AState move up was horrible. First you had what had been a very successful I-AA (one of the better playoff winning percentages) dealing with multiple problems. Head coach had undiagnosed health problems and could barely walk (shortly after leaving had quintuple bypass) and recruiting fell off. Went independent in I-AA football to start American South in hoops. More recruiting damage. Went 10-12 coach Lacewell’s final two years with 10 losses by a TD or less. Demoralizing.

Move basically forced on the school as the NCAA at the time declared no I-AA wins would count toward bowls drying up annual games vs I-A teams. State adopted stricter financial requirements making I-AA no longer a choice without a money game. Options became I-A or drop football. Went through four coaches in five seasons with Perkins quitting 8 days before signing day.

From 1990 until NCAA mandated minimum scholarship awards in FBS starting 2004 AState never exceeded the I-AA scholarship maximum while playing I-A and even got down to 50 scholarship players one year.

Won 46 games 1990 to 2004 average of 3 per year over 15 seasons. Three one win seasons. Four two win seasons. Two 6 win seasons a 6-5 and 6-7. Next best one 5-7 season.

Forced to award 85(ish) rides won 106 the next 15 years. Average of 7. Finished under .500 only three times worst was consecutive 4-8 years. Seven of those years in the bottom five in FBS budget.

I’ve never wavered from my belief that AState did nearly everything wrong. Missed the chance to move while playing good football then moved without increasing the budget by any notable amount for years.

But for being forced to start giving out the full load of scholarships and having to play 5 of 11 games at home the program would have been dropped within another 10 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-13-2020 04:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  Buffalo. They were totally unready. Probably did permanent damage. Should have waited a couple more years.

Buffalo *couldn't* wait. At the time, UB was in the old Mid-Continent Conference (now Summit), which was a "we'll take anyone" conference with members spread all over the place. UB applied for membership in the old North Atlantic Conference (now America East) but was rejected because Buffalo is too far away from New England (take note, all you realignment freaks who love to put UB in an east coast conference).

So UB had to take a life preserver from whoever offered one. UB actually got lucky the MAC wanted them. The MAC requires less travel than any other conference would (seriously, look at a map if you don't know where Buffalo is).

The problem with football was UB administrators had no idea what it took to be successful in I-A. UB had some success in I-AA and thought that was enough to be competitive in the MAC. They were wrong.

I think the answer everyone is looking for here is Idaho, for obvious reasons.

(04-13-2020 06:47 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 05:01 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Didn't FAMU try moving up and it completely blew up in their face to where they went back down after one season?

Idaho's was pretty bungled considering they had a great I-AA program for years but seemingly didn't do anything to compete once they moved up.

UMass is magnified by their shaky conference affiliation.

FAMU was a NCAA reason wasn't it? They basically at the time had D1-A talent transfer to FAMU. Moving to D1-A forced the players to sit out a year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnatio...ke-gaither

That bad year they had a President change and cancelled the move. The MEAC also want all sports or no sports.

In an interesting turn of events, Willie Simmons–their would-be starting QB–is now their head coach.

(04-14-2020 07:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think the answer everyone is looking for here is Idaho, for obvious reasons.

Disagree. Idaho did just fine with their move. Won Big West in 1998 and beat Southern Miss in the Tater Bowl.

The administration never built on any success achieved and their geography meant they should have been a program set on being too good to ignore instead of skimping.

(04-14-2020 09:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 07:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think the answer everyone is looking for here is Idaho, for obvious reasons.

Disagree. Idaho did just fine with their move. Won Big West in 1998 and beat Southern Miss in the Tater Bowl.

The administration never built on any success achieved and their geography meant they should have been a program set on being too good to ignore instead of skimping.

Isn't that part of it? They failed, they gone.

(04-14-2020 07:29 AM)zibby Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 04:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  Buffalo. They were totally unready. Probably did permanent damage. Should have waited a couple more years.

Buffalo *couldn't* wait. At the time, UB was in the old Mid-Continent Conference (now Summit), which was a "we'll take anyone" conference with members spread all over the place. UB applied for membership in the old North Atlantic Conference (now America East) but was rejected because Buffalo is too far away from New England (take note, all you realignment freaks who love to put UB in an east coast conference).

So UB had to take a life preserver from whoever offered one. UB actually got lucky the MAC wanted them. The MAC requires less travel than any other conference would (seriously, look at a map if you don't know where Buffalo is).

The problem with football was UB administrators had no idea what it took to be successful in I-A. UB had some success in I-AA and thought that was enough to be competitive in the MAC. They were wrong.

UB could have delayed full football membership. MAC could have gotten a waiver.

Idaho had some very rough years in FBS. Having their conference pulled out from under them twice (Big West, WAC) didn’t do much to build stability and lasting success. If they had gotten into the MWC their FBS program might have survived as a cellar dweller but when faced with no other options, going back to FBS was the right move.

I think UMass is and will continue to be a mess. The recruiting isn’t there and there is no stable conference home for them. Unless the ranks of the independents swell they will struggle to put together schedules.

Don’t get too excited about the Liberty program yet. They went bowling last year in account of scheduling some of the very worst that FBS has to offer.

As far as modern, 4th generation (2010-2019) move ups go App St and Georgia Southern have done very well.

The programs at ODU, Charlotte, UTSA, GA St, and USA all seem pretty interchangeable. They’ve all had their highs and lows.

Texas St sticks out to me as the poor performer of that class.

CCU and Liberty are both incomplete works in progress and it remains to be seen what trajectory they are on.

(04-14-2020 07:29 AM)zibby Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 04:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  Buffalo. They were totally unready. Probably did permanent damage. Should have waited a couple more years.

Buffalo *couldn't* wait. At the time, UB was in the old Mid-Continent Conference (now Summit), which was a "we'll take anyone" conference with members spread all over the place. UB applied for membership in the old North Atlantic Conference (now America East) but was rejected because Buffalo is too far away from New England (take note, all you realignment freaks who love to put UB in an east coast conference).

So UB had to take a life preserver from whoever offered one. UB actually got lucky the MAC wanted them. The MAC requires less travel than any other conference would (seriously, look at a map if you don't know where Buffalo is).

The problem with football was UB administrators had no idea what it took to be successful in I-A. UB had some success in I-AA and thought that was enough to be competitive in the MAC. They were wrong.

It always surprises me how often people seem to act like Buffalo is a far outlier in the MAC. It is on a great lake (the MAC is more a great lakes conference if you want to be accurate than just midwest since midwest is a bit more broad and great lakes currently fits like a glove as all current universities are in states that border a great lake) and is not a bad drive from a number of MAC universities. People seem to treat it like Buffalo is on Long Island rather than in Buffalo.

Speaking of which make note that Buffalo is closer to Kent State and Akron (around 3.5 hours) than it is from SUNY Albany (4.5 hours) or SUNY Stony Brook (nearly 8 hours) and is about the same time as going to SUNY Binghamton (3 hours 20 minutes). Also closer than the University of Connecticut (6.5 hours) or Temple (6 hours). Buffalo can get to most of the eastern division of the MAC as it can get to the closest FBS schools outside of the MAC.

Buffalo is in the best conference geographically as it can be if it wants FBS football.

(04-14-2020 01:05 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 09:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 07:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think the answer everyone is looking for here is Idaho, for obvious reasons.

Disagree. Idaho did just fine with their move. Won Big West in 1998 and beat Southern Miss in the Tater Bowl.

The administration never built on any success achieved and their geography meant they should have been a program set on being too good to ignore instead of skimping.

Isn't that part of it? They failed, they gone.

Idaho failure required losing a conference option in the west in addition to not capitalizing on early success.

The Idaho launch was fine so doesn’t belong in a discussion of worst launches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I place Idaho in the “had a promising start and then turned into a dumpster fire” category.

It was nice that they got to go out on a high mark with the bowl win.

Take my upvote

(04-14-2020 01:23 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The programs at ODU, Charlotte, UTSA, GA St, and USA all seem pretty interchangeable. They’ve all had their highs and lows.

Texas St sticks out to me as the poor performer of that class.

CCU and Liberty are both incomplete works in progress and it remains to be seen what trajectory they are on.

CCU, good for them if they can win and sustain at the FBS level, and I'm glad they were able to get around and over the blockage in SoCon and CAA/F, but, it wouldn't surprise me if they were bad for a long time. It goes back to the readiness thing in their selection, and the stadium/facility matter. CCU's upside was its growth and location. Football did well for where it was in the FCS landscape, but, it wasn't like Big South was a power player in the sport (it could at least send more than one team to the playoff, though).

As for a historical dog? UMass. Akron. I agree that Texas State isn't showing well. Two of the first three seasons, they were .500 or better, but it's been pretty bad ever since.

I go by on the field performances. UMass. have a better on field performance in their losses than compare to Georgia State and Charlotte. That is why I would not called them the worst.

(04-14-2020 10:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 01:23 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The programs at ODU, Charlotte, UTSA, GA St, and USA all seem pretty interchangeable. They’ve all had their highs and lows.

Texas St sticks out to me as the poor performer of that class.

CCU and Liberty are both incomplete works in progress and it remains to be seen what trajectory they are on.

CCU, good for them if they can win and sustain at the FBS level, and I'm glad they were able to get around and over the blockage in SoCon and CAA/F, but, it wouldn't surprise me if they were bad for a long time. It goes back to the readiness thing in their selection, and the stadium/facility matter. CCU's upside was its growth and location. Football did well for where it was in the FCS landscape, but, it wasn't like Big South was a power player in the sport (it could at least send more than one team to the playoff, though).

As for a historical dog? UMass. Akron. I agree that Texas State isn't showing well. Two of the first three seasons, they were .500 or better, but it's been pretty bad ever since.

I have a feeling that CCU is going to take a lot of lumps. App St and GA Southern are well positioned to dominate SBC East. GA St could too with the right coach.

CCU got a bad deal in FCS with conference’s giving them the black ball. It’s too bad. I think the size of that school is very well suited for a great FCS program but as an FBS program I think they will always struggle against older and richer programs.

Texas St is feeling similar pains in a West dominated by the established Ark St and ULL programs.

(04-14-2020 03:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 01:05 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 09:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 07:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think the answer everyone is looking for here is Idaho, for obvious reasons.

Disagree. Idaho did just fine with their move. Won Big West in 1998 and beat Southern Miss in the Tater Bowl.

The administration never built on any success achieved and their geography meant they should have been a program set on being too good to ignore instead of skimping.

Isn't that part of it? They failed, they gone.

Idaho failure required losing a conference option in the west in addition to not capitalizing on early success.

The Idaho launch was fine so doesn’t belong in a discussion of worst launches.

That's fair, they were a solid 1-AA program when they moved up and then found out they were just that: a solid 1-AA program playing in a practice bubble.

I think if they would have built a 20-25k outdoor stadium on campus, they would have become the more academically-inclined alternative to Boise State.

(04-15-2020 12:12 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I go by on the field performances. UMass. have a better on field performance in their losses than compare to Georgia State and Charlotte. That is why I would not called them the worst.

Their first two seasons were atrocious. Then they lost by 3 to both Colorado and Vandy, 6 to South Carolina. Their first five years were not impressive. Year six, they lost to Tennessee by four, beat BYU. Back-to-back 4-8 seasons and they fired their coach and blew up the program again. They've committed to being an Independent and invested in facilities, which should definitely be part of the discussion. I suppose you can say "at least they're trying".

JMU's launch to FBS has been so bad it looks like we're still in FCS.

(04-15-2020 01:18 PM)2Buck Wrote:  JMU's launch to FBS has been so bad it looks like we're still in FCS.

Pretty dang accurate!

(04-15-2020 08:14 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  CCU got a bad deal in FCS with conference’s giving them the black ball. It’s too bad. I think the size of that school is very well suited for a great FCS program but as an FBS program I think they will always struggle against older and richer programs.

Count me as one who thinks that a SoCon or CAA invite would have satisfied CCU and Liberty enough from moving up to FBS when they did.