Which Schools Would Be A Good Fit In The FCS?

July 13, 2019 Matthew Dixon Leave a comment

Northwest Missouri State has won six Division 2 National Championships? Is a move to the FCS plausible for the Bearcats? (Photo Courtesy of The Podyum).

Which Schools Would Be A Good Fit In The FCS?

Last year, we looked at the FCS to FBS transition in a two-part series. Part one focused on how teams have historically performed going from the FCS to FBS. Part two analyzed the most likely candidates to consider a move to the FBS as well as two new programs. When going through the latter part, we found there would be some ideal landing spots in the FCS for certain schools.

We provided VCU and UT Arlington as two choices for a new program to land in the FBS. Biasedly, we like the choices we provided but when we take an even closer look at UT Arlington, there might be a better fit: the Southland Conference. The Southland members reside in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas making for lower travel costs. UTA would probably need to upgrade their facilities that have not been used for college football since 1985 (they have been used for high school football since that time).

UT Arlington is also currently part of the Sun Belt Conference, which makes the decision difficult. Do you forego the FBS conference to save on costs? Will you recoup the money needed for an expansion of the stadium? Is FBS the right fit? Those are only a few questions administrators will ask as they evaluate their options.

We will draw from two groups of teams: Division 1 programs that do not currently have a football program and current Division 2 schools. This list will not include known future FCS teams such as Merrimack College, Long Island University, Dixie State, or Augustana University.

Edit: The fine folks of Twitter have also pointed out that Tarleton State is considering a move to the Southland Conference in Division I. Tarleton State’s study can be found here. In addition, a new stadium built on the West Texas A&M campus along with a feasibility study by Collegiate Consulting could be a signal for an impending move to the FCS.

Let’s take a look at the (potential) candidates below. Please note, these are strictly speculative and this is simply a fun FCS thought experiment.

Northwest Missouri State (Jump Up)

Since 1998, the Northwest Missouri State Bearcats have been to the Division 2 National Championship ten times, winning six of those games. They have become the logical division two candidate to step up into the FCS.

Their current stadium capacity is 6,500, which is on the small end for a move up to FCS. The student population of roughly 6,500 is not ideal and there would need to be additional revenue generated from the Bearcats to accommodate the move to the FCS. It is also not suitable to hold the Missouri Valley Football Conference crowds. It may seem a bit harsh throwing them into the same conference as North Dakota State, but geographically this option makes the most sense.

Speaking of geography, their current configuration in the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletic Association is condensed from southern Nebraska to central Oklahoma and only as east to the Missouri-Illinois border. The current set up is tough to beat in terms of travel.

Verdict: It would be awesome to see the Bearcats move up to the FCS and be apart of the Missouri Valley Football Conference. However, that would increase costs in terms of travel and some stadium expansion for bigger crowds, which makes the jump unlikely at this time.

Cal State Fullerton (Restarted)

Cal State Fullerton had a football program until 1992 due to a terrible on field product and low attendance. Since 1995, there have been repeated efforts to bring it back. As this article lays out, there are some hurdles to get over before this becomes reality.

One issue is the 10,000 seat stadium built in 1992. Yes, that is acceptable by FCS standards (compared to other programs as well) but the revenue generated for those 10,000 seats would not be enough to fund the football team. There is a large student population of 37,000 so perhaps there would be enough demand.

The Titans would be placed in the Big Sky Conference, which already has three California based teams. The travel at times might be tough if they have several trips up north each year (and do not forget about the cost of travel for other sports if they all go to the Big Sky).

As of right now, the Titans call the Big West home for their other sports and all of those teams play in California. That is a huge cost addition that is tough to ignore. Even if they only have football sponsored in the Big Sky, the costs increased travel costs would be a huge burden.

Verdict: Unlikely due to the travel costs for the football team and expansion of the stadium. Another worry is the long-term attendance if the school does not do well on the field as happened in 1992.

Valdosta State (Jump Up)

Valdosta State has only been playing football since 1982, but have reached the pinnacle of Division 2 football four times in 2004, 2007, 2012, and 2018. Located at the southern border of Georgia this school would be perfect for the Southern Conference. This is similar to their current conference, Gulf Coast. The travel costs would be similar in this scenario.

The stadium fits 11,250, which is a good size for Division 2. It may need to be expanded especially if they continue to be a good football program in the FCS. The current student population is 11,000, which is on the lower end.

Verdict: This would make sense and be a good option. However, VSU does not seem too keen on a move at this time.

Grand Canyon (New Program)

Grand Canyon may seem like a random team, but there are reasons why they might be a good fit. They moved from Division 2 to Division 1 in 2013 when they joined the WAC. In 2017, the NCAA approved the move to Division 1 allowing the Antelopes to be eligible for the postseason. Also, they play in the southwest, which would make them a decent addition to the Big Sky.

There is another factor at play, but it could be double-edged. Grand Canyon has over 90,000 students enrolled, but 70,000 of those students are enrolled in online classes. That is a massive revenue stream if they are to pursue a football program. There are a solid 20,000 students on campus, which is great for GCU, but the question becomes what happens if they are not successful on the field? Does the attendance start to dip badly? How would the fans react (and not just on social media)? Will the 20,000 on-campus students be enough to justify spending money on facilities over the long run?

Speaking of on-campus limitations, GCU would need to build a new stadium to host games. They currently have some impressive new facilities so we know it can be done properly, but cost of a new stadium is always a concern. Travel costs would also certainly be a concern as part of the Big Sky. With the Lopes are currently in the WAC, they have a unique travel schedule at times stretching from Chicago, Illinois (Chicago State is in the WAC) to Seattle, Washington.

There is not much momentum for a football team at GCU right now, but that could change.

Verdict: We will say likely, even if not for another decade or two. Grand Canyon is clearly building something impressive and eventually football will be part of that vision. They may even go for FBS football if the perfect situation arises (Mountain West perhaps?)

Northern Kentucky (New Program)

Northern Kentucky recently moved from the Atlantic Sun Conference to the Horizon League. The school was previously part of Division 2. The main reason for the move was due to geography as most Atlantic Sun schools played in southeast with several in Florida.

NKU has a student population of 14,500, which is on the lower end, but not the worst. For a stadium, they would have to build from scratch as none of near campus options could be reasonably fitted to host a football game.

The Norse would fit in well with the Ohio Valley Conference for their new football team. The longest trip would be to northern Alabama to face Jacksonville State. The travel costs would be comparable for the other sports though the inclusion of football would make the travel costs skyrocket due to the size of the roster.

Verdict: Unlikely. Previous estimates made by NKU pushed them towards a path to Division 1 instead of a football team. A new stadium plus all the other costs associated with the introduction of a football team make it prohibitive.

Wrap Up

While we think all the schools mentioned above would be great fits for the FCS in terms of geography and the new conference, it is impossible to ignore the costs. Whether it is a new stadium or just an expansion, that has to be measured against the additional revenue generated. In most cases, it just is not viable to make the move even if all five programs would make for wonderful additions to the FCS. However, the allure of FBS football has not stopped some like Liberty and Massachusetts from making the jump.

NCAA Football

Should Army Consider Joining The AAC?

June 29, 2019 Matthew Dixon Leave a comment

Jeff Monken celebrates during the 2018 Army-Navy game. (AP Photo / Matt Rourke)

Should Army Consider Joining The AAC?

Army’s football team has posted three straight winning seasons with all three ending in bowl victories. 2017 saw the team’s first 10 win season in over 20 years when they finished 10-3. Army followed that up with an 11-2 record last season, which were the most wins in school history and finished ranked in the top 25. Most recently, Connecticut’s move back to the Big East has created a void in the American Athletic Conference. Should Army consider joining the AAC?

Let’s start by going to the past. The far past.

The Glory Days

It is of little surprise that all of Army’s national championships came around war time. With all the recruits being drafted into the Army, there was a complete arsenal on the gridiron.

Army won national championships in 1914 and 1916 going 9-0 during both season. The Cadets had a winning record each year from 1907 through 1938. Then came World War II. (The titles are not claimed by Army, but they are recognized by the NCAA).

Though the US had not formally entered into the Second World War, in 1939 and 1940 Army’s football prowess was definitely not on display. They went 3-4-2 in 1939 and 1-7-1 in 1940. However, the 1941 through 1943 seasons saw a return to winning ways as they went 5-3-1, 6-3, and 7-2-1.

The 1944 squad went 9-0 scoring 504 points and giving up 35 points. They were named national champions, a feat they would repeat in 1945 when they went 9-0 again while scoring 412 points and surrendering 46. The 1946 squad went 9-0-1 with the tie being to Notre Dame, who would be crowned AP national champions. The 1944 – 46 teams featured the overwhelming duo of Doc Blanchard (1945 Heisman) and Glenn Davis (1946 Heisman).

Army would have several more strong seasons in the late 1940s and Pete Dawkins would take home the Heisman in 1958 after an 8-0-1 campaign. There were a few good seasons sprinkled in the next several decades, but the Cadets have not reached those heights again.

Prelude to Conference USA

Army was not a remarkable team in the 1980s. They went 8-3-1 and 9-3 with back-to-back bowl wins in 1984 and 1985. They went 9-3 again in 1988 with a Sun Bowl loss to Alabama. Other than the 1988 season, the Cadets basically hung around .500 between 1986 and 1995 having between 4 and 6 wins each year.

In 1996, Army achieved a 10-2 record with the an Independence Bowl loss to Auburn. It was their first 10 win season in school history and they finished in the top 25 polls for the first time 1958. Army struck while the iron was hot because in March 1997 they decided to join Conference USA (possible paywall) beginning with the 1998 season.

The Conference USA Disaster

The 1997 season was Army’s last season as an independent before they went into a conference for the first time. They went 4-7, but that was actually the highlight of their time as part of Conference USA.

The Cadets time on the field in C-USA between 1998 through 2004 was abysmal. They never won more than two conference games and never won more than three total games in a season. Their totals for C-USA were:

Overall record: 13-67

C-USA record: 9-41

Their low point was the 2003 season in which they went 0-13 overall and 0-8 in Conference USA. The 2003 season was the first time in NCAA history that a program finished with an 0-13 mark. Todd Berry was head coach for the first six games before being fired and replaced by John Mumford. Berry was at the helm for three and a half seasons in which he decided the wishbone offense was no longer needed at Army. Ouch.

Back To Independent Status

For their final C-USA season, Army hired Bobby Ross to bring them back to a respectable level. Ross lasted only three seasons going 9-25, but had to undo what Berry did. When Army left C-USA, they cited scheduling flexibility as the main reason for their departure. Eight conference games, plus the obligatory Navy and Air Force games left only one or (now) two games they could schedule as they saw fit.

Ross was succeeded by his protégé Stan Brock who went 3-9 in two seasons. He was fired and replaced by Rich Ellerson who led the Cadets to their first bowl game in 2010 since the ten win 1996 campaign. Army soon went back to their losing ways going 3-9, 2-10, and 3-9 in Ellerson’s final three seasons.

Monken’s Momentum

When Army hired Jeff Monken in December 2013 to lead the program, it seemed like a good fit. Monken led Georgia Southern to three consecutive FCS Playoff Semifinal appearances using the triple-option offense that is employed by service academies. It took two seasons of 4-8 and 2-10 before it all came together in Monken’s third season.

Army went 8-5 in 2016 capping off the season with an overtime victory against North Texas in the Heart of Dallas Bowl. In 2017, Army went 10-3 with a 42-35 win over San Diego State in the Armed Forces Bowl. The best was yet to come as 2018 saw Army go 11-2 with an obliteration of Houston, 70-14, in the Armed Forces Bowl.

Monken was rewarded for the 2018 season by being named the Coach of the Year. He also signed a contract extension with Army through the 2024 season.

The future is bright and Monken has signaled his intent to stick around so… Should Army consider joining the AAC or another conference?

A Complicated Puzzle

The answer to the “should Army consider joining the AAC” question is nuanced. Some will point to fellow service academies Air Force and Navy successes in conference play. Others will point to keeping Army and Navy together as their rivalry is deeply intertwined with the fabric of college football. Perhaps Army’s own previous conference history, albeit short and disastrous, provide clues.

Let’s start with how Navy and Air Force have fared in their respective conference. Navy is simple as they have been in the American Athletic Conference for only four seasons. In that time, Navy has been co-champions of the AAC West twice, played in one AAC championship game (lost 34-10 to Temple in 2016), and had three winning seasons. 2018 was very poor at 3-10, but there were some close games as well. The jury is still out on Navy’s decision to go to the AAC despite some differing opinions (possible paywall).

Air Force has a much longer history of being in a conference. They were part of the Western Athletic Conference from 1980 until 1998 and then joined the Mountain West in 1999. In the 39 years since having a conference affiliation, Air Force has gone to 23 bowl games and have had consistent success since Troy Calhoun took over in 2007.

Part of Air Force’s success has been their geography. Even in the WAC, they were still relatively close to their opponents. Navy has the oddity of being the now second most eastern team in the AAC, yet were somehow placed in the west division where they still reside. Still, they have shown success in their brief AAC tenure.

Potential Destination

If Army were to consider joining a conference the one that makes the most sense is the American Athletic Conference. They would be situated close to ~~Connecticut~~, Navy, and Temple. The AAC might have to re-draw their divisions and the absence of Connecticut actually makes this interesting.

Had UConn remained, instead of having Navy be part of the “west” they could change the divisions to north and south. The north would have been comprised of Army, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Navy, Temple, and East Carolina. The south would have included Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, and South Florida.

Without UConn in the mix, it becomes murkier. The east cluster of Army, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Navy, and Temple is clear. The west cluster is Houston, Memphis, SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa. Then, there are the two Florida schools in UCF and USF. Here, they could just split UCF to the east and USF to the west. In this scenario, there are balanced divisions, though somewhat awkwardly.

(Ideally the two Florida teams would be in the same division, but unless the AAC is going to go the super-expansion route to 14 teams this partition will do. Besides, it stays in line with conference’s confusing geography philosophy).

Another problem is the Army-Navy game tends to be played all by itself with the potential of the entire college football audience watching. Being part of a conference would cause this to be played during November (or earlier) because it could impact the conference championship game. While it would be amazing for the winner of Army-Navy to determine the AAC one or possibly two title representatives, is it worth foregoing the spotlight of being the sole football game on TV in December?

One work around: Allow Army-Navy to keep it’s preferred time slot as a non-conference game. The AAC would probably agree to this and it would not impact the regular season title race. However, it would eliminate another week of flexibility from Army’s schedule. Speaking of scheduling…

A third problem is that Army clearly likes their scheduling flexibility and it has been favorable for them. It is not a mistake that Army’s last three seasons have been the best in over two decades. They had five home games in 2016, six in 2017, and six in 2018 while 2016 and 2018 both saw an additional game within the state of New York (at Buffalo both times). Also factor in the neutral site game against Navy, which gives Army 7 or 8 home/neutral site games that are relatively close to West Point.

Army gets complete control over 10 games a season, which allows them to play a few big teams for paychecks while still playing a few FCS opponents to get closer to bowl eligibility. Mix in several group of 5 teams who are beatable along with fellow independents and Army has a recipe for at least 6 to 7 wins each season as long as they are competitive.

Summary

Army’s short stint in Conference USA was a terrible mistake as they moved to a more restrictive schedule while moving away from the wishbone offense. That led to a terrible product on the field as they were not competitive at all.

Army’s return to independent status did not bear fruit until the last three seasons with Jeff Monken at the helm. Army has seen their best success in decades thanks to Monken’s leadership. Now let’s answer the question posed in the article’s title.

Should Army Consider Joining The AAC?

Absolutely they should consider it. They are stable with the proper offensive scheme (as opposed to their C-USA time) and their head coach, who clearly has the right ideas for the program. They would be a good geographical fit for the American Athletic Conference while preserving their annual rivalry tilt against Navy.

Should Army Join The AAC?

This is tougher to answer, but no they should not. They clearly value scheduling flexibility and if the likes of Massachusetts and smaller group of 5 teams continue to schedule Army, why deviate it from a successful formula? Going to a conference automatically removes 8 games from their scheduling control and with Air Force in the rotation, the Cadets will only have 3 games of their choosing. They will have additional AAC TV revenue, but will it cover the additional travel expenses? If not, Army might need to schedule more Power 5 teams potentially leaving them short of bowl eligibility.

For now, Army should remain as an Independent. This could all change in a few years when conference realignment kicks off again (or sooner if UConn proves to be the domino).

NCAA Football

FBS and FCS Changes For 2019 Season

June 15, 2019 Matthew Dixon Leave a comment

Merrimack College is moving up from Division II to Division I and will compete at the FCS level in football (photo courtesy of Merrimack College).

FBS and FCS Changes For The 2019 Season

The college football season does not kickoff until August 24, but that won’t stop us from getting excited. We will start by detailing the FBS and FCS changes for the 2019 season.

Overtime Rule Changes

We start with a general rule change regarding overtime. The change this season is that teams will go for two instead of starting at the 25 yard line commencing with the fifth overtime. Four overtime periods will be played as they previously were with each team getting the ball. Previously, teams played as many overtimes as necessary with each team getting a possession until one team failed to match the other team in points for that overtime period. In addition, the third and fourth overtimes will still require the teams to go for a two-point conversion.

Another note: a two-minute break has been mandated after the second and fourth overtimes. At least we will have a chance to catch our collective breath.

FBS Changes

Amazingly, there are very few changes in terms of team movements. The one note is that Liberty will be bowl eligible in 2019 after moving up from FCS in 2018. The Flames will remain an Independent team and will once again play New Mexico State twice this season as they did in 2018.

FCS Changes

The plethora of changes to detail will take place at the FCS level. The overtime rules discussed above will apply here as well.

General Schedule Quirk

Thanks to the NCAA’s draconian bylaws, the 2019 season allows for a 12 game regular season at the FCS level instead of the usual 11. Why? Simply due to the calendar. 14 Saturdays between Labor Day weekend and the last Saturday in November (see bylaw 17.10.3 on page 272) allow for the 12 games to be played.

This last time this occurred was in 2013 and will happen again in 2024. For FCS fans, the likelihood of a permanent 12 game regular season are zero after the NCAA rejected a proposal back in 2017.

Conference Changes – Up From Division II

We start with the two teams moving up from Division II into FCS competition.

Merrimack College is moving from the Division II Northeast-10 Conference to the FCS Northeast Conference. The Warriors will become full Division I members starting with the 2023-24 academic year. They won’t be playing a full Northeast Conference schedule this season, but hope to do so in 2020. As part of the transition, the Warriors are ineligible for the NEC title and FCS playoffs this season.

The second team moving up from Division II to FCS is Long Island University. They too are moving from the NE-10 to the NEC. LIU is merging the LIU Brooklyn Blackbirds and LIU Post Pioneers to become the LIU Sharks. The Pioneers were part of the Division II level while the Blackbirds were already at the Division I level, but did not sponsor football. The Sharks will be competing with a 7 game conference schedule in 2019. LIU will be eligible for the NEC title.

Moving Down To Division II

Savannah State will be departing the FCS to drop down to Division II as announced in late 2017. The Tigers were a member of the MEAC since 2010 and now re-join the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (SIAC). The Tigers were a member of the SIAC from 1969 through 1999 before becoming a then Division 1-AA (now FCS) Independent. The MEAC will have 9 football teams in 2019.

Moving From FCS Independent Status

Two teams are moving from an FCS Independent to the Big South. Those schools are the Hampton Pirates and North Alabama Lions. The Big South will have 8 teams this season.

Hampton left the MEAC after the 2017 season after joining the conference in 1995. The Pirates played as an FCS Independent in 2018 in their transition year to the Big South. They played 10 games (Tennessee State game was cancelled due to Hurricane Florence) and went 7-3. The Pirates are eligible for both the Big South title and the FCS Playoffs.

Meanwhile, North Alabama moved up from Division II for the 2018 season. After a 7-3 season in 2018, the Lions will face a full slate of FCS teams for the first time including 7 games against Big South foes. The Lions are not eligible for the Big South title and are ineligible for the FCS Playoffs until 2022 when their transition to Division I is complete.

Stuck In Indepedence

North Dakota is in their final season as an FCS Independent on their way to becoming a Missouri Valley Football Conference member. North Dakota has left the Big Sky Conference, but maintains the previously scheduled Big Sky matchups. The games will count in the conference standings for the Fighting Hawks’ opponents. UND will not be eligible for the Big Sky title, but can still be selected as an at-large team for the FCS Playoffs.

Future Moves

The Big South is full of changes this year and next. 2019 will mark the final year for Presbyterian as a football member of the conference. They will be an Independent in 2020 and then become a member of the Pioneer Football League starting in 2021. Presbyterian joined the Big South in 2009.

Dixie State, currently a Division II member, will move up to Division I starting in 2020. They will compete as an FCS Independent in 2020 while their other sports will compete in the Western Athletic Conference. Dixie State is part of the Rocky Mountain Athletic Association and currently has no plans for joining an FCS football conference. The Trailblazers will not be eligible for the FCS Playoffs until 2024 due to the transition.

Augustana announced their intention to transition to Division I in December 2018. They currently reside in the Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference, but have not discussed a Division I conference to join. It is assumed they will join the Summit League, however, that conference does not offer football. In that case, the Vikings will then have to decide whether they want offer scholarship football or not. This, in turn, will help decided if they land in a conference such as the Pioneer Football League (non-scholarship) or the more geographically appropriate Missouri Valley Football Conference.

More FCS football conjecture can be found here.

Edit: Thanks to the folks on Twitter, both Tarleton State and West Texas A&M have considered moving to the FCS. Tarleton State’s feasibility move can be found here with the Southland Conference explicitly mentioned. West Texas A&M released a bullish statement after working with Collegiate Consulting and they are opening a new football stadium for the 2019 season.

Staying Put

Much to the delight of Stetson fans and alumni, the Hatters are staying put at the Division 1 level. Despite an examination into dropping to Division II or Division III, there will be no change for Stetson’s affiliation at this time. Stetson currently plays in the Pioneer Football League at the FCS level after bringing back the team starting with the 2013 season.

That covers the FBS and FCS changes for the 2019 season and we look forward to the start of the season as well as more content in the next few months!

Soccer

Infantino’s Re-election Shows Little Has Changed With FIFA

June 5, 2019 Matthew Dixon Leave a comment

Gianni Infantino at the 2018 World Cup held in Russia. Infantino was re-elected as FIFA president after running unopposed. He will serve until 2023. (Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images Europe )

Infantino’s Re-Election Shows Little Has Changed With FIFA

On Wednesday, Gianni Infantino was re-elected as FIFA president for a second term. He won the bid with no opposition with the FIFA council opting to back him by acclamation. Infantino had this to say as leader of the organization:

…”a new FIFA, an organisation that is synonymous with credibility, confidence, integrity.”
– Infantino during his speech to FIFA’s 69th Congress on Wednesday, June 5, 2019.

Transparency and Voting

A link to FIFA’s key achievements between 2016 and 2019 can be found here. Outside of FIFA tooting their own horn, it is clear little has changed with FIFA from five years ago. Let’s start with this very election.

FIFA, claiming to be “more transparent”, did not even hold a vote for Infantino’s election. Sure, no one ran against him (why not?), but given recent events, holding a vote for this election would seem to be prudent to help build credibility. According to the New York Times (potential paywall), a statute was enacted just this week that allowed for the vote to be bypassed. Pretty convenient for a “transparent and credible” organization.

Speaking of votes, the Congress did test their voting and came up with this gem (per Rob Harris).

FIFA Congress voting test.

6 football associations don’t know Women’s World Cup is in France. It opens in Paris on Friday. And this FIFA Congress is in Paris pic.twitter.com/zsGLsIAxYM
— Rob Harris (@RobHarris) June 5, 2019

Not only did the voting test work improperly for some members (210 members voted, yet only 177 votes were deemed valid), 6 did not even know that this year’s Women’s World Cup was taking place in France. It begins on Friday. One could surmise this is a step towards transparency by even showing this blunder, but it does not really make FIFA look any better.

Alternative Facts

Here is another quote from Infantino’s address to Congress:

“This organization went from being toxic, almost criminal to what it should be — an organization that develops football, an organization that cares about football,” Infantino said. “We have transformed it into a new FIFA — an organization which is synonymous with credibility, trust, integrity, equality, human rights.”
– Infantino during his speech to FIFA’s 69th Congress on Wednesday, June 5, 2019.

By “almost criminal” does he mean completely corrupt? Surely, he does. And doesn’t being corrupt mean being criminal? There’s no almost about it.

The part about being “an organization that cares about football” is true. Especially when it comes to money. According to FIFA’s own press release, the reserves increased to $2.745 billion while a new record in revenue was reached in 2018 with $6.421 billion as a result of the 2018 World Cup. If my assets increased by 50% over the previous cycle, I’d definitely care about the sport too.

The last part – the one about synonymity with credibility, trust, integrity, equality, and human rights – is a lot to unpack. FIFA hardly evokes positive thoughts and certainly none of the ones referenced by Infantino will be at the top of the list. One only needs to read through the Wikipedia entry on the 2015 Corruption Case to see how wrong that statement is.

We have now established that credibility, trust, and integrity are, in fact, not synonymous with FIFA. Let’s move onto equality and human rights.

Equality

What is FIFA’s definition of equality? The “unprecedented” 20% of FIFA committee members now being women? The requirement that there must be at least 1 woman per confederation on the FIFA Council? Or what about the five games being held in Paris, yet the advertisement shown below is from September 2018 for the men’s French national team?

Latest on the invisible Women’s World Cup in Paris.
Metro – no @FIFAWWC signs/advertising spotted. But advertising for France men’s games in September pic.twitter.com/7xCdjc3y1e
— Rob Harris (@RobHarris) June 5, 2019

The 2019 Women’s World Cup features $30 million in prize money distributed to the nations, which is double the amount paid in 2015. $400 million was distributed at the 2018 World Cup.

The world’s top female soccer player, Ada Hegerberg, has not played for Norway in two years as she battles for equality in the Nordic country. She has decided to skip this year’s World Cup, which will take some shine off the upcoming tournament.

Hegerberg’s fight is just one of several around the world for equal pay between the men’s and women’s teams including the United States and Australia.

In fairness to FIFA, the revenues generated from the men’s World Cup far exceed the women’s World Cup, which leads to the observed disparity in prize money. It makes sense from an overall revenue standpoint that men would get paid more. Moreover, the relatively recent introduction of the women’s tournament plays a part in the smaller revenues (2019 will be only the 8th edition of the Women’s World Cup).

But…

Given the surging popularity and growth of the women’s game in the last decade, it would make sense for FIFA to provide more money. In fact, given FIFA’s strong desire to acquire money, they ought to grow the women’s game faster to reap higher revenues sooner.

Furthermore, increasing the prize pool to draw ought to bring more women into the sport with a higher wage. Higher prizes equals more competition, in turn leading to higher quality matches. This results in higher revenues/prize money and (hopefully) a virtuous cycle that leads to equality between the men’s and women’s games.

Human Rights

Finally, we reach the human rights aspect. Minky Worden has a Twitter thread linking articles detailing the failed attempt to expand the 2022 World Cup beyond Qatar’s borders.

Why on earth did FIFA want to expand the 2022 World Cup from 32 to 48 teams given the extensive human rights issues? One can probably figure out the billion$ of rea$on$ to ignore all the crimes.

For those wanting background on the human rights issues plaguing Qatar, Tifo Football has a good video on the topic, which is presented below.

As much as Gianni Infantio would like us to believe that FIFA has evolved, it has not.

NCAA Softball

2019 Women’s College World Series Schedule

May 26, 2019 Matthew Dixon Leave a comment

Oklahoma celebrates their Super Regional victory over Northwestern. The Sooners are headed back to the Women’s College World Series seeking their 5th title in school history. Oklahoma enters the WCWS as the #1 overall seed and have been dominant for much of the season. (Bryan Terry / The Oklahoman)

2019 Women’s College World Series Schedule

The 2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball season has come down to the final 8 teams vying to win the Women’s College World Series. An updated bracket can be found here. Each game of the 2019 Women’s College World Series will take place from ASA Hall of Fame Stadium in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The remaining 8 teams will compete in a double elimination format until only two teams remain. Those two teams will then play in a best-of-three championship series to determine the 2019 national champion.

The Florida State Seminoles were the defending national champion after defeating the Washington Huskies in the 2018 championship series. The Seminoles lost to Oklahoma State in the Super Regionals. The Oklahoma Sooners won the national championship in both 2016 and 2017 will be back seeking their third title in four seasons.

Seven of the eight schools in the Women’s College World Series have previously made an appearance in Oklahoma City. Minnesota is making its first appearance in the WCWS. Of the seven teams that have previously made the WCWS, Arizona has had the longest absence since their last appearance in 2010. The below table shows the eight teams taking part in the WCWS along with their last appearance, record, conference affiliation, and all-time WCWS appearances.

Seed	Team	Last WCWS	Record	Conference	WCWS Appearances
1	Oklahoma	2018	54-3	Big 12	13th
2	UCLA	2018	51-6	Pac-12	29th
3	Washington	2018	50-7	Pac-12	14th
5	Florida	2018	49-16	SEC	10th
6	Arizona	2010	47-12	Pac-12	23rd
7	Minnesota	None	46-12	Big 10	1st
8	Alabama	2016	57-8	SEC	12th
13	Oklahoma State	2011	44-15	Big 12	8th

The Women’s College World Series will get underway on Thursday, May 30 with four games scheduled for the opening day. The entire schedule can be found in the table below with the Championship Series located in a separate table.

The tables below will be updated with final scores as the games go final each day. Please note all times listed below are Eastern. The Championship Series schedule is listed at the bottom of the article.

Date	Game	Time (EST) TV	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/30/19	Game 1	12 PM ESPN	#6 Arizona	#3 Washington	3-1	8 Innings
5/30/19	Game 2	2:30 PM ESPN	#7 Minnesota	#2 UCLA	2-7
5/30/19	Game 3	7 PM ESPN2	#13 Okla. State	#5 Florida	2-1
5/30/19	Game 4	9:30 PM ESPN2	#8 Alabama	#1 Oklahoma	2-3
5/31/19	Game 5	7 PM ESPN	#2 UCLA	#6 Arizona	6-2
5/31/19	Game 6	9:30 PM ESPN	#1 Oklahoma	#13 Okla. State	6-1
6/1/19	Game 7	12 PM ESPN	#3 Washington	#7 Minnesota	5-3	Minnesota Eliminated
6/1/19	Game 8	2:30 PM ESPN	#5 Florida	#8 Alabama	3-15	Florida Eliminated / 5 Innings
6/1/19	Game 9	7 PM ESPN	#13 Okla. State	#3 Washington	0-1	Okla. State Eliminated
6/1/19	Game 10	9:30 PM ESPN	#8 Alabama	#6 Arizona	2-0	Arizona Eliminated
6/2/19	Game 11	1 PM ESPN	#3 Washington	#2 UCLA	0-3	Washington Eliminated / 10 Innings
6/2/19	Game 12	3:30 PM ESPN	#1 Oklahoma	#8 Alabama	0-1	8 Innings
~~6/2/19~~	~~Game 13~~	7 PM ESPN2	~~Game 11 Loser~~	~~Game 11 Winner~~		Elimination Game / If Necessary
6/2/19	Game 14	9:30 PM ESPN2	#8 Alabama	#1 Oklahoma	3-7	Alabama Eliminated

2019 Women’s College World Series Championship Series

Date	Game	Time (EST) TV	Team #1	Team #2	Score
6/3/19	Game 1	7 PM ESPN	#2 UCLA	#1 Oklahoma	16-3
6/4/19	Game 2	8 PM ESPN	#1 Oklahoma	#2 UCLA	4-5
~~6/5/19~~	~~Game 3~~	8 PM ESPN	~~#2 UCLA~~	~~#1 Oklahoma~~	~~If Necessary~~

NCAA Softball

2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball Super Regional Schedule

May 20, 2019 Matthew Dixon Leave a comment

James Madison won two games against #15 seed Michigan in Ann Arbor on Monday to advance to their second Super Regional in school history (Photo courtesy of James Madison Softball via Twitter @JMUSoftball).

2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball Super Regional Schedule

The 2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball Tournament is down to 16 teams after the first weekend of play. This upcoming weekend will feature those 16 teams in the Super Regional round to determine the final 8 teams that will advance to the Women’s College World Series in Oklahoma City. Only one of the 16 national seeds, #15 Michigan, failed to advance to the Super Regional round. An updated bracket can be found here.

Below are the 16 teams that advanced to the Super Regional round in a sortable table.

Seed	Team	Record	Conference	Super Regional Appearances
1	Oklahoma	52-3	Big 12	13th
2	UCLA	49-6	Pac-12	11th
3	Washington	48-7	Big 10	13th
4	Florida State	54-8	ACC	8th
5	Florida	47-15	SEC	12th
6	Arizona	45-12	Pac-12	14th
7	Minnesota	44-12	Big 10	2nd
8	Alabama	55-7	SEC	15th
9	Texas	45-15	Big 12	5th
10	LSU	42-17	SEC	8th
11	Mississippi	40-18	SEC	2nd
12	Tennessee	42-15	SEC	11th
13	Oklahoma State	42-14	Big 12	2nd
14	Kentucky	36-22	SEC	7th
16	Northwestern	47-11	Big 10	5th
Unseeded	James Madison	50-8	CAA	2nd

Below, we list each Super Regional in order of the opening Women’s College World Series matchup (1 v 8, 4 v 5, etc.). All dates and times listed below are tentative. Updates, along with final scores, will be made as the changes are known. The Tallahassee and Tuscaloosa Super Regionals will begin on Thursday while the remaining six will start play on Friday.

Super Regional #1 – Norman, Oklahoma

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/24/19	Game #1	3 PM ESPN2	#16 Northwestern	#1 Oklahoma	0-3
5/25/19	Game #2	4 PM ESPN	#1 Oklahoma	#16 Northwestern	8-0	OU to WCWS
~~5/26/19~~	~~Game #3~~	2 PM ESPN	~~#16 Northwestern~~	~~#1 Oklahoma~~		~~If Necessary~~

Super Regional #8 – Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/23/19	Game #1	9 PM ESPN	#9 Texas	#8 Alabama	0-3
5/24/19	Game #2	9 PM ESPN	#8 Alabama	#9 Texas	5-7
5/25/19	Game #3	2 PM ESPN	#9 Texas	#8 Alabama	5-8	Alabama to WCWS

Super Regional #4 – Tallahassee, Florida

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/23/19	Game #1	7 PM ESPN	#13 Okla. State	#4 Florida State	3-1	9 Innings
5/24/19	Game #2	7 PM ESPN	#4 Florida State	#13 Okla. State	4-1
5/25/19	Game #3	12 PM ESPN	#13 Okla. State	#4 Florida State	3-2	OSU to WCWS

Super Regional #5 – Gainesville, Florida

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/24/19	Game #1	7 PM ESPN2	#12 Tenn.	#5 Florida	0-3
5/25/19	Game #2	6 PM ESPN	#5 Florida	#12 Tenn.	2-3	9 Innings
5/26/19	Game #3	2 PM ESPNU	#12 Tenn.	#5 Florida	1-2	Florida to WCWS / 8 Innings

Super Regional #3 – Seattle, Washington

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/24/19	Game #1	9 PM ESPN2	#14 Kentucky	#3 Washington	0-3
5/25/19	Game #2	10 PM ESPN2	#3 Washington	#14 Kentucky	5-0	Washington to WCWS
~~5/26/19~~	~~Game #3~~	10 PM ESPN2	~~#14 Kentucky~~	~~#3 Washington~~		~~If Necessary~~

Super Regional #6 – Tuscon, Arizona

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/24/19	Game #1	7 PM ESPNU	#11 Ole Miss	#6 Arizona	2-5
5/25/19	Game #2	8 PM ESPN2	#6 Arizona	#11 Ole Miss	9-1	Arizona to WCWS
~~5/26/19~~	~~Game #3~~	8 PM ESPN2	~~#11 Ole Miss~~	~~#6 Arizona~~		~~If Necessary~~

Super Regional #2 – Los Angeles, California

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/24/19	Game #1	9 PM ESPNU	James Madison	#2 UCLA	1-6
5/25/19	Game #2	8 PM ESPN	#2 UCLA	James Madison	7-2	UCLA to WCWS
~~5/26/19~~	~~Game #3~~	4 PM ESPNU	~~James Madison~~	~~#2 UCLA~~		~~If Necessary~~

Super Regional #7 – Minneapolis, Minnesota

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/24/19	Game #1	5 PM ESPN2	#10 LSU	#7 Minnesota	3-5
5/25/19	Game #2	6 PM ESPN2	#7 Minnesota	#10 LSU	3-0	Minnesota to WCWS
~~5/26/19~~	~~Game #3~~	4 PM ESPN	~~#10 LSU~~	~~#7 Minnesota~~		~~If Necessary~~

Thursday, May 23 Super Regional Games

Super Regional	Game	Time (EST) TV	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
Tallahassee	Game 1	7 PM ESPN	#13 Okla. St.	#4 Fla. St.	3-1	9 Innings
Tuscaloosa	Game 1	9 PM ESPN	#9 Texas	#8 Alabama	0-3

Friday, May 24 Super Regional Games

Regional	Game	Time (EST) TV	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
Norman	Game 1	3 PM ESPN2	#16 Northwestern	#1 Oklahoma	0-3
Minneapolis	Game 1	5 PM ESPN2	#10 LSU	#7 Minnesota	3-5
Tallahassee	Game 2	7 PM ESPN	#4 Florida State	#13 Oklahoma State	4-1	Potential Elimination Game
Tuscon	Game 1	7 PM ESPNU	#11 Ole Miss	#6 Arizona	2-5
Gainesville	Game 1	7 PM ESPN2	#12 Tennessee	#5 Florida	0-3
Tuscaloosa	Game 2	9 PM ESPN	#8 Alabama	#9 Texas	5-7	Potential Elimination Game
Los Angeles	Game 1	9 PM ESPNU	James Madison	#2 UCLA	1-6
Seattle	Game 1	9 PM ESPN2	#14 Kentucky	#3 Washington	0-3

Saturday, May 25 Super Regional Games

Regional	Game	Time (EST) TV	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
Tallahassee	Game 3	12 PM ESPN	#13 Oklahoma State	#4 Florida State	3-2	OSU to WCWS
Tuscaloosa	Game 3	2 PM ESPN	#9 Texas	#8 Alabama	5-8	Alabama to WCWS
Norman	Game 2	4 PM ESPN	#1 Oklahoma	#16 Northwestern	8-0	OU to WCWS
Minneapolis	Game 2	6 PM ESPN2	#7 Minnesota	#10 LSU	3-0	Minnesota to WCWS
Gainesville	Game 2	6 PM ESPN	#5 Florida	#12 Tennessee	2-3	9 Innings
Tuscon	Game 2	8 PM ESPN2	#6 Arizona	#11 Ole Miss	9-1	Arizona to WCWS
Los Angeles	Game 2	8 PM ESPN	#2 UCLA	James Madison	7-2	UCLA to WCWS
Seattle	Game 2	10 PM ESPN2	#3 Washington	#14 Kentucky	5-0	Kentucky to WCWS

Sunday, May 26 Super Regional Games

Regional	Game	Time (EST) TV	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
Gainesville	Game 3	2 PM ESPNU	#12 Tennessee	#5 Florida	1-2	Florida to WCWS / 8 Innings
~~Norman~~	~~Game 3~~	2 PM ESPN	~~#16 Northwestern~~	~~#1 Oklahoma~~		~~If Necessary~~
~~Los Angeles~~	~~Game 3~~	4 PM ESPNU	~~James Madison~~	~~#2 UCLA~~		~~If Necessary~~
~~Minneapolis~~	~~Game 3~~	4 PM ESPN	~~#10 LSU~~	~~#7 Minnesota~~		~~If Necessary~~
~~Tuscon~~	~~Game 3~~	8 PM ESPN2	~~#11 Ole Miss~~	~~#6 Arizona~~		~~If Necessary~~
~~Seattle~~	~~Game 3~~	10 PM ESPN2	~~#14 Kentucky~~	~~#3 Washington~~		~~If Necessary~~

Women’s College World Series

The 2019 Women’s College World Series will take place between Thursday, May 30 and Wednesday, June 5 with every game shown on one of the ESPN family of network channels. All of the games will take place at the ASA Hall of Fame Stadium and OGE Energy Field from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

NCAA Softball

2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball Tournament Schedule

May 7, 2019 Matthew Dixon Leave a comment

Florida State won the 2018 Women’s College World Series after sweeping the Washington Huskies in the Championship Series. Can the Seminoles defend their crown? (Photo courtesy of WBSC)

2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball Tournament Schedule

The 2019 NCAA Division I Softball bracket has been revealed as the road to Oklahoma City commences this week. The Florida State Seminoles are the defending National Champions after sweeping the Washington Huskies in the 2019 WCWS Championship Series. The top four seeds are Oklahoma, UCLA, Washington, and Florida State.

The 2019 Tournament will begin with the regional round on Thursday, May 16. The regional round will conclude on Sunday, May 19 with the 16 winners of each regional advancing to the Super Regional Round. Below are the 16 National Seeds and regional hosts as ranked by the NCAA.

Seed	Team	Record	Conference
1	Oklahoma	49-2	Big 12
2	UCLA	46-5	Pac-12
3	Washington	45-7	Pac-12
4	Florida State	51-8	ACC
5	Florida	44-15	SEC
6	Arizona	42-12	Pac-12
7	Minnesota	41-12	Big 10
8	Alabama	52-7	SEC
9	Texas	41-14	Big 12
10	LSU	40-16	SEC
11	Ole Miss	37-17	SEC
12	Tennessee	39-14	SEC
13	Oklahoma State	39-14	Big 12
14	Kentucky	33-22	SEC
15	Michigan	43-11	Big 10
16	Northwestern	43-10	Big 10

2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball Teams

Below are all 64 teams that have made the 2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball tournament. 32 teams received automatic bids either by being the regular season champions or winning the conference tournament while the other 32 are selected at-large by the Softball Committee. The Atlantic 10 (Fordham), American Athletic (South Florida), and Big 12 (Oklahoma) conference tournaments were not completed as a result of weather. In these three cases, the automatic bid went to the regular season champion.

In the sortable table below, the automatic bids are listed first followed by the at-large bids listed in order of conference. The records for each team and which regional they have been assigned to are provided as well. Note: the hosts for each regional have been marked with an asterisk in the table below.

Conference	Team	Record	Route	Regional
American East	UMBC	30-22	Tournament Champions	Norman
American Athletic	South Florida	40-17	Regular Season Champions	Tallahassee
ACC	Florida State*	51-8	Tournament Champions	Tallahassee
Atlantic 10	Fordham	29-24	Regular Season Champions	Seattle
Atlantic Sun	Lipscomb	41-13-1	Tournament Champions	Tuscaloosa
Big 12	Oklahoma*	49-2	Regular Season Champions	Norman
Big East	DePaul	34-14	Tournament Champions	Ann Arbor
Big Sky	Weber State	26-19	Tournament Champions	Los Angeles
Big South	Longwood	37-20	Tournament Champions	Knoxville
Big Ten	Michigan*	43-11	Tournament Champions	Ann Arbor
Big West	Cal State Fullerton	38-16	Regular Season Champions	Los Angeles
Colonial	James Madison	47-7	Tournament Champions	Ann Arbor
C-USA	Louisiana Tech	44-14	Tournament Champions	Baton Rouge
Horizon	Detroit Mercy	31-26	Tournament Champions	Evanston
Ivy League	Harvard	25-17	Championship Series Winner	Tuscon
Mid-American	Toledo	29-26	Tournament Champions	Lexington
Metro Atlantic	Monmouth	36-16	Tournament Champions	Baton Rouge
Mid-Eastern	Bethune-Cookman	26-29	Tournament Champions	Tallahassee
Missouri Valley	Drake	42-14	Tournament Champions	Minneapolis
Mountain West	Colorado State	38-10	Regular Season Champions	Tuscon
Northeast	St. Francis (PA)	29-29	Tournament Champions	Ann Arbor
Ohio Valley	SE Missouri State	45-16	Tournament Champions	Oxford
Pac-12	UCLA*	46-5	Regular Season Champions	Los Angeles
Patriot League	Boston U	37-18	Tournament Champions	Gainesville
SEC	Florida*	44-15	Tournament Champions	Gainesville
Southern	Chattanooga	37-15	Tournament Champions	Oxford
Southland	Sam Houston State	34-21	Tournament Champions	Austin
SWAC	Alabama State	24-23	Tournament Champions	Tuscaloosa
Summit League	North Dakota State	42-14	Tournament Champions	Minneapolis
Sun Belt	Louisiana	50-4	Tournament Champions	Oxford
WAC	Seattle U	39-15	Tournament Champions	Seattle
West Coast	BYU	29-24	Regular Season Champions	Stillwater
American Athletic	Houston	37-17	At-Large	Austin
American Athletic	Tulsa	35-18	At-Large	Stillwater
ACC	Louisville	33-21	At-Large	Evanston
ACC	North Carolina	35-18	At-Large	Knoxville
ACC	Notre Dame	36-16	At-Large	Norman
ACC	Virginia Tech	45-9	At-Large	Lexington
Big 10	Illinois	32-23	At-Large	Lexington
Big 10	Minnesota*	41-12	At-Large	Minneapolis
Big 10	Northwestern*	43-10	At-Large	Evanston
Big 10	Ohio State	34-16	At-Large	Knoxville
Big 10	Wisconsin	40-12	At-Large	Norman
Big 12	Oklahoma State*	39-14	At-Large	Stillwater
Big 12	Texas*	41-14	At-Large	Austin
Big 12	Texas Tech	39-14	At-Large	Baton Rouge
Mountain West	Boise State	34-14	At-Large	Gainesville
Ohio Valley	Southern Illinois	33-13	At-Large	Evanston
Pac-12	Arizona*	42-12	At-Large	Tuscon
Pac-12	Arizona State	33-18	At-Large	Tuscaloosa
Pac-12	Stanford	32-18	At-Large	Gainesville
Pac-12	Washington*	45-7	At-Large	Seattle
SEC	Alabama*	52-7	At-Large	Tuscaloosa
SEC	Arkansas	38-18	At-Large	Stillwater
SEC	Auburn	37-19	At-Large	Tuscon
SEC	Georgia	40-17	At-Large	Minneapolis
SEC	Kentucky*	33-22	At-Large	Lexington
SEC	LSU*	40-16	At-Large	Baton Rouge
SEC	Missouri	32-23	At-Large	Los Angeles
SEC	Mississippi State	33-21	At-Large	Seattle
SEC	Ole Miss*	37-17	At-Large	Oxford
SEC	South Carolina	36-17	At-Large	Tallahassee
SEC	Tennessee*	39-14	At-Large	Knoxville
SEC	Texas A&M	28-25	At-Large	Austin

Regionals

The 2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball tournament will start with 16 regionals divided into four teams per regional. Each regional employs the double-elimination format with the 16 national seeds listed above hosting a regional. The regionals are listed in order of the potential Super Regional matchup (i.e. #1 vs #16, #8 vs #9, #5 vs. #12, #4 vs. #13, etc.).

All dates and times listed below are tentative. Updates, along with final scores, will be made as the changes are known.

Regional #1 – Norman, Oklahoma

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	7 PM	Wisconsin	Notre Dame	4-2
5/17/19	Game #2	9:30 PM	UMBC	#1 Oklahoma	0-12	5 Innings
5/18/19	Game #3	4 PM	#1 Oklahoma	Wisconsin	4-0	No-Hitter
5/18/19	Game #4	6:30 PM	Notre Dame	UMBC	2-0	UMBC Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	9 PM	Notre Dame	Wisconsin	4-5	Notre Dame Eliminated
5/19/19	Game #6	2 PM	Wisconsin	#1 Oklahoma	2-1
5/19/19	Game #7	4:30 PM	#1 Oklahoma	Wisconsin	2-0	Oklahoma Advances

Regional #16 – Evanston, Illinois

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	1 PM	Southern Illinois	Louisville	5-9
5/17/19	Game #2	3:30 PM	Detroit Mercy	#16 Northwestern	1-15	5 Innings
5/18/19	Game #3	2 PM	Louisville	#16 Northwestern	2-1
5/18/19	Game #4	4:30 PM	Detroit Mercy	Southern Illinois	1-2	Detroit Mercy Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	7 PM	#16 Northwestern	Southern Illinois	8-1	Southern Illinois Eliminated
5/19/19	Game #6	2 PM	#16 Northwestern	Louisville	7-0
5/19/19	Game #7	4:30 PM	Louisville	#16 Northwestern	3-4	Northwestern Advances

Regional #8 – Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	4 PM	Lipscomb	Arizona State	3-4
5/17/19	Game #2	6:30 PM	Alabama State	#8 Alabama	2-8
5/18/19	Game #3	2 PM	Arizona State	#8 Alabama	4-7
5/18/19	Game #4	4:30 PM	Alabama State	Lipscomb	0-14	Alabama State Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	7 PM	Arizona State	Lipscomb	10-1	Lipscomb Eliminated / 6 Innings
5/19/19	Game #6	2 PM	#8 Alabama	Arizona State	9-8	Alabama Advances
~~5/19/19~~	~~Game #7~~	~~4:30 PM~~	Game 6 Winner	Game 6 Loser		Elimination Game / If Necessary

Regional #9 – Austin, Texas

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	2 PM	Texas A&M	Houston	1-3
5/17/19	Game #2	5 PM	Sam Houston State	#9 Texas	2-1
5/18/19	Game #3	2 PM	Houston	Sam Houston State	5-0
5/18/19	Game #4	4:30 PM	#9 Texas	Texas A&M	3-2	Texas A&M Eliminated / 8 Innings
5/18/19	Game #5	7 PM	#9 Texas	Sam Houston State	3-0	SHSU Eliminated
5/19/19	Game #6	4:30 PM	Houston	#9 Texas	2-5
5/19/19	Game #7	7 PM	#9 Texas	Houston	7-0	Texas Advances

Regional #5 – Gainesville, Florida

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	12 PM	Boise State	Stanford	9-1
5/17/19	Game #2	2:30 PM	Boston U.	#5 Florida	0-3
5/18/19	Game #3	2 PM	#5 Florida	Boise State	8-0	5 Innings
5/18/19	Game #4	4:30 PM	Stanford	Boston U.	13-2	Boston U. Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	7 PM	Stanford	Boise State	0-2	Stanford Eliminated
5/19/19	Game #6	12 PM	Boise State	#5 Florida	0-5	Florida Advances
~~5/19/19~~	~~Game #7~~	~~2:30 PM~~	Game 6 Winner	Game 6 Loser		Elimination Game / If Necessary

Regional #12 – Knoxville, Tennessee

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	11 AM	Ohio State	North Carolina	1-0
5/17/19	Game #2	1:30 PM	Longwood	#12 Tennessee	0-8
5/18/19	Game #3	12 PM	#12 Tennessee	Ohio State	12-4
5/18/19	Game #4	2:30 PM	North Carolina	Longwood	3-1	Longwood Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	5 PM	North Carolina	Ohio State	5-3	Ohio St. Eliminated
5/19/19	Game #6	12 PM	#12 Tennessee	North Carolina	0-1
5/19/19	Game #7	2:30 PM	North Carolina	#12 Tennessee	0-2	Tennessee Advances

Regional #4 – Tallahassee, Florida

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	12 PM	South Florida	South Carolina	3-2
5/17/19	Game #2	2:30 PM	Bethune-Cookman	#4 Florida State	0-8
5/18/19	Game #3	12 PM	#4 Florida State	South Florida	12-1	5 Innings
5/18/19	Game #4	2:30 PM	South Carolina	Bethune-Cookman	10-0	Bethune-Cookman Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	5 PM	South Carolina	South Florida	2-1	USF Eliminated / 10 Innings
5/19/19	Game #6	12 PM	#4 Florida State	South Carolina	7-6	Florida St. Advances
~~5/19/19~~	~~Game #7~~	~~2:30 PM~~	Game 6 Winner	Game 6 Loser		Elimination Game / If Necessary

Regional #13 – Stillwater, Oklahoma

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/16/19	Game #1	6 PM	Tulsa	Arkansas	5-0
5/16/19	Game #2	8:30 PM	BYU	#13 Okla. State	1-3
5/17/19	Game #3	1 PM	#13 Okla. State	Tulsa	13-10
5/17/19	Game #4	3:30 PM	Arkansas	BYU	3-6	Arkansas Eliminated
5/17/19	Game #5	6 PM	BYU	Tulsa	4-6	BYU Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #6	4 PM	Tulsa	#13 Okla. State	1-2	Oklahoma State Advances
~~5/18/19~~	~~Game #7~~	~~6:30 PM~~	Game 6 Winner	Game 6 Loser		Elimination Game / If Necessary

Regional #3 – Seattle, Washington

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	7:30 PM	Seattle U.	Mississippi State	3-5
5/17/19	Game #2	10 PM	Fordham	#3 Washington	0-2
5/18/19	Game #3	6 PM	Mississippi State	#3 Washington	1-6
5/18/19	Game #4	8:30 PM	Fordham	Seattle U.	0-1	Fordham Eliminated / 8 Innings
5/18/19	Game #5	11 PM	Mississippi State	Seattle U.	7-3	Seattle U. Eliminated
5/19/19	Game #6	9 PM	#3 Washington	Mississippi State	8-0	Washington Advances / No-Hitter
~~5/19/19~~	~~Game #7~~	~~11:30 PM~~	Game 6 Winner	Game 6 Loser		Elimination Game / If Necessary

Regional #14 – Lexington, Kentucky

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	12 PM	Illinois	Virginia Tech	2-6
5/17/19	Game #2	2:30 PM	Toledo	#14 Kentucky	2-7
5/18/19	Game #3	12 PM	Virginia Tech	#14 Kentucky	1-8
5/18/19	Game #4	2:30 PM	Toledo	Illinois	0-2	Toledo Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	5 PM	Virginia Tech	Illinois	5-1	Illinois Eliminated
5/19/19	Game #6	12 PM	#14 Kentucky	Virginia Tech	11-1	Kentucky Advances / 6 Innings
~~5/19/19~~	~~Game #7~~	~~2:30 PM~~	Game 6 Winner	Game 6 Loser		Elimination Game / If Necessary

Regional #6 – Tuscon, Arizona

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	9 PM	Colorado State	Auburn	5-10
5/17/19	Game #2	11:30 PM	Harvard	#6 Arizona	1-5
5/18/19	Game #3	6 PM	Auburn	#6 Arizona	1-2
5/18/19	Game #4	8:30 PM	Harvard	Colorado State	0-6	Harvard Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	11 PM	Auburn	Colorado State	8-0	CSU Eliminated
5/19/19	Game #6	7 PM	#6 Arizona	Auburn	12-3	Arizona Advances
~~5/19/19~~	~~Game #7~~	~~9:30 PM~~	Game 6 Winner	Game 6 Loser		Elimination Game / If Necessary

Regional #11 – Oxford, Mississippi

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	4:30 PM	SE Missouri State	Louisiana	2-3
5/17/19	Game #2	7 PM	Chattanooga	#11 Ole Miss	0-12	5 Innings
5/18/19	Game #3	1 PM	Louisiana	#11 Ole Miss	2-0
5/18/19	Game #4	3:30 PM	Chattanooga	SE Missouri State	1-2	Chattanooga Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	6 PM	#11 Ole Miss	SE Missouri State	10-0	SEMO Eliminated / 5 Innings
5/19/19	Game #6	3 PM	#11 Ole Miss	Louisiana	5-1
5/19/19	Game #7	5:30 PM	Louisiana	#11 Ole Miss	4-5	Ole Miss Advances

Regional #7 – Minneapolis, Minnesota

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	7 PM	Drake	Georgia	4-6	8 Innings
5/17/19	Game #2	9:30 PM	North Dak. St.	#7 Minnesota	0-3
5/18/19	Game #3	4 PM	Georgia	#7 Minnesota	1-2
5/18/19	Game #4	6:30 PM	North Dak. St.	Drake	0-8	NDSU Eliminated / 5 Innings
5/20/19	Game #5	11 AM	Georgia	Drake	7-4	Drake Eliminated
5/20/19	Game #6	1 PM	#7 Minnesota	Georgia	8-1	Minnesota Advances
~~5/20/19~~	~~Game #7~~	~~3:30 PM~~	Game 6 Winner	Game 6 Loser		Elimination Game / If Necessary

Regional #10 – Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	3 PM	Louisiana Tech	Texas Tech	0-3
5/17/19	Game #2	5:30 PM	Monmouth	#10 LSU	0-2
5/18/19	Game #3	2 PM	Texas Tech	#10 LSU	4-5	13 Innings
5/18/19	Game #4	4:30 PM	Monmouth	Louisiana Tech	0-1	Monmouth Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	7 PM	Texas Tech	Louisiana Tech	3-1	La. Tech Eliminated
5/19/19	Game #6	4 PM	#10 LSU	Texas Tech	4-5
5/19/19	Game #7	6:30 PM	Texas Tech	#10 LSU	1-5	LSU Advances

Regional #2 – Los Angeles, California

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	8:30 PM	Cal. State Fullerton	Missouri	4-7
5/17/19	Game #2	11 PM	Weber State	#2 UCLA	0-6
5/18/19	Game #3	6 PM	Missouri	#2 UCLA	1-9	5 Innings
5/18/19	Game #4	8:30 PM	Weber State	Cal. State Fullerton	7-3	CSF Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	11 PM	Missouri	Weber State	7-0	Weber St. Eliminated
5/19/19	Game #6	5 PM	#2 UCLA	Missouri	1-5
5/19/19	Game #7	7:30 PM	Missouri	#2 UCLA	1-13	UCLA Advances / 5 Innings

Regional #15 – Ann Arbor, Michigan

Date	Game	Time (EST)	Team #1	Team #2	Score	Notes
5/17/19	Game #1	2 PM	DePaul	James Madison	2-5
5/17/19	Game #2	4:30 PM	St. Francis (PA)	#15 Michigan	0-8	6 Innings
5/18/19	Game #3	12 PM	James Madison	#15 Michigan	0-1	12 Innings
5/18/19	Game #4	2:30 PM	St. Francis (PA)	DePaul	1-3	St. Francis Eliminated
5/18/19	Game #5	5 PM	James Madison	DePaul	3-0	DePaul Eliminated
5/20/19	Game #6	12 PM	#15 Michigan	James Madison	0-3
5/20/19	Game #7	2:30 PM	James Madison	#15 Michigan	2-1	James Madison Advances

Super Regionals

The Super Regional round of the 2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball Tournament will be a best of three series between the dates of Thursday, May 23 and Sunday, May 26. The campus sites for each Super Regional will be determined upon completion of the regional round by the NCAA, if needed.

Women’s College World Series

Horse Racing

Revisiting the Trends From the Kentucky Derby Points System

May 7, 2019 Matthew Dixon Leave a comment

Country House with jockey Flavien Prat after winning the 2019 Kentucky Derby (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Revisiting The Trends From The Kentucky Derby Points System

The 2019 Kentucky Derby provided plenty of talking points as Maximum Security crossed the line first, but was subsequently disqualified and placed 17th, which elevated Country House from second to become the winner of the event’s 145th running. Here is a replay of the race below for those who may have not seen it.

Watch it again….

65-1 Country House wins the Kentucky Derby after a disqualification of Maximum Security.pic.twitter.com/PeBAQXJwJb
— Kentucky Derby (@KentuckyDerby) May 4, 2019

This article does not address whether the disqualification was correct, nor does it address the slew of concerns as result of the disqualification related to transparency and consistency from stewards. Those issues deserve a separate discussion some of which have already been rigorously debated on social media. This article is a revisit of one from three years ago that reviewed the trends in the Kentucky Derby. In summary, the article from 2016 basically noted the obvious: favorites, speed, and California based horses were dominating the Kentucky Derby.

For a bit of history, prior to the 2013 Kentucky Derby, entrants were determined by how much purse money they earned in graded stake races regardless of distance, surface, and also included juvenile race earnings. Since 2013, the Kentucky Derby entrants have been determined by how many points a horse totals in the designated races, which focus on longer distance events. The earlier events between September and February have a lower point value assigned to them while the largest point value races are held primarily in March and April. With that context, here are the winners of the last seven years, all under the current Kentucky Derby points system.

Year	Winner	$2 Win	Track Condition	Field Size	Favorite Finish
2019	Country House	$132.40	Sloppy (Sealed)	19	4th
2018	Justify	$7.80	Sloppy (Sealed)	20	1st
2017	Always Dreaming	$11.40	Wet Fast (Sealed)	20	1st
2016	Nyquist	$6.60	Fast	20	1st
2015	American Pharoah	$7.80	Fast	18	1st
2014	California Chrome	$7.00	Fast	19	1st
2013	Orb	$12.80	Sloppy (Sealed)	19	1st

In the first six years showed a parade of favorites and the track condition did not matter. Justify was the only California horse to win the last three years, but he made quite the impression by winning the Triple Crown (Maximum Security was the second favorite for this year’s Kentucky Derby).

To keep things in perspective, let’s look at the seven years prior to the introduction of the points system.

Year	Winner	$2 Win	Track Condition	Field Size	Favorite Finish
2012	I’ll Have Another	$32.60	Fast	20	2nd
2011	Animal Kingdom	$43.80	Fast	19	8th
2010	Super Saver	$18.00	Sloppy (Sealed)	20	6th
2009	Mine That Bird	$103.20	Sloppy (Sealed)	19	18th
2008	Big Brown	$6.80	Fast	20	1st
2007	Street Sense	$11.80	Fast	20	1st
2006	Barbaro	$14.20	Fast	20	7th

The previous seven years before the points system show only two winning favorites with another favorite finishing as the runner up. Also, only I’ll Have Another had previously run in California and then won the Derby. It is worth noting that over the last 20 years Santa Anita (California), Oaklawn (Arkansas), and Gulfstream Park (Florida) have had the best success producing Kentucky Derby winners, which is an interesting trend in itself in terms of quality prep races.

Looking at results alone is insufficient to draw conclusions. Let’s now look at the internal fractions to see if there was indeed a shift in how fast the races were being run.

Year	1/4 Split	1/2 Split	3/4 Split	Final Time	Track	Winning Style
2019	22.31	46.62	1:12.50	2:03.93	Sloppy (Sealed)	Mid Pack
2018	22.24	45.77	1:11.01	2:04.20	Sloppy (Sealed)	Near Lead
2017	22.70	46.53	1:11.12	2:03.59	Wet Fast (Sealed)	Near Lead
2016	22.58	45.72	1:10.40	2:01.31	Fast	Near Lead
2015	23.24	47.34	1:11.29	2:03.02	Fast	Near Lead
2014	23.04	47.37	1:11.80	2:03.66	Fast	Near Lead
2013	22.57	45.33	1:09.80	2:02.89	Sloppy (Sealed)	Deep Closer

Based on the seven years of the points system, it is clear that a horse near the lead does quite well. One caveat is that the horses that won these races were the favorites and were considered better than the competition. This could be nothing more than the best horses having a similar style while also being head and shoulders above their peers. Below are the seven years before the start of the points system.

Year	1/4 Split	1/2 Split	3/4 Split	Final Time	Track	Winning Style
2012	22.32	45.39	1:09.80	2:01.83	Fast	Mid Pack
2011	23.24	48.63	1:13.40	2:02.04	Fast	Mid Pack
2010	22.63	46.16	1:10.58	2:04.45	Sloppy (Sealed)	Stalker
2009	22.98	47.23	1:12.09	2:02.66	Sloppy (Sealed)	Deep Closer
2008	23.30	47.04	1:11.14	2:01.82	Fast	Near Lead
2007	22.96	46.26	1:11.13	2:02.17	Fast	Deep Closer
2006	22.63	46.07	1:10.88	2:01.36	Fast	Near Lead

The 2006 – 2012 time frame saw fewer near the lead types winning with a fair distribution between the different running styles. Let’s average the time splits for the two periods for comparison.

Time Frame	1/4 Split	1/2 Split	3/4 Split	Final Time
2013 – 2019	22.67	46.38	1:11.13	2:03.23
2006 – 2012	22.87	46.68	1:11.29	2:02.33

In 2015, yours truly theorized that cheap speed (horses who are more adept at shorter distances) were causing the early fractions to be too quick and tiring out more horses, thus leading to more upsets. Trinniberg from the 2012 Derby is an of cited example of a speed horse who entered the Kentucky Derby with little chance of winning. However, the averages say the opposite is happening; the races under the points system are faster, on average. Hmm.

The early half of the race is quicker by about a length, yet speed horses are still winning. Maybe this is indicative of Churchill Downs getting the points system right by allowing the quality speed horses to shine? (Some will say this is true except for Maximum Security after Saturday’s controversial ending, but that is a whole different discussion). For what it’s worth, had Maximum Security not been disqualified, he would have been a gate-to-wire winner, which would have made it six straight years a horse on or near the lead won the Kentucky Derby. As stated earlier, it could be the case that the best horses were accurately made the favorite and all had similar front running styles that were most effective against the competition. Or maybe the points system is working as intended.

Conclusion

The Kentucky Derby is such a unique event to draw any parallels from as each running is different from any other one.
How many horses were setting the pace? Was there any pressure on the leader(s)? How was the track condition? How did the track condition affect the shape of the race? Did one of the speed horses not break well? Was there interference at some point? What about the variation in training methods over the years? Or race-day medication? Security barn regulations? Those are just a small sample of the many questions that can have different answers between time periods or year to year for how each race was run and won. The myriad of factors changing from year to year can also make it nigh impossible to establish legitimate trends though that will not stop some from trying.

It is worth tracking how speed horses fare over the next few runnings to see if this is a legitimate trend. So far, speed has been quite dominant under the points system, but that could easily be an early trend due to the novelty of the system. Perhaps Country House is the start of a mid-pack or closer streak of winners. Furthermore, quite a few trends have been broken in the last 15 years that seemed unlikely such as Justify becoming the first horse since Apollo in 1882 to win the Derby without a start at two. Or Barbaro winning the 2006 Kentucky Derby after a five-week layoff, a feat that had not been achieved for the previous 50 years. Or Big Brown winning the 2008 race from post 20 becoming the first horse to do that since 1929.

The Kentucky Derby is always a spectacle for both casual and long-time observers. 2019 did not disappoint in that regard. Enjoy the rest of the Triple Crown trail (and whatever drama comes along with it)!

NCAA Football

Transitioning From FCS To FBS Part 2: Potential Teams

August 29, 2018 Matthew Dixon Leave a comment

North Dakota State has been the absolute best team at the FCS level since 2010. The Bison are natural candidates for the FBS but does it truly make sense? (Tim Heitman-USA TODAY Sports)

Transitioning From FCS To FBS Part 2: Potential Teams

Welcome to second portion of our two-part series examining the transition from the FCS to FBS. In part one we looked at how teams have fared in the past. In this second part, we look at the teams best suited for the transition and also look at a few other teams.

To recap part one briefly, we looked at the schools that transitioned from FCS to FBS since 1987. The teams that performed the best were teams that had multiple playoff appearances in the final five FCS seasons. The second best group was the new programs followed by teams that had one or no playoff appearances in the final five FCS seasons.

We will make some assumptions about each team below that may or may not hold true if these scenarios in reality. For one, we look at each team separately and do not take into account all the dominoes from a potential realignment with our other teams. That would be far too time consuming to consider.

Secondly, geography and travel are big components of the analysis. We look first at which geographical area would be best and then look at the additional travel required if they were to move conferences.

Finally, keep in mind that while these teams would see increased revenues after they moved, they would also see increased costs in the form of stadium upgrades and travel for other sports would increase among other factors.

Now we can look at potential jumpers and new programs with the criteria we laid out in the first part. Please note, the below is purely a fun, speculative exercise.

North Dakota State (Jump Up)

North Dakota State is the first team discussed any time FCS to FBS transitions are explored. The Bison have only won six of the last seven FCS National Championships as of this writing and have clearly been the best team of the decade at the FCS level. There is one issue that really hurts the Bison and that is location.

NDSU is currently the most northern member of the Missouri Valley Football Conference until 2020 when North Dakota joins. NDSU is geographically awkward if they were to move up to the FBS. The best fit would be the Big 10 especially in terms of their location and style of play. However, the Bison would probably have to prove themselves at the FBS level first which would put them in the Mountain West. Again, this is not exactly ideal.

Also consider the Fargodome, which has a capacity of 19,000 for football. They would have to upgrade the stadium to accommodate the increased number of fans. That would take money, which the Bison would recoup over time, but what about the additional travel costs not just for football, but also the other sports?

Verdict: We would love to see North Dakota State make the transition, but it does not seem likely given some of the logistical constraints.

Sam Houston State (Jump Up)

Here is another FCS powerhouse each year. The Bearkats have made seven straight playoff appearances with two National Championship losses to North Dakota State (those pesky Bison). Sam Houston State has one of the best offenses each season in the FCS and play in the Southland Conference.

The Southland Conference is a wonderful geographical set up for the teams. All members are from Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, which is more than convenient. So where would they land if they went to the FBS? There are three conferences: The American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, and Sun Belt.

The American Athletic Conference would place the Bearkats in the West along with Houston, Memphis, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, and Navy. Navy is a horrendous fit for the West Division, which means that the AAC could balance the divisions by getting a second West team and moving Navy to the far more natural East. In this case, they would face six west opponents and two east opponents each season.

Conference USA currently has 14 teams with seven from the West Division located in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. If C-USA expanded to 16 teams that would leave only one game per season they would face an East Division opponent (based on an 8 game conference schedule). They would also face that East opponent on the road once every other year. Not a bad move based on assumptions above.

The Sun Belt is the final option and teams leaving the Southland Conference frequently find the Sun Belt as their FBS destination. The conference has been split into East and West Divisions among its 10 members. The West Division has teams from Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. Based on an 8 game schedule, they would have to face two East opponents each year with one at home and one on the road.

Finally, Sam Houston State would have to increase the size of the stadium from the current size of roughly 12,500.

Verdict: The Southland Conference is a wonderful spot for Sam Houston State right now. If they were dead set on the FBS, then Conference USA would be the best option.

James Madison (Jump Up)

James Madison is a recent addition to the top level of the FCS. The Dukes have made the playoffs four straight seasons, but the last two put them up with the best. In 2016, they upset the Bison for the National Championship and then followed that up in 2017 with a loss to Bison in the title game. To be fair, this is not the same sustained success as the previous two entrants, but strong enough for consideration.

The Dukes currently play in the Colonial Athletic Association, which stretches from Maine to South Carolina. JMU sits at the southern edge of the conference, which might make travel costly depending on the scheduling rotation.

JMU, like Sam Houston State, has several options. They could go to the American Athletic, Conference USA, or Sun Belt. James Madison would face the opposite of SHSU’s possibilities for all three.

The Dukes would be in the East for the AAC though that would make it unbalanced in terms of natural East and West programs. For C-USA, they would be a natural fit for the East Division while the same would be true for the Sun Belt.

James Madison has a solid stadium size already at 25,000, which will make the costs relatively less expensive for expansion.

Verdict: James Madison sits in an awkward geographical position for the three conferences above. Conference USA would be the best fit for costs and travel as they would only face a West opponent on the road once every other year.

Jacksonville State (Jump Up)

The Jacksonville State Gamecocks have dominated the Ohio Valley Conference with four straight titles. They have made the FCS playoffs five straight seasons with a title game appearance in 2015 (yes, they lost to NDSU).

As part of the OVC, Jacksonville State is the southern most member, but it is a comfortable distance to northern most team, Eastern Illinois. The team furthest to the west is Southeast Missouri State on the Missouri-Illinois border, which again, is not too bad.

If the Gamecocks were to go to the FBS they too have the options of the AAC, C-USA, and Sun Belt. However, one fits better than the other two and that is the Sun Belt.

JSU’s location in northeast Alabama puts them right in the middle of the conference in terms of location. That would make them ideal to be put in either division as needed. Or the Sun Belt could flip the division from east and west to the north and south while also adding another team to have an even number of teams.

The JSU stadium can hold 24,000, which will help limit the amount they need to spend on expanding the stadium.

Verdict: The Ohio Valley is a decent fit for them, but if they are looking for the FBS, the Sun Belt makes sense. While the AAC and Conference USA are both plausible, the Sun Belt felt most natural.

Eastern Washington (Jump Up)

Eastern Washington has also been a mainstay in the FCS Playoffs. Since their National Championship in 2010, they have made the playoffs five times and progressed to at least the quarterfinals on each occasion. Four of the five appearances resulted in a semifinal appearance.

The Eagles play in the Big Sky Conference which stretches from Washington all the way to the middle of Arizona and out to the eastern border of North Dakota. As mentioned above, the University of North Dakota will be moving to the Missouri Valley Football Conference and it is not hard to see why when their closest in conference opponent is Northern Colorado.

There are two natural destinations for EWU with the Pac-12 and Mountain West. The Pac-12 is a long shot considering they would probably want to see how they perform in the FBS before having them join. So that leaves the Mountain West.

The Eagles would probably be put in the Mountain Division, which would require travel to Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The travel is not horrendous outside of the trip to New Mexico every other year. The west division would be very similar to New Mexico and would also have to be done every other year.

The stadium capacity of Roos Field is a paltry 8,600, which means a huge outlay to expand the size. At least their red turf would go along nicely with Boise State’s blue turf.

Verdict: The current travel arrangements do not differ much as if they were to play in the Mountain West. The stadium expenditure would probably be another point of concern. The reality is go for Pac-12 money (though unlikely) or stay put in the Big Sky.

Virginia Commonwealth (New Program)

VCU, currently in the Atlantic 10 for all other sports, would make a wonderful addition to Conference USA. They are located in Richmond, which is the capital of Virginia. That provides a great fan base for any potential team. VCU has not fielded more than a club team for football. In addition, a stadium would be required for the football team making the likelihood of this happening slim.

What VCU does have in terms of location also applies to the student body. The Rams have the second highest enrollment in the state (not counting Liberty’s online degree numbers). That provides a solid footing if they choose to pursue adding a football program.

There have been some worries expressed by current Athletic Director Ed McLaughlin. He feels that the costs would exceed the revenue generated as noted here. It appears that as long as McLaughlin is at VCU, the Rams will not have a football team without someone donating what is needed.

Verdict: Highly unlikely given the current AD and all the startup costs for the program.

University of Texas Arlington (New Program)

UT Arlington previously had a football program until 1985 when the constant financial losses caused the school to stop sponsoring the sport. It may be time for the Mavericks to make a comeback to the field. UTA is the fourth largest school in Texas with an enrollment of 42,000 in the football crazed state.

Back in 2004, students voted to increase tuition by $2 per semester hour if football was brought back. All good then, right? Well, not quite. The costs would be enormous especially if the ultimate goal is the FBS. The stadium, which currently holds 12,500, would need a massive upgrade to host FBS football games. To pay for the new sport, the cost would most likely go to students in the form of higher tuition as noted above.

One area that UTA would not have to worry about is finding a FBS conference. They are part of the Sun Belt in the other sports offered by the school. That is one piece of the puzzle they will not have to worry about if they bring back football. UTA would have good knowledge about the travel costs if they were to play in the Sun Belt.

Verdict: Viable but UTA needs to be prudent about the costs and expected revenue so they do not make the same mistake from 1985.

That concludes the second part of our series on the FCS to FBS transition. We hope you enjoyed the speculation and analysis!

NCAA Football

Transitioning From FCS To FBS Part 1: Past History

August 22, 2018 Matthew Dixon Leave a comment

Liberty upset Baylor to open the 2017 and Now the Flames will be in the FBS. Is there anything from the FCS jumpers that may indicate how Liberty will perform in 2018? (Cooper Neill/Getty Images North America)

Transitioning From FCS To FBS Part 1: Past History

Welcome to a two part series where we take a look at how teams perform when they move from the FCS to FBS. We went all the way back to 1987 when Akron made the jump from the the then named Division 1AA (now FCS) to Division 1A (now FBS).

Part one will look at the past with how previous teams performed when they transitioned. Part two will focus on which teams could make the jump from FCS to FBS or start a football program.

We logged each team’s five seasons prior to the transition as well as the first five seasons in the FBS. We looked at how many seasons it took for each program to reach the postseason in the FBS. 28 teams have made the jump from FCS to FBS since 1987 and Liberty will become number 29 in 2018.

After combing through the data, we found some obvious trends and perhaps a surprising trend. Let’s take a closer look at the three groups of teams.

Perennial FCS Playoff Teams

We will start with an obvious trend: teams that had multiple playoff appearances in their final five FCS seasons were more successful than those that did not make multiple appearances. This makes sense because good teams in the FCS will naturally be more prepared to compete in the FBS.

Multiple Playoff Appearances
Team	1st FBS Year	Years
Nevada	1992	1
Louisiana-Monroe	1994	19
Marshall	1994	1
Troy	2001	4
Western Kentucky	2008	5
Massachusetts	2012	Haven’t reached bowl
Georgia Southern	2014	2
Appalachian State	2014	2
Coastal Carolina	2017	Haven’t reached bowl

9		4.9
Teams		Avg. Years

The table above shows that teams to make multiple playoff appearances in their final five FCS seasons have, on average, made a bowl game by their fifth season of FBS football. Three notes on this:

Both Massachusetts and Coastal Carolina have yet to reach the FBS postseason since making the jump. Coastal Carolina will only be in their second year of FBS in 2018.
Some observers may note that UNLV became part of the FBS in 1978, however, they went from Division 2 straight to FBS and are not included in the calculations above.
Both Georgia Southern and Appalachian State had more than six wins their first season in 2014 but thanks to draconian NCAA rules both teams were ineligible for a bowl game.

Now let’s look at how these teams perform in their five final seasons of FCS football followed by their first five FBS season.

Pre Transition Single Year Average
Season	Wins	Losses
Year -5	8.8	4.1
Year -4	9.0	4.0
Year -3	8.7	3.6
Year -2	9.3	3.6
Year -1	8.9	3.3

All 5 Years Avg	8.9	3.7

Post Transition Single Year Average
Season	Wins	Losses
Year 1	5.4	6.4
Year 2	5.8	6.4
Year 3	6.6	5.4
Year 4	6.3	6.0
Year 5	6.3	5.7

All 5 Years Avg	6.1	6.0

Two notes on the post FBS transition:

Both Georgia Southern and Appalachian State have not yet completed their 5th season in the FBS. The numbers above may change after 2018, but probably not too drastically.
Coastal Carolina is only included in Year 1 of the post transition averages. Like Georgia Southern and Appalachian State, the inclusion of CCU’s results may slightly alter the numbers.

As expected, teams that are good before leaving the FCS would be the most likely to make the jump. Once in the FBS, they struggle a bit compared to their time in the FCS, but going roughly 5-6 in year one is pretty impressive. As will be shown later, these teams show the least amount of fall off when completing the transition.

Next up, we turn our attention to the teams that have little playoff experience before making the transition.

FCS Teams Lacking Playoff Experience

It stands to reason that good FCS teams would perform better moving up to the FBS, but how about FCS teams that are not as good? We have some evidence of this category and we use the criteria of a team that had one or no FCS playoff appearances in their final five seasons.

1 or No Playoff Appearances
Team	1st FBS Year	Years
Akron	1987	19
Louisiana Tech	1989	2
Arkansas State	1992	14
North Texas	1995	7
Central Florida	1996	10
Boise State	1996	4
UAB	1996	9
Middle Tennessee	1999	8
Buffalo	1999	10
Connecticut	2000	5
Texas State	2012	Haven’t reached bowl

11		8.8
Teams		Avg. Years

One note on North Texas:

North Texas was in the FBS from 1975 to 1982 as an Independent. However, financial issues forced them to drop back to the FCS level for a decade (1983-1994). Due to that length of time at the FCS level, we include them in this group.

On average, it took until roughly the ninth season at the FBS level for the teams above to reach the postseason. Why would these teams make the jump if they have not been overly successful against FCS competition?

Some of these decisions were made several years in advance and their crystal ball probably did not foresee a relative downturn for the football program. If these administrators thought their football teams would not be as good perhaps they would reconsider their move.

Another reason is geographical fit to cut down on travel costs. Speaking of money, that is always a consideration in the form of more TV revenue as well as the exposure to a wider audience due to the TV contracts. More exposure on TV leads to more people being aware of the college’s presence and potentially more students.

Moreover, the facilities are already mostly there. There may be some stadium upgrades needed, but the structures are already in place so the cost is not nearly has high as if they were starting from scratch.

Whatever the reasoning behind the move, we cannot deny these teams struggle. Let’s look at the final five years in the FCS compared to the first five years in the FBS.

Pre Transition Single Year Average
Season	Wins	Losses
Year -5	6.6	4.8
Year -4	6.4	4.8
Year -3	5.6	5.3
Year -2	5.7	5.6
Year -1	5.6	5.5

All 5 Years Avg	6.0	5.2

Post Transition Single Year Average
Season	Wins	Losses
Year 1	3.2	7.8
Year 2	4.5	6.5
Year 3	5.5	5.5
Year 4	4.8	6.6
Year 5	4.7	6.7

All 5 Years Avg	4.6	6.6

The teams lacking FCS playoff experience average two wins less than teams with multiple FCS playoff appearances. In fact, the worst season for perennial playoff teams (5.4 wins in the first season) is nearly identical to the BEST average of the low playoff experience teams (5.5 in the third year).

As previously stated, this is logical. Better FCS teams are better prepared for the FBS, will be more likely to succeed, and have less catching up to do.

One final group to look at is new programs. All these schools played at least one season at the FCS level before embarking on their journey to the FBS.

New Schools

This concluding group of teams started from scratch before joining the FBS.

New Programs
Teams	1st FBS Year	Years
South Florida	2001	5
Florida Atlantic	2004	4
Florida International	2004	7
UT-San Antonio	2012	5
South Alabama	2012	3
Georgia State	2013	3
Old Dominion	2014	3
Charlotte	2015	Haven’t reached bowl

8		4.3
Teams		Avg. Years

Four notes on this group of teams:

Like Georgia Southern and Appalachian State, Old Dominion had more than six wins in 2014 but those pesky NCAA rules kept them out of a bowl game.
Old Dominion previously had a football program in the early and mid 20th century. 2009 was the first season since 1940 and given the length of time, they were reasonably considered a new program.
Old Dominion made the FCS Playoffs in both 2011 and 2012 and thus qualify as a playoff perennial as well. We chose to make them a new program given how recently they restarted the program.
South Florida, Florida Atlantic, and UT-San Antonio all had winning records in their first season, but once more the NCAA rules prevented these teams from being selected for a bowl.

Note the average seasons it has taken new programs (4.3) compared to playoff perennials (4.9) and the playoff lacking teams (8.8). That is impressive considering they are going from no football competition whatsoever to FBS. Outside of Charlotte, every team listed above went from zero to a bowl appearance within a decade of their first season.

Post Transition Single Year Average
Season	Wins	Losses
Year 1	4.8	7.0
Year 2	4.9	6.8
Year 3	4.9	7.4
Year 4	4.1	7.9
Year 5	6.2	6.3

All 5 Years Avg	4.9	7.1

The new shooters also have a respectable average win total for all five years given the infancy of the programs. The question then becomes how are these teams able to compete relatively early in their school’s history? Take another look at the list of teams:

Teams

South Florida

Florida Atlantic

Florida International

UT-San Antonio

South Alabama

Georgia State

Old Dominion

Charlotte

Where are the majority of teams located? In the southeast, the most popular area for college football. Here is a link to the New York Times‘ article that provides a graphical representation of how popular college football is around the nation. Even UT-San Antonio, while not in the southeast, is in another football crazed part of the US: Texas. While not nearly the same caliber as their SEC counterparts, the fact these teams are in top recruiting states certainly helps.

The location does not explain everything as there are major costs and considerations of starting a new program. Will there be funding from outside sources? Will fans continue to show up if the team is not doing well on the field? Will the additional exposure make up for the initial outlay of costs? What are the burdens to the additional students and surrounding areas? These are just some of questions to consider when starting a football program with the intent of making it to the FBS.

Clearly these programs thought it was worth the effort and expenses to make it to the FBS. So far, these programs have seen success in the form of reaching the postseason early in their history.

Wrapping Up

After looking at the three sets of teams it is clear that you want to be a team with multiple FCS playoff appearances before heading to the FBS. To be fair, this involves some luck in the way of scheduling, injuries, and coaching changes to name a few.

For teams that have little FCS playoff experience, the best idea would be to wait until the program has shown consistent success against the best teams. This is not always practical as they window to join the FBS may be small or their football program may just have been sub-par for several seasons before the transition.

If an administration is intent on going to the FBS, then they will have to be patient and hope for some luck along the way. Consider Louisiana Tech, a team that made the Independence Bowl in their second FBS season. In addition, Connecticut was a team that went from Independent status to the Big East (albeit watered down) within 5 years of joining the FBS. Finally, there is Boise State. The Broncos went to a bowl game in their fourth FBS season, but are now one of the best Group of 5 schools every season.

That leads us to the 2018 debut of Liberty as a FBS team. The Flames have posted a winning record each season since 2007. However, they only went to one FCS playoff in their final five seasons at that division. Facing a majority of FBS teams (Idaho State and Norfolk State are the two FCS opponents), they will probably struggle this season.

Finally, we have the new programs. They do surprisingly well at the FBS level reaching the postseason in their fourth of fifth year, on average. Location is important along with some luck to help them become successful.

One closing note to make is that the above analysis looks solely at the on field performance. The decision to make the move from FCS to FBS is far more involved and nuanced. We will touch on some of those factors in our second part.

Join us for part two where we take a look at which schools would best fit to make the jump from FCS to FBS or start a new program.

Which Schools Would Be A Good Fit In The FCS?

Northwest Missouri State (Jump Up)

Cal State Fullerton (Restarted)

Valdosta State (Jump Up)

Grand Canyon (New Program)

Northern Kentucky (New Program)

Wrap Up

Share this:

Like this:

Should Army Consider Joining The AAC?

The Glory Days

Prelude to Conference USA

The Conference USA Disaster

Back To Independent Status

Monken’s Momentum

A Complicated Puzzle

Potential Destination

Summary

Share this:

Like this:

FBS and FCS Changes For The 2019 Season

Overtime Rule Changes

FBS Changes

FCS Changes

General Schedule Quirk

Conference Changes – Up From Division II

Moving Down To Division II

Moving From FCS Independent Status

Stuck In Indepedence

Future Moves

Staying Put

Share this:

Like this:

Infantino’s Re-Election Shows Little Has Changed With FIFA

Transparency and Voting

Alternative Facts

Equality

Human Rights

Share this:

Like this:

2019 Women’s College World Series Schedule

2019 Women’s College World Series Championship Series

Share this:

Like this:

2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball Super Regional Schedule

Super Regional #1 – Norman, Oklahoma

Super Regional #8 – Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Super Regional #4 – Tallahassee, Florida

Super Regional #5 – Gainesville, Florida

Super Regional #3 – Seattle, Washington

Super Regional #6 – Tuscon, Arizona

Super Regional #2 – Los Angeles, California

Super Regional #7 – Minneapolis, Minnesota

Thursday, May 23 Super Regional Games

Friday, May 24 Super Regional Games

Saturday, May 25 Super Regional Games

Sunday, May 26 Super Regional Games

Women’s College World Series

Share this:

Like this:

2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball Tournament Schