care about small time football. Maybe LBSU, Irvine or Fullerton could build a niche. Long Beach would be a major city if it wasn't overshadowed by LA, so maybe it'd be civic pride. Irvine and Fullerton could represent OC college football. But it's not gonna happen imo.

Yep. And after a 25 year hiatus, LA has 2 NFL teams, which will end USC’s new found status they had enjoyed as an SEC like team. PAC 12 is in trouble. I see them offering Texas even with the LHN issue as they are falling behind the other big boys except the other coastal conference, the ACC.

USC has always had cachet. They won more national titles with an NFL team sharing the Coliseum than they did when there was no NFL in LA.

Now to be fair. Much of that time the Rams were no better than division champions. Being "excellent" tends to sway fan support in LA in my observation more than in many other places.

(04-25-2018 08:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In looking at the the schools that have moved up to FBS since 1978 the vast majority are southern schools. You have a handful of northeastern ones like UConn, UMass, Buffalo, and Akron. Out West the only move ups have been Nevada, Boise St, and a now FCS Idaho.

So what's keeping Western schools from taking the plunge? You'd think that UC Davis, Sacramento St, and Cal Poly might have given it a try or that the Montanas could have been lured up. Heck, when the WAC stretched out with Texas St and UTSA you'd of thought Lamar, Sam Houston St, or SF Austin might have given it a go.

Is it a product of the WAC dropping the ball and failing to recruit from the FCS ranks from 2005-2010? Had they gotten some of the Montana and/or California schools to bite back then maybe it wouldn't be a dead football league now.

Today the biggest impediment is the lack of a conference home and unless a whole group came up en masse right before the conclusion of the current playoff deal it's a no go. The MWC wouldn't want any of those call ups except maybe UC Davis due to academics.

Fastest growing are of the country the last 40 years has been Texas to Virginia by far.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(05-07-2018 09:27 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Yep. And after a 25 year hiatus, LA has 2 NFL teams, which will end USC’s new found status they had enjoyed as an SEC like team. PAC 12 is in trouble. I see them offering Texas even with the LHN issue as they are falling behind the other big boys except the other coastal conference, the ACC.

New found status? USC has won 11 national championships in football. How many SEC teams, outside of Alabama, have more? As for the weakness of the Pac-12, UCLA has won 116 team NCAA team titles, Stanford 115 team titles and USC 104. Oklahoma State is 4th with 51.

In the 1980's when the Rams and the Raiders were in Southern California, UCLA and USC both had success. In the 1988 season, for example, #2 ranked USC played at #6 UCLA in the Rose Bowl before over 100,741 fans. That was the Troy Aikman led UCLA team. USC won that game. The next weekend at the LA Coliseum, #2 ranked USC played #1 ranked Notre Dame before 93,829 fans in the last weekend of the regular season. Notre Dame won and I was fortunate enough to be at that game.

The Pac-12 will be fine. NFL football and college football will both do well in Southern California. USC may not win a national championship in football, but they still get top five recruiting classes each season. As does UCLA in basketball. The Pac-12 does not need Texas.

(05-06-2018 02:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 09:53 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 02:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 12:07 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-05-2018 11:20 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Yes I do. And he clearly outlined that donors were lined up to fund football but didn’t want to fund the women’s teams but that was not possible despite the assurances they had been given.

Enough sponsors to "fund the football but not to fund the required women's teams" = "not enough sponsors for the funds required to start football" ... just putting a floor on how far it fell short, to put a more positive spin on it.

Yeah that is like a business owner saying he would be profitable if he didn't have to pay the matching taxes and worker's comp and unemployment insurance. Those are just part of the cost of doing business. If you want to be Division I you have to sponsor 14 sports and comply with Title IX.

You do get Title IX has three prongs? Most schools follow prong 1 that shows you are increasing opportunities for Women. The Cal States have to follow an extreme version of Title IX that states the participants must equal the male female ratio of the school.

