Would you support the return of football at WSU?

[SubGod22]

I think what you see a lot of times in games like this weekend is where the extra 20 or so scholarships come into play. FBS teams can do more rotating of players to keep them fresh where FCS teams can't and that's why you see teams pull away or take a lead late in the game over some of these FCS programs.

I've recently come across some interesting rumors involving FBS football and members of the MVC. We'll see down the road if there are any legs to anything, but it's the first I've seen such rumors come from those fans outside of the MVC.

[DoubleJayAlum]

I've recently come across some interesting rumors involving FBS football and members of the MVC. We'll see down the road if there are any legs to anything, but it's the first I've seen such rumors come from those fans outside of the MVC.

Please share.

[SubGod22]

Please share.

It's in the NCAA forum under conference realignment, but there's been a few rumors of the MAC expanding and the list of possibilities may include UNI, ISU and MSU. Also a rumor of the MVFC somehow looking into moving up as a conference. Not sure how that would work or if it has some weird way of using the WAC fall in its favor.

Again, rumors, but also not ones started by fans of those schools from what I can tell. Also an interesting tweet from the UNI AD.

[SpanglerFan316]

When someone writes "the results today should at least show that it can't be that hard to compete once a football program gets going" in games that end with scores like 51-9 and 31-17, I think something needs to be said. What score would be required to fail to justify the statement "it can't be that hard to compete"? 82-3? 112-7? I can't see the score of 51-9 as anything less than a massacre, a demolition or an old fashion stomping. When the stomping occurred is not the issue; 51-9 is the issue.

[SubGod22]

For three or so quarters, those teams could absolutely compete and did. The belief of many, even some FBS fans, is that the difference is the number of scholarships and the freshness of FBS teams late in the game compared to FCS. There were other close games between FBS/FCS teams and a couple of FCS wins.

[AndShock]

When someone writes "the results today should at least show that it can't be that hard to compete once a football program gets going" in games that end with scores like 51-9 and 31-17, I think something needs to be said. What score would be required to fail to justify the statement "it can't be that hard to compete"? 82-3? 112-7? I can't see the score of 51-9 as anything less than a massacre, a demolition or an old fashion stomping. When the stomping occurred is not the issue; 51-9 is the issue.

And you're going to find 51-9 type scores among FBS teams only too. Not sure how a 2 TD game isn't competing either. Not to mention UNI went to the wire against a Top 15 Big Ten school and Indiana State who was one of the worst FCS programs was possibly a blown PI call away from tying the game against another Big Ten school late in the 4th.

The point I'm trying to make is some people like to say if we startup a football program we're going to lose every game by 70 for 10 years, which I don't think is the case.

[ShockTalk]

When someone writes "the results today should at least show that it can't be that hard to compete once a football program gets going" in games that end with scores like 51-9 and 31-17, I think something needs to be said. What score would be required to fail to justify the statement "it can't be that hard to compete"? 82-3? 112-7? I can't see the score of 51-9 as anything less than a massacre, a demolition or an old fashion stomping. When the stomping occurred is not the issue; 51-9 is the issue.

I'm not agreeing with the statement you were refering to, but also not agreeing with your conclusion either. Just as in D-I basketball, you have the top 12 or so basketball conferences which compare to the BCS conferences in football, the middle third of D-I basketball conferences wich compare to the other FBS conferences, and the lower third of basketball conferences which compare to the D-I FCS division. Normally, you don't expect a bottom third of either sport to "compete" with the upper third in either sport.

I don't know who you are refering to by the 31-17 score, but that is definitely not a massacre by any stretch. Maybe you believe #8 Michigan should drop football because they got beat by #2 Alabama 41-14.

Sub explained the FBS vs FCS difference, so I looked at that #22 K St 16, MSU 9 at the end of the 3rd quarter as very competitive until MSU ran out of gas.

And while your pulling scores out: #21 Stanford 20, San Jose St 17; #12 Wisconsin 26, FCS UNI 21; #23 Florida 27, Bowling Green 14; Ohio 24, PSU 14; Iowa 18, N. Ill. 17; and Arizona 24, Toledo 17 in OT. That's a lot of games that shouldn't have been that close. Before you give an excuse for PSU, let me just mention that them losing just a few key players probably made the difference between them winning and losing to a very good team from an inferior conference. And that may also be the difference between a lower division team being competitive with upper division teams.

[SpanglerFan316]

And you're going to find 51-9 type scores among FBS teams only too. Not sure how a 2 TD game isn't competing either. Not to mention UNI went to the wire against a Top 15 Big Ten school and Indiana State who was one of the worst FCS programs was possibly a blown PI call away from tying the game against another Big Ten school late in the 4th.

The point I'm trying to make is some people like to say if we startup a football program we're going to lose every game by 70 for 10 years, which I don't think is the case.

You could have used the Indiana State game as an example and I would have had no reason to comment. The Missouri State game seemed like a terrible example to choose.

[SpanglerFan316]

I'm not agreeing with the statement you were refering to, but also not agreeing with your conclusion either.

As long as we are in agreement then, everything is fine. ;)

[SpanglerFan316]

I'm not agreeing with the statement you were refering to, but also not agreeing with your conclusion either. Just as in D-I basketball, you have the top 12 or so basketball conferences which compare to the BCS conferences in football, the middle third of D-I basketball conferences wich compare to the other FBS conferences, and the lower third of basketball conferences which compare to the D-I FCS division. Normally, you don't expect a bottom third of either sport to "compete" with the upper third in either sport.

I don't know who you are refering to by the 31-17 score, but that is definitely not a massacre by any stretch. Maybe you believe #8 Michigan should drop football because they got beat by #2 Alabama 41-14.

Sub explained the FBS vs FCS difference, so I looked at that #22 K St 16, MSU 9 at the end of the 3rd quarter as very competitive until MSU ran out of gas.

And while your pulling scores out: #21 Stanford 20, San Jose St 17; #12 Wisconsin 26, FCS UNI 21; #23 Florida 27, Bowling Green 14; Ohio 24, PSU 14; Iowa 18, N. Ill. 17; and Arizona 24, Toledo 17 in OT. That's a lot of games that shouldn't have been that close. Before you give an excuse for PSU, let me just mention that them losing just a few key players probably made the difference between them winning and losing to a very good team from an inferior conference. And that may also be the difference between a lower division team being competitive with upper division teams.

There are lots of good examples one could mention. The Missouri State at Kansas State game was not one of these good examples.

[SpanglerFan316]

For three or so quarters, those teams could absolutely compete and did. The belief of many, even some FBS fans, is that the difference is the number of scholarships and the freshness of FBS teams late in the game compared to FCS. There were other close games between FBS/FCS teams and a couple of FCS wins.

So if, at the 75 meter mark, you and I are tied, then it doesn't matter if I beat you by 10 seconds in a 100 meter race?

[Kung Wu]

So if, at the 75 meter mark, you and I are tied, then it doesn't matter if I beat you by 10 seconds in a 100 meter race?

No, because that would mean I tripped on a piece of track that was sticking up, yet we were heads up with only less than 3 seconds left to go. So if I am pissed enough I might just kick your arse next time and the first 9 seconds bears that out. You CAN run a sub 12-second 100 meter dash right?

[SpanglerFan316]

No, because that would mean I tripped on a piece of track that was sticking up, yet we were heads up with only less than 3 seconds left to go. So if I am pissed enough I might just kick your arse next time and the first 9 seconds bears that out. You CAN run a sub 12-second 100 meter dash right?

Can't everyone? :wink-new:

[Kung Wu]

Can't everyone? :wink-new:

LOL

[SpanglerFan316]

LOL

I didn't want to criticize your math skills and so didn't point out that 10 seconds > 3 seconds (i.e. "if I beat you by 10 seconds in a 100 meter race" "yet we were heads up with only less than 3 seconds left to go.") :wink-new:

I'm just wondering what "piece of track" you tripped on and if we can bring some of it to Koch Arena when Creighton visits; I would not mind seeing a close game in the second half turning into a 42 (=51-9) point Shocker victory over the BlueJays. :joyous: