|
Post by artanis on Oct 27, 2016 18:06:44 GMT -5
The FCS (1-AA) was created for the schools who see themselves as upper division, but unable or unwilling to compete with the biggest schools. Holy Cross, Colgate, Villanova are perfect examples of smaller enrollment schools who fit well within the subdivision. For Lehigh, Lafayette, Bucknell and others, the subdivision represented a move up. To all, especially in the Patriot League, it's a safe haven. Holy Cross could not have survived through the past 30 years had they not made the FCS decision.
Time to do what needs to be done, which is to say to embrace the niche and do a better job of recruiting, and of marketing. If Lehigh and Colgate can dominate (17 championships out of 30), then Holy Cross should be part of the PLs elite with their history.
Failure by HC to elevate is disconcerting. Shows a real failure to commit.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Oct 27, 2016 23:22:21 GMT -5
commit......lights
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Oct 28, 2016 8:40:02 GMT -5
I follow in a very cursory fashion, checking the score on Saturday evenings during the season. I also still lurk on this board daily. The concern for me personally is this: -- HC basketball plays at a level where (no matter how improbable) they can win an NCAA national championship at the highest level. -- HC men's hockey plays at a level where (more possible than basketball, still unlikely) they can win an NCAA national championship at the highest level. -- HC football plays at a level where, no matter how good they are, CAN NEVER WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. They literally play in a different division. This is like asking me which minor league team I root for most in the Yankees' system. I like the big boys, and invest my time and fanaticism in them. Double AA or FCS or whatever marketing-ploy acronym they come up with in the next ten years is second rate. The programs aren't close. The spending isn't close. The talent isn't close. The media coverage isn't close. The money isn't close. We're not talking similar sports here... they are miles, planets, GALAXIES apart. We keep talking about this ad nauseum. Interesting that this specific post at least targets alums in the post-scholarship era and asks if they are still interested. I would ask the same question/post about alums who were following the program just prior to the split within Division I NCAA football. We're starting out the discussion as a second tier product. And then the arguments that follow say that we are a second tier product within a second tier product for the past 25 years... a sort of Inception-style, "dream within a dream within a dream" of mediocrity... and then you wonder why we don't care? I don't follow the CFL, Arena Football, minor league baseball, or D-league basketball either. The thing is, Holy Cross was basically playing FCS/1-AA football (in terms of scheduling, probably funding, support for the program etc) for many years while still purportedly classified as "Major college football/University Division/1-A etc. I would say we were last truly D1 when Dr Anderson retired in 1964. What's frustrating, as artanis noted, is that the 1-AA/FCS level could/should be a terrific level for HC (as it was in the 1980s/early 90s)...and let's face it, we are basically D1 today (in terms of competing with the power schools) in hoop in name only.
|
|
|
Post by dharry13 on Oct 28, 2016 8:46:14 GMT -5
WCHC - got it. So to understand this correctly the only reason to follow a team is if they can win a championship at the highest level - Division 1A? What a garbage post. That's a foolish comment - so in essence every 1-AA team, every D2, D3 fan shouldn't bother supporting their program because they can't win a championship at the highest level? The school isn't going to fork over the amount of money it takes to ever go 1-A in football - it won't happen. Look at BC - hmm, that makes sense, let's have a D1 football team because they have "chance" of winning the highest championship and then be the laughing stock of the nation the past two years? No thanks; i'll try my luck at building the 1-AA way, hopefully getting to the playoffs and making a run rather than being a doormat in D1. Thanks, but no thanks.
And let's not fool ourselves - just because hoops and hockey participate in NCAA D1 doesn't mean they have a shot at winning it all. They simply participate at that level. Would I go nuts if they made it around or two deep, of course I would. Because I take pride in every one of the programs - hell, I keep up with every game of the baseball team each year even though they draw 100 people per game and go 27-27 every year. Because I take pride in the school, not some pipe dream that they might win the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Oct 28, 2016 9:00:12 GMT -5
I follow in a very cursory fashion, checking the score on Saturday evenings during the season. I also still lurk on this board daily. The concern for me personally is this: -- HC basketball plays at a level where (no matter how improbable) they can win an NCAA national championship at the highest level. -- HC men's hockey plays at a level where (more possible than basketball, still unlikely) they can win an NCAA national championship at the highest level. -- HC football plays at a level where, no matter how good they are, CAN NEVER WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. They literally play in a different division. This is like asking me which minor league team I root for most in the Yankees' system. I like the big boys, and invest my time and fanaticism in them. Double AA or FCS or whatever marketing-ploy acronym they come up with in the next ten years is second rate. The programs aren't close. The spending isn't close. The talent isn't close. The media coverage isn't close. The money isn't close. We're not talking similar sports here... they are miles, planets, GALAXIES apart. We keep talking about this ad nauseum. Interesting that this specific post at least targets alums in the post-scholarship era and asks if they are still interested. I would ask the same question/post about alums who were following the program just prior to the split within Division I NCAA football. We're starting out the discussion as a second tier product. And then the arguments that follow say that we are a second tier product within a second tier product for the past 25 years... a sort of Inception-style, "dream within a dream within a dream" of mediocrity... and then you wonder why we don't care? I don't follow the CFL, Arena Football, minor league baseball, or D-league basketball either. The thing is, Holy Cross was basically playing FCS/1-AA football (in terms of scheduling, probably funding, support for the program etc) for many years while still purportedly classified as "Major college football/University Division/1-A etc. I would say we were last truly D1 when Dr Anderson retired in 1964. What's frustrating, as artanis noted, is that the 1-AA/FCS level could/should be a terrific level for HC (as it was in the 1980s/early 90s)...and let's face it, we are basically D1 today (in terms of competing with the power schools) in hoop in name only. I would quibble with '64 the Jack Lentz '66 team went 6-3-1 with a victory over BC
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Oct 28, 2016 11:19:33 GMT -5
The thing is, Holy Cross was basically playing FCS/1-AA football (in terms of scheduling, probably funding, support for the program etc) for many years while still purportedly classified as "Major college football/University Division/1-A etc. I would say we were last truly D1 when Dr Anderson retired in 1964. What's frustrating, as artanis noted, is that the 1-AA/FCS level could/should be a terrific level for HC (as it was in the 1980s/early 90s)...and let's face it, we are basically D1 today (in terms of competing with the power schools) in hoop in name only. I would quibble with '64 the Jack Lentz '66 team went 6-3-1 with a victory over BC And I wouldn't blame ya'......maybe a bettah demarcation-line would be "post coed"....by the mid 70s our schedules basically consisted of Ivies, D2 at the time UMass, UConn, BU and other Yankee Conference opponents, Colgate...we really only played (today's 1-A) Army and BC annually...again, my initial point is that at the time of the split into 1-A and !-AA, we were effectively a 1-AA program already.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 28, 2016 19:30:01 GMT -5
Yankee Conference was D2? I didn't know that. I am not aware that we played Army annually either. Thanks for the education.
However, in the late 60's, we of course played BC every year, often played UMass and UConn, always Colgate and teams like Rutgers and Buffalo and Ivies. I do like to tweak my football classmate and former co-worker when he sniffs that when he played for Holy Cross we played D-IA that, in fact, there was no such thing as I-A vs. I-AA but the teams we played were very similar except for BC and Syracuse (both now back on the schedule). If there was such a category as I-AA in the late 60's, we would have been playing at that level. My buddy was a 225 DT and I assured him that he would be outplayed and flattened by the current crop of much larger and stronger HC players similar to his experience against Syracuse.
|
|
|
Post by artanis on Oct 28, 2016 20:37:42 GMT -5
If HC fans have lost interest in their program "because they moved down from division 1", that's sad. It just is not practical for small enrollment schools or independents to compete at the highest level. What are the choices? Lafayette considered dropping to D-3 in 1998, but instead invested millions in facilities. Their facilities are superior but the product stinks. Fordham's facility is pathetic but they spend and recruit well. Colgate recruits well, as does Lehigh. Bucknell is inconsistent and has won one championship in 30 years. Georgetown is along for the ride.
With arguably the best tradition in the league, Cross should be competing for championships every season. Maybe alums and fans have lost interest because it seems the school has lost focus.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Oct 30, 2016 9:38:17 GMT -5
-- HC basketball plays at a level where (no matter how improbable) they can win an NCAA national championship at the highest level. -- HC men's hockey plays at a level where (more possible than basketball, still unlikely) they can win an NCAA national championship at the highest level. -- HC football plays at a level where, no matter how good they are, CAN NEVER WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. They literally play in a different division. This is like asking me which minor league team I root for most in the Yankees' system. I like the big boys, and invest my time and fanaticism in them. Double AA or FCS or whatever marketing-ploy acronym they come up with in the next ten years is second rate. The programs aren't close. The spending isn't close. The talent isn't close. The media coverage isn't close. The money isn't close. We're not talking similar sports here... they are miles, planets, GALAXIES apart.Correct in that the money and media coverage aren't close. However, the talent is no further apart than comparing Number 1 in Division 1 basketball to number 301. North Dakota State has won six straight against P5 schools. UNH had a similar streak not that long ago. At least 5 or so FCS teams beat FBS every year, and those are ALL on the road and are games that are vetted by the big boys (i.e. most aren't scheduling an FCS game against someone they think can beat them). Without even taking time to think about it, I can name three starting NFL QB's who came from the FCS ranks (Fitzpatrick, Flacco, Wentz), three and a half if you count Tony Romo. You are essentially saying you would rather follow an HC basketball team that was among the worst in DI than Duffner/national title level football teams. I think that if we really found a way to move the needle at this level with some consistent playoff appearances, you'd change your mind. I don't think there are many U. of Montana fans who refuse to follow football there but instead only follow men's basketball because it plays at a "higher level".
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 30, 2016 16:55:38 GMT -5
Kind of like saying you only watch heavy weight boxing because the lower weights aren't as good. For that matter why watch college football at all? Just watch the NFL. There's just so much more to it.
For example, I recently derived more enjoyment from watching my son's F team (5-7 year olds) Pop Warner game against an evenly matched opponent than I did some college and NFL games televised on the same weekend.
As teams Holy Cross Football '09 = HC basketball 2016.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Oct 30, 2016 21:53:15 GMT -5
Tough to compare programs now and 50 years ago; maybe 61/62/63 schedules were toughest w/Syracuse/Penn State/BC on them. In the late 60s there's Dartmouth, Harvard or Yale; plus SU and BC.
It does seem that by 1980 HC had ended series with Syracuse (early 70s), Rutgers, Temple, Villanova (who then dropped football for a while)...and replaced them with schools that ended up in the same 1AA division as HC.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 31, 2016 9:31:20 GMT -5
WCHC - got it. So to understand this correctly the only reason to follow a team is if they can win a championship at the highest level - Division 1A? What a garbage post. That's a foolish comment - so in essence every 1-AA team, every D2, D3 fan shouldn't bother supporting their program because they can't win a championship at the highest level? The school isn't going to fork over the amount of money it takes to ever go 1-A in football - it won't happen. Look at BC - hmm, that makes sense, let's have a D1 football team because they have "chance" of winning the highest championship and then be the laughing stock of the nation the past two years? No thanks; i'll try my luck at building the 1-AA way, hopefully getting to the playoffs and making a run rather than being a doormat in D1. Thanks, but no thanks. And let's not fool ourselves - just because hoops and hockey participate in NCAA D1 doesn't mean they have a shot at winning it all. They simply participate at that level. Would I go nuts if they made it around or two deep, of course I would. Because I take pride in every one of the programs - hell, I keep up with every game of the baseball team each year even though they draw 100 people per game and go 27-27 every year. Because I take pride in the school, not some pipe dream that they might win the whole thing. Garbage post? Thanks, well, said. I don't care about D2, D3, or 1-AA. I'm not saying that the fans of those programs shouldn't root for them. I'm telling you why I don't root for them. I can't be the only one: their games are much more rarely televised on second-tier or third-tier cable/satellite networks, or not broadcasted at all. Major news coverage, attention, and interest do not approach that of the top-tier programs. I know HC won't fork over the money to commit. That is why I continue to question why field a program at all, particularly one that drains so much money? Don't confuse my lack of satisfaction with the effort put forth in these programs with a lack of school pride. It is specifically because of school pride that I even have an opinion in the first place, which is more than can be said about most of the alums of the College,
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 31, 2016 9:35:53 GMT -5
-- HC basketball plays at a level where (no matter how improbable) they can win an NCAA national championship at the highest level. -- HC men's hockey plays at a level where (more possible than basketball, still unlikely) they can win an NCAA national championship at the highest level. -- HC football plays at a level where, no matter how good they are, CAN NEVER WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. They literally play in a different division. This is like asking me which minor league team I root for most in the Yankees' system. I like the big boys, and invest my time and fanaticism in them. Double AA or FCS or whatever marketing-ploy acronym they come up with in the next ten years is second rate. The programs aren't close. The spending isn't close. The talent isn't close. The media coverage isn't close. The money isn't close. We're not talking similar sports here... they are miles, planets, GALAXIES apart.Correct in that the money and media coverage aren't close. However, the talent is no further apart than comparing Number 1 in Division 1 basketball to number 301. North Dakota State has won six straight against P5 schools. UNH had a similar streak not that long ago. At least 5 or so FCS teams beat FBS every year, and those are ALL on the road and are games that are vetted by the big boys (i.e. most aren't scheduling an FCS game against someone they think can beat them). Without even taking time to think about it, I can name three starting NFL QB's who came from the FCS ranks (Fitzpatrick, Flacco, Wentz), three and a half if you count Tony Romo. You are essentially saying you would rather follow an HC basketball team that was among the worst in DI than Duffner/national title level football teams. I think that if we really found a way to move the needle at this level with some consistent playoff appearances, you'd change your mind. I don't think there are many U. of Montana fans who refuse to follow football there but instead only follow men's basketball because it plays at a "higher level". =============================================================== Individual players coming from the FCS ranks does not mean that whole programs they come from are comparable in their successes, resources, and quality when measured against FBS programs. To your second paragraph, you are somewhat correct--- if HC was going 10-0 in football I would be more inclined to pay attention to them. But when you play poorly, have weak teams, and can't dominate in an environment that is a step below the best, then why should I continue to follow? HC can't commit... why should I? My time is worth more. The potential or hope for basketball and hockey-- no matter how unlikely that they "win it all"-- is what keeps me interested. HC isn't going to a bowl game, or winning a national title. They don't beat the best, so how can they be the best?
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 31, 2016 10:00:18 GMT -5
Kind of like saying you only watch heavy weight boxing because the lower weights aren't as good. For that matter why watch college football at all? Just watch the NFL. There's just so much more to it. For example, I recently derived more enjoyment from watching my son's F team (5-7 year olds) Pop Warner game against an evenly matched opponent than I did some college and NFL games televised on the same weekend. As teams Holy Cross Football '09 = HC basketball 2016. Heavyweight boxing was the premier tier for the sport for years and years and years for that reason. I would argue that the decline in the popularity of boxing can be attributed in part by the meteoric rise of MMA, but also the lack of a true, US-based heavyweight monster. I normally do prefer the NFL product to college football 99/100 times. If it's my kid playing pop warner, sure, I'd be invested. But I don't go to HC any longer, and can't make it to the games. I'm not broadcasting, writing, or coming across anyone on a daily basis who would even mention HC let alone HC football. So why should I intently follow a program who still can't stop the run for at least 12 years running, doesn't know how to draw up a running play, and gets beat by other programs over a 30 year period?
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 31, 2016 11:44:44 GMT -5
Kind of like saying you only watch heavy weight boxing because the lower weights aren't as good. For that matter why watch college football at all? Just watch the NFL. There's just so much more to it. For example, I recently derived more enjoyment from watching my son's F team (5-7 year olds) Pop Warner game against an evenly matched opponent than I did some college and NFL games televised on the same weekend. As teams Holy Cross Football '09 = HC basketball 2016. Heavyweight boxing was the premier tier for the sport for years and years and years for that reason. I would argue that the decline in the popularity of boxing can be attributed in part by the meteoric rise of MMA, but also the lack of a true, US-based heavyweight monster. I normally do prefer the NFL product to college football 99/100 times. If it's my kid playing pop warner, sure, I'd be invested. But I don't go to HC any longer, and can't make it to the games. I'm not broadcasting, writing, or coming across anyone on a daily basis who would even mention HC let alone HC football. So why should I intently follow a program who still can't stop the run for at least 12 years running, doesn't know how to draw up a running play, and gets beat by other programs over a 30 year period? I suppose the short answer is because a real fan follows his or her team during both the good times and the bad. The longer answer is probably different person to person. Many people follow HC because they have some connection to the program or school. Other folks simply appreciate the purity of the game at this level. I do understand what you say about the men's basketball team theoretically having a chance at winning a national championship, but this would be something that is almost a statistical impossibility, unless there were many years of complete and consistent dominance in the PL, a conference upgrade to what would be the equivalent of a "BCS," followed by more ramping up and then dominance at that level. I'd love that, but for now it's light years away. On the other hand, if HC football were 11-1 or 12-0 year after year for many years in the PL, and won a couple FCS championships, we'd probably be pining for a jump to a BCS conference also, and therefore at that point we'd be competing for a "true" national championship. Both of these are pipe dreams for now. At this point, and for the immediate future, both teams are competing in equivalent arenas. I've always felt D1 should be D1, find a way to lose the idiotic designations. Everyone knows who the titans are.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 31, 2016 12:55:36 GMT -5
Please.
1.) Service academies aside, there are no strictly undergraduate institutions in FBS, let alone in a Power Five conference.
2.) IIRC, the two schools with the smallest enrollment in FBS are Tulsa and Rice, There is no way, in this universe or the next, that a school with HC's enrollment could play in a FBS conference for football and basketball, plus play ice hockey in a first tier conference. Repeat after me: There are 19 private institutions in FBS. Only one of the 19, BC, plays M/W ice hockey. A second, in South Bend, can't afford women's ice hockey. A third, Syracuse, can't afford men's ice hockey. There is no fourth private FBS school playing either M's or W's ice hockey.
Of 51 private institutions in Div I without football, seven play ice hockey. Of the seven, two with an enrollment similar to HC play in HC's athletic conference. Only one of the seven, Providence, plays hoops in a major conference.
If HC were to drop football, it could try to emulate Providence. If HC decided to increase undergraduate enrollment by 3x, it could try to emulate BC. Those two private schools are the outliers in non-FCS that have M/W ice hockey and hoops at a major level.
As for FCS, of 45 private schools, 10 play ice hockey: six Ivies, Colgate, HC, Robert Morris, and Sacred Heart,
The two sports where HC probably the greatest future chance of being a national champion are baseball and lacrosse. Coastal Carolina won baseball in 2016, Both Loyola and Denver have won national lacrosse titles in the last five years. Followed by ice hockey. I see lacrosse and baseball as better chances because of scollie limits, about 12 for each sport. IMO, ice hockey has too many scollies compared to roster size.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Oct 31, 2016 12:59:01 GMT -5
Did we really have to repeat after you ? Were you an elementary school teacher ?
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 31, 2016 13:02:01 GMT -5
Please. 1.) Service academies aside, there are no strictly undergraduate institutions in FBS, let alone in a Power Five conference. 2.) IIRC, the two schools with the smallest enrollment in FBS are Tulsa and Rice, There is no way, in this universe or the next, that a school with HC's enrollment could play in a FBS conference for football and basketball, plus play ice hockey in a first tier conference. Repeat after me: There are 19 private institutions in FBS. Only one of the 19, BC, plays M/W ice hockey. A second, in South Bend, can't afford women's ice hockey. A third, Syracuse, can't afford men's ice hockey. There is no fourth private FBS school playing either M's or W's ice hockey. Of 51 private institutions in Div I without football, seven play ice hockey. Of the seven, two with an enrollment similar to HC play in HC's athletic conference. Only one of the seven, Providence, plays hoops in a major conference. If HC were to drop football, it could try to emulate Providence. If HC decided to increase undergraduate enrollment by 3x, it could try to emulate BC. Those two private schools are the outliers in non-FCS that have M/W ice hockey and hoops at a major level. As for FCS, of 45 private schools, 10 play ice hockey: six Ivies, Colgate, HC, Robert Morris, and Sacred Heart, The two sports where HC probably the greatest future chance of being a national champion are baseball and lacrosse. Coastal Carolina won baseball in 2016, Both Loyola and Denver have won national lacrosse titles in the last five years. Followed by ice hockey. I see lacrosse and baseball as better chances because of scollie limits, about 12 for each sport. IMO, ice hockey has too many scollies compared to roster size. Baseball weather in Central MA does not coincide much with college semesters. Hockey and Basketball are where we should compete. HC Football has the heritage, but what have you done for me lately?
|
|
|
Post by zambonihomie13 on Oct 31, 2016 13:18:25 GMT -5
HC has zero shot at winning a baseball title. The last team from a climate similar to Worcester's to win it was Minnesota in 1964. Lacrosse I guess is more feasible, but having been ranked near the bottom of Division 1 for much of its existence, it would certainly be difficult. Especially when it competes in a tough conference against schools located in recruiting hotbeds. One could make the argument that if any sports are to be cut, it would be these since they also have little chance at national championships, but do not provide some of the other intangibles to institutional identity and alumni relations that football and basketball do.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 31, 2016 16:36:24 GMT -5
Phreek who exactly are you asking to repeat your sentence here? If you assumed I was suggesting HC upgrade to BCS in football I think you might have missed the parts where I used the terms "statistical impossibility" and "pipe dream."
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Oct 31, 2016 18:46:54 GMT -5
HC has zero shot at winning a baseball title. The last team from a climate similar to Worcester's to win it was Minnesota in 1964. Lacrosse I guess is more feasible, but having been ranked near the bottom of Division 1 for much of its existence, it would certainly be difficult. Especially when it competes in a tough conference against schools located in recruiting hotbeds. One could make the argument that if any sports are to be cut, it would be these since they also have little chance at national championships, but do not provide some of the other intangibles to institutional identity and alumni relations that football and basketball do. Here is the list of men's sports that HC conceivably has a chance to compete for a national title: 1) Ice Hockey 2) Lacrosse 3) Soccer 4) Rowing
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 31, 2016 19:01:04 GMT -5
Rowing--don't many schools have rowers on scholarship?
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Oct 31, 2016 19:03:38 GMT -5
Heavyweight boxing was the premier tier for the sport for years and years and years for that reason. I would argue that the decline in the popularity of boxing can be attributed in part by the meteoric rise of MMA, but also the lack of a true, US-based heavyweight monster. I normally do prefer the NFL product to college football 99/100 times. If it's my kid playing pop warner, sure, I'd be invested. But I don't go to HC any longer, and can't make it to the games. I'm not broadcasting, writing, or coming across anyone on a daily basis who would even mention HC let alone HC football. So why should I intently follow a program who still can't stop the run for at least 12 years running, doesn't know how to draw up a running play, and gets beat by other programs over a 30 year period? I suppose the short answer is because a real fan follows his or her team during both the good times and the bad. The longer answer is probably different person to person. Many people follow HC because they have some connection to the program or school. Other folks simply appreciate the purity of the game at this level. I do understand what you say about the men's basketball team theoretically having a chance at winning a national championship, but this would be something that is almost a statistical impossibility, unless there were many years of complete and consistent dominance in the PL, a conference upgrade to what would be the equivalent of a "BCS," followed by more ramping up and then dominance at that level. I'd love that, but for now it's light years away. On the other hand, if HC football were 11-1 or 12-0 year after year for many years in the PL, and won a couple FCS championships, we'd probably be pining for a jump to a BCS conference also, and therefore at that point we'd be competing for a "true" national championship. Both of these are pipe dreams for now. At this point, and for the immediate future, both teams are competing in equivalent arenas. I've always felt D1 should be D1, find a way to lose the idiotic designations. Everyone knows who the titans are. ====================================================================================== Here's the thing though. Even if Holy Cross did have a run like that again, we would still not look to move up because our school's profile does not fit at the FBS level (only liberal arts schools playing at the level are Air Force, Army and Navy). Only schools that can move up are those that geographically fit into an existing conference and most are large state schools that never actually won much at our level but are seen as having untapped potential because they play in places that are deemed to have ability to support an upstart program. Examples: Charlotte, South Alabama, UT-San Antonio, Texas State, Georgia State, Old Dominion, Coastal Carolina, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Buffalo and Middle Tennessee. It's not a meritocracy -- put it this way, if Wichita State decided tomorrow they wanted to re-start football and do it at the FBS level, they would be ahead of five-time defending champ North Dakota State on the expansion candidate list. And then, let's just pretend that somehow in another world, the MAC decided they needed to replace UMass with another New England school. They invite Holy Cross as an all-sports or football-only member and we accept. In this scenario, we STILL would have ZERO chance of competing for a national championship at the "highest level". At this strata of FBS, even schools that go undefeated are denied a chance to compete for a title because there is no way to have the strength of schedule needed to get into the top four. We could beat BC, Notre Dame, UMass and UConn out of conference before running the MAC table and winning the conference championship and we still would be on the outside looking in when it came to the race for the hardware.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Oct 31, 2016 19:09:57 GMT -5
Rowing--don't many schools have rowers on scholarship? Yes, but assuming HC decided in the near future to ramp up the support for rowing and go after the golden goal of competing nationally, we could probably work our way pretty far up there.
|
|