That participation requirement is what is unique for the Cal States. So to follow you analogy tax burden is much much higher for the Cal States than other schools.

I am quite aware of the safe harbors and also aware that colleges have been administratively informed that the safe harbors are no longer the policy of the Federal government. Now we've not seen the government take action against a school claiming protection of the safe harbors but that is still out there.

Your comment has no relevance to my point though. Regardless of the safe harbors, schools alleging they could do X but for Title IX is a common theme and it is no different than a business owner claiming his business would be profitable but for the costs of doing business.

Don't recall who it was off-hand but I remember an AD announcing he had cut wrestling because of Title IX and shortly thereafter awarded the football coach a raise roughly equivalent to the athletic department savings on wrestling.

The state choosing stricter compliance is simply a cost of doing business. You pay the cost or you don't do business.

Which exactly my point on the matter. Each school has a choice as to what level (FB or non-FB) they want to pay the cost of doing business.

(05-06-2018 08:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Humboldt's biggest problem is that there are so few Division II fb schools in the west. They've moved up or dropped football.

Yup. D2 landscape changed for them over the years as some of the PNW schools dropped FB. Humboldt State (Arcata, CA) is a rather remote location, I don't think D1 was ever in the cards for them.

(05-07-2018 09:29 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 09:37 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 09:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 12:06 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:00 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  When the California schools dropped football? It was not of the cost of the sport. It was the school leaders mainly school Presidents and ADs who were anti-football. The only reason is mainly the anti-football people who do not realized that the money drain are the non-revenue sports. Now, those schools are really struggling to fund their programs at all levels. Without football, there is no money coming in to support those sports. Men's basketball can't sustain the other sports. The Big West is hurting because they are a one bid league. As for football? Going to a bowl game could help the schools fund the other sports. I could see in the future a Big West champ Vs. a MWC champ or second place or a low level PAC 12 team.

Those schools would be bringing in family and friends (especially student friends of the players) and not much more. Football is a money loser and at their level the publicity is simply not enough to offset the loss as the UC's and CSU schools are about as famous without football as they would be with football.

We're at the point where if you aren't on the right side of the rope or knocking on the door (or fibbing that you're actually VIP and don't have to wait in line if you follow the analogy), you're not getting in, even if you go 12-0 every year for a full decade.

None of the would-be Big West schools are state flagships, de facto or de jure. A former BW school is San Jose State, the de jure/technical flagship of the Cal State system. Look at them, they obviously have no business in D-I. If any of the LA Cal States or UC's had a program, it'd look just like them. If you aren't a Notre Dame imitator, like Liberty or BYU, or the only game in town like UTSA, you shouldn't be moving up.

Fullerton State, UC-Irvine and Long Beach State might go far if they were not in the Big West. As large the LA area is? They could have 4 or 5 FBS teams. You can't fit everybody in the only 2 FBS stadiums in town. It seems Bakersfield could sraw a large football crowd. If CSU-Bakerfield merge with Bakerfield College? They would inherit the JC's football team and the stadium that seats 20,000. I think that town is starving for big time football at a higher level.
I also think that either UC-Riverside or CSU-San Bernardino are far enough away from the two larger FBS schools to have an FBS team in the east side of the Valley.One of these schools need to go on a winning streak like Boise State if they restart or add football? The fans will show up.

No, they won’t, they never did before, all they care about is USC and UCLA. Ever lived in Ca?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

DaveySt clearly doesn’t understand California or title 9.

But let’s not cherrypick his rare misses. DaveySt called Liberty to FBS Indy and Gonzaga to MW (nixed by WCC sweetheart deal that couldn’t have been accounted for). He’s had a hell of a year.

Rare misses???

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(05-08-2018 08:58 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 09:29 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 09:37 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 09:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 12:06 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Those schools would be bringing in family and friends (especially student friends of the players) and not much more. Football is a money loser and at their level the publicity is simply not enough to offset the loss as the UC's and CSU schools are about as famous without football as they would be with football.

We're at the point where if you aren't on the right side of the rope or knocking on the door (or fibbing that you're actually VIP and don't have to wait in line if you follow the analogy), you're not getting in, even if you go 12-0 every year for a full decade.

None of the would-be Big West schools are state flagships, de facto or de jure. A former BW school is San Jose State, the de jure/technical flagship of the Cal State system. Look at them, they obviously have no business in D-I. If any of the LA Cal States or UC's had a program, it'd look just like them. If you aren't a Notre Dame imitator, like Liberty or BYU, or the only game in town like UTSA, you shouldn't be moving up.

Fullerton State, UC-Irvine and Long Beach State might go far if they were not in the Big West. As large the LA area is? They could have 4 or 5 FBS teams. You can't fit everybody in the only 2 FBS stadiums in town. It seems Bakersfield could sraw a large football crowd. If CSU-Bakerfield merge with Bakerfield College? They would inherit the JC's football team and the stadium that seats 20,000. I think that town is starving for big time football at a higher level.
I also think that either UC-Riverside or CSU-San Bernardino are far enough away from the two larger FBS schools to have an FBS team in the east side of the Valley.One of these schools need to go on a winning streak like Boise State if they restart or add football? The fans will show up.

No, they won’t, they never did before, all they care about is USC and UCLA. Ever lived in Ca?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

DaveySt clearly doesn’t understand California or title 9.

But let’s not cherrypick his rare misses. DaveySt called Liberty to FBS Indy and Gonzaga to MW (nixed by WCC sweetheart deal that couldn’t have been accounted for). He’s had a hell of a year.

Good point. I'll start printing Azusa Pacific to Pac-14 shirts tomorrow. Truly we have a college sports Nostradamus on our hands here.

The entire premise of this thread is wrong, and probably based on a Southern point of view. If I take the 11 States of the confederacy (I am giving them Texas, eve though that state clearly has parts that belong to three different national regions) and add Kentucky, you find this region has 1/3rd (33.83%, 110.2M according to the 2017 US census) of the US population. But the South has 60 of 130 FBS schools, and 60 of 122 FCS schools. They should have 44 FBS and 41 FCS by population. This region skews the picture of the West greatly.

If you remove the South over abundance of schools in FBS and FCS and then look at the other three regions, things look different:

The West is 23.79% of the US (75,693,679), and you would expect 25 FBS and 22 FCS. There are 26 FBS and 12 FCS.
The Midwest is 22.14% of the US (72,110,215), and would be expect to have 23 FBS and 21 FCS schools. There are 32 FBS, and 17 FCS.
The Northeast is 20.26% of the US (65,994,526), and would expect to have 21 FBS and 19 FCS schools. There are 12 FBS, and 34 FCS.

The Northeast can perhaps be explained by smaller state schools, and heavy concentration on long established private schools, where FCS makes more sense. The Midwest is slightly above it's overall expected total, but much more heavily invested in the top division. Economics make it clear 5 or 6 of those FBS schools should probably be in FCS or D-II or perhaps Pioneer (easy to name four >$20M a year institutional transfer cases in the MAC).

The West is short about 8 FCS level schools. This however is easily explained in that if you didn't make the top level, the State budget pressures of the Western States, especially in California, Oregon and Washington, forced schools that could not play at the FBS level to simply drop football. Cal State Fullerton, Long Beach State and Pacific all folded shop around the same time around 1990 (Chico State and some D-II schools also in that same era).

Others have pointed out that California practices a form of radical egalitarianism, which is absolutist, and so you must match the % of female students to the scholarship dollars. As admission shifts female, football is under increasing pressure at schools not at the top level. How long a Central Washington (very radical administration) or Humboldt State can hold out in D-II is anyone's guess. It could put pressure on the remaining private schools in California D-II to investigate non-scholarship football.

I noticed a Southerner, I think from Arkansas, sort of poo-poo the notion as "the cost of business." Well there is a point at which the cost is so high that unless you are already well established, you cannot start. There is no Liberty equivalent likely to start football out West (nope, not even GCU, which has Basketball people running the show). The restrictions are massive, the resistance to accessing public funds is real, and even the need for student approval of fees is real. It's just different than the South.

If you really want to pick on a region that is under count for FBS then it's the Northeast (I include Delaware, Maryland, DC and West Virginia, along with NY, NJ, and New England -- basically the Mid-Atlantic north of the Potomac). 34 FCS schools, but only 12 FBS. In theory there should be several more FBS schools.

(05-09-2018 02:15 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The entire premise of this thread is wrong, and probably based on a Southern point of view. If I take the 11 States of the confederacy (I am giving them Texas, eve though that state clearly has parts that belong to three different national regions) and add Kentucky, you find this region has 1/3rd (33.83%, 110.2M according to the 2017 US census) of the US population. But the South has 60 of 130 FBS schools, and 60 of 122 FCS schools. They should have 44 FBS and 41 FCS by population. This region skews the picture of the West greatly.

If you remove the South over abundance of schools in FBS and FCS and then look at the other three regions, things look different:

The West is 23.79% of the US (75,693,679), and you would expect 25 FBS and 22 FCS. There are 26 FBS and 12 FCS.
The Midwest is 22.14% of the US (72,110,215), and would be expect to have 23 FBS and 21 FCS schools. There are 32 FBS, and 17 FCS.
The Northeast is 20.26% of the US (65,994,526), and would expect to have 21 FBS and 19 FCS schools. There are 12 FBS, and 34 FCS.

The Northeast can perhaps be explained by smaller state schools, and heavy concentration on long established private schools, where FCS makes more sense. The Midwest is slightly above it's overall expected total, but much more heavily invested in the top division. Economics make it clear 5 or 6 of those FBS schools should probably be in FCS or D-II or perhaps Pioneer (easy to name four >$20M a year institutional transfer cases in the MAC).

The West is short about 8 FCS level schools. This however is easily explained in that if you didn't make the top level, the State budget pressures of the Western States, especially in California, Oregon and Washington, forced schools that could not play at the FBS level to simply drop football. Cal State Fullerton, Long Beach State and Pacific all folded shop around the same time around 1990 (Chico State and some D-II schools also in that same era).

Others have pointed out that California practices a form of radical egalitarianism, which is absolutist, and so you must match the % of female students to the scholarship dollars. As admission shifts female, football is under increasing pressure at schools not at the top level. How long a Central Washington (very radical administration) or Humboldt State can hold out in D-II is anyone's guess. It could put pressure on the remaining private schools in California D-II to investigate non-scholarship football.

I noticed a Southerner, I think from Arkansas, sort of poo-poo the notion as "the cost of business." Well there is a point at which the cost is so high that unless you are already well established, you cannot start. There is no Liberty equivalent likely to start football out West (nope, not even GCU, which has Basketball people running the show). The restrictions are massive, the resistance to accessing public funds is real, and even the need for student approval of fees is real. It's just different than the South.

If you really want to pick on a region that is under count for FBS then it's the Northeast (I include Delaware, Maryland, DC and West Virginia, along with NY, NJ, and New England -- basically the Mid-Atlantic north of the Potomac). 34 FCS schools, but only 12 FBS. In theory there should be several more FBS schools.

Fastest growing areas are the Yakima Valley region (Central Washington is growing fast in student population), Grand Junction-Colorado (Colorado Mesa), Spokane, Washington, and several cities in California like Bakersfield, San Diego, LA East Valley region and San Francisco area. California schools like Sacramento State, UC-Riverside, CSU-Bakersfield, Sonoma State, Cal. Poly-SLO, Chico State, UC-San Diego, CSU-San Bernardino and CSU-East Bay could have FBS teams without taken away from the fans from the other P5 schools. We have to look at areas of each state that are not representative of a P5 school. Santa Clara could easily add FBS football since the stadium in the city is used for a bowl game, and the pro team 49s used it sometimes for practice. California is one of the best states to recruit football players from. Many of those high school players want to play for a college team closer to home than go out of state, and there is not enough schools to have them all.

Best states to recruit high school football players?
Florida 64 blue chips 2018
Georgia 40 blue chips 2018
California 48 blue chips 2018
Pennsylvania 12 blue chips 2018
Tennessee 11 blue chips 2018
Texas 44 blue chips 2018
Ohio 12 blue chips 2018
Louisiana 12 blue chips 2018
Alabama 10 blue chips 2018

The top 4 overall high school talents are:
Texas
Georgia
Florida
California

With so many high school players in California? There is not enough D1, D2, NAIA or JCs to have them all. They wind up going to other states nearby. California is losing all the talent to other states for football. It was something that Texas thought about which is why several schools added football, or upgrading to FBS or to FCS as we speak. Texas wants to keep the talent in the state, and also to bring money into the state from states who do not have many choices at D1 like New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas and Arkansas. The reason i read about the higher ed in California is that without football? They are losing students to other states, and losing money as well as students enrollment are dropping at schools without football. I think they want to model Texas in a way. Place new football teams to go FBS in places that have no pro teams or other FBS and D1 schools at. If they can get students back enrolling with football? I could see schools that we have mentioned in Big West and others up. As it is, schools want to have 50-50 male to female ratios. That is why schools like UTSA and UTPB added football. When you have an enrollment of over 70% female to less than 30% males? That is just some figures like some schools where like that. The schools added football actually closed the gap. I do think Long Beach State or Fullerton State might be the4 first to bring football back.

(05-09-2018 02:15 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The entire premise of this thread is wrong, and probably based on a Southern point of view. If I take the 11 States of the confederacy (I am giving them Texas, eve though that state clearly has parts that belong to three different national regions) and add Kentucky, you find this region has 1/3rd (33.83%, 110.2M according to the 2017 US census) of the US population. But the South has 60 of 130 FBS schools, and 60 of 122 FCS schools. They should have 44 FBS and 41 FCS by population. This region skews the picture of the West greatly.

If you remove the South over abundance of schools in FBS and FCS and then look at the other three regions, things look different:

The West is 23.79% of the US (75,693,679), and you would expect 25 FBS and 22 FCS. There are 26 FBS and 12 FCS.
The Midwest is 22.14% of the US (72,110,215), and would be expect to have 23 FBS and 21 FCS schools. There are 32 FBS, and 17 FCS.
The Northeast is 20.26% of the US (65,994,526), and would expect to have 21 FBS and 19 FCS schools. There are 12 FBS, and 34 FCS.

The Northeast can perhaps be explained by smaller state schools, and heavy concentration on long established private schools, where FCS makes more sense. The Midwest is slightly above it's overall expected total, but much more heavily invested in the top division. Economics make it clear 5 or 6 of those FBS schools should probably be in FCS or D-II or perhaps Pioneer (easy to name four >$20M a year institutional transfer cases in the MAC).

The West is short about 8 FCS level schools. This however is easily explained in that if you didn't make the top level, the State budget pressures of the Western States, especially in California, Oregon and Washington, forced schools that could not play at the FBS level to simply drop football. Cal State Fullerton, Long Beach State and Pacific all folded shop around the same time around 1990 (Chico State and some D-II schools also in that same era).

Others have pointed out that California practices a form of radical egalitarianism, which is absolutist, and so you must match the % of female students to the scholarship dollars. As admission shifts female, football is under increasing pressure at schools not at the top level. How long a Central Washington (very radical administration) or Humboldt State can hold out in D-II is anyone's guess. It could put pressure on the remaining private schools in California D-II to investigate non-scholarship football.

I noticed a Southerner, I think from Arkansas, sort of poo-poo the notion as "the cost of business." Well there is a point at which the cost is so high that unless you are already well established, you cannot start. There is no Liberty equivalent likely to start football out West (nope, not even GCU, which has Basketball people running the show). The restrictions are massive, the resistance to accessing public funds is real, and even the need for student approval of fees is real. It's just different than the South.

If you really want to pick on a region that is under count for FBS then it's the Northeast (I include Delaware, Maryland, DC and West Virginia, along with NY, NJ, and New England -- basically the Mid-Atlantic north of the Potomac). 34 FCS schools, but only 12 FBS. In theory there should be several more FBS schools.

You did way to much work. From 1975 to 1995 a tremendous amount of people moved to southern cities. Their kids went to college and a great number went to the local commuter university. The growth of most of the urban research universities can be atriebuted to this time period in particular. Not coincidentally the majority of these football teams were formed between 1990 and 2015, the periodic of time where the children of the migrants started going to college. It's that simple. And it's not entirely about the growth of the state. Look at the population of some cities. Atlanta Metro population in 1980 was 2M. Today it's 6.5M. I am sure if you check the numbers for cities in Florida and Texas you will find city populations that doubled or tripled.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Panama,

The West has had even more growth than the South, and except for Florida and Texas (plus greater DC and Atlanta), it has basically ground to a complete halt in the South. It's getting close to shrinking in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and slowed to a trickle in the mid-South. But the West continues to grow.

What you said about Atlanta could apply to the SF Bay Area which is about to or already has passed Chicago in market size (passed Boston some time ago). LA continues to bulge as do all the major Western cities like Denver, Phoenix, Salt Lake, Las Vegas, Seattle, and Portland. But there is no rise in schools jumping to D-I or from FCS to FBS.

The South has a unique culture. Yes the migrants of the Midwest and Northeast are higher achieving and doing better in school than native Southerners (same deal in Texas), but there is an additional factor of the townees. Those townees going to college sports (except maybe in Boise) don't exist in the West. There simply isn't the State identification with the colleges as you find in say Tennessee or Alabama (especially) in the West. Alumni and students, nothing else. You'd think UNLV at least would grow the fan base, but not happening. Another aspect of Southern culture is the "black belt" which is entirely missing in the West. States on the Pacific Coast have small African American communities, below 5% of the population, not the 20% you see in some Southern States. Similarly Hispanic and Asian communities, and immigrant communities are very large, shrinking the core traditional college sports communities to be only 1/2 to 2/3rds (depending where) of what the same population or campus size would support or attend sports in the Midwest or South.

These are the factors. It's not one over all the other, but a combination. The type of family where new students are coming from, the townee support level, the attitudes about using public funds for athletics, the ethnic make up of the region, the application of title IX by radical egalitarianism, and even water (restricts places one can build), are all factors in the situation in the West.

Atlanta added 100k people last year. What large metro in the South has ground to a halt? New Orleans maybe? Certainly not Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Orlando, Nashville and the list goes on.

As for your assertions about Hispanics and Asians and "traditional" sports communities....LOL....riiiight

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(05-09-2018 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  Atlanta added 100k people last year. What large metro in the South has ground to a halt? New Orleans maybe? Certainly not Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Orlando, Nashville and the list goes on.

As for your assertions about Hispanics and Stand and "traditional" sports communities....LOL....riiiight

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I work in municipal engineering and city planning. I've done projects in just about every city from Orlando to Charlotte (including Savannah, Charleston, Jacksonville, Myrtle Beach, Columbia, etc.) and I can say from experience that every single one of those cities was growing exponentially and showed no signs of slowing down. There might be states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana that hit a growth plateau during the recession, but people are moving to the Coastal Empire and Southern Appalachia in droves.

Bay Area still has ways to go to pass up Baltimore/DC let alone Chicago.

(05-09-2018 03:26 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  Atlanta added 100k people last year. What large metro in the South has ground to a halt? New Orleans maybe? Certainly not Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, Orlando, Nashville and the list goes on.

As for your assertions about Hispanics and Stand and "traditional" sports communities....LOL....riiiight

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I work in municipal engineering and city planning. I've done projects in just about every city from Orlando to Charlotte (including Savannah, Charleston, Jacksonville, Myrtle Beach, Columbia, etc.) and I can say from experience that every single one of those cities was growing exponentially and showed no signs of slowing down. There might be states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana that hit a growth plateau during the recession, but people are moving to the Coastal Empire and Southern Appalachia in droves.

...and Texas and Florida are not losing population

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(05-09-2018 02:15 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The entire premise of this thread is wrong, and probably based on a Southern point of view. If I take the 11 States of the confederacy (I am giving them Texas, eve though that state clearly has parts that belong to three different national regions) and add Kentucky, you find this region has 1/3rd (33.83%, 110.2M according to the 2017 US census) of the US population. But the South has 60 of 130 FBS schools, and 60 of 122 FCS schools. They should have 44 FBS and 41 FCS by population. This region skews the picture of the West greatly.

If you remove the South over abundance of schools in FBS and FCS and then look at the other three regions, things look different:

The West is 23.79% of the US (75,693,679), and you would expect 25 FBS and 22 FCS. There are 26 FBS and 12 FCS.
The Midwest is 22.14% of the US (72,110,215), and would be expect to have 23 FBS and 21 FCS schools. There are 32 FBS, and 17 FCS.
The Northeast is 20.26% of the US (65,994,526), and would expect to have 21 FBS and 19 FCS schools. There are 12 FBS, and 34 FCS.

The Northeast can perhaps be explained by smaller state schools, and heavy concentration on long established private schools, where FCS makes more sense. The Midwest is slightly above it's overall expected total, but much more heavily invested in the top division. Economics make it clear 5 or 6 of those FBS schools should probably be in FCS or D-II or perhaps Pioneer (easy to name four >$20M a year institutional transfer cases in the MAC).

The West is short about 8 FCS level schools. This however is easily explained in that if you didn't make the top level, the State budget pressures of the Western States, especially in California, Oregon and Washington, forced schools that could not play at the FBS level to simply drop football. Cal State Fullerton, Long Beach State and Pacific all folded shop around the same time around 1990 (Chico State and some D-II schools also in that same era).

Others have pointed out that California practices a form of radical egalitarianism, which is absolutist, and so you must match the % of female students to the scholarship dollars. As admission shifts female, football is under increasing pressure at schools not at the top level. How long a Central Washington (very radical administration) or Humboldt State can hold out in D-II is anyone's guess. It could put pressure on the remaining private schools in California D-II to investigate non-scholarship football.

I noticed a Southerner, I think from Arkansas, sort of poo-poo the notion as "the cost of business." Well there is a point at which the cost is so high that unless you are already well established, you cannot start. There is no Liberty equivalent likely to start football out West (nope, not even GCU, which has Basketball people running the show). The restrictions are massive, the resistance to accessing public funds is real, and even the need for student approval of fees is real. It's just different than the South.

If you really want to pick on a region that is under count for FBS then it's the Northeast (I include Delaware, Maryland, DC and West Virginia, along with NY, NJ, and New England -- basically the Mid-Atlantic north of the Potomac). 34 FCS schools, but only 12 FBS. In theory there should be several more FBS schools.

An interesting take on things. I started the thread and I'm actually a Midwesterner.

The shift in conference paradigms had a lot to do with it. When the conferences were smaller their were more seats at the table. An influx of central time zone schools in the mid 90's made it possible to briefly field 4 conferences but many of these schools departed for eastern conferences putting stress on an already fragile system.
As conferences got bigger some schools had a harder time finding chairs.

It's interesting that you bring up the Northeast. I think the reasons for their sparse FBS and FCS representation. It's a very strong region for pro sports which captures a large segment of the sports following market. The other problem is the insane number of small colleges that also splice loyalties. Just look at how many non-football schools they have at the DI level. Then take a look at the DII and DIII maps of the area--the DIII map is literally littered with dots.

I agree with you about the politics of the West Coast also being a factor. CA, OR, and WA are very liberal states and liberals tend to be less interested in football than conservatives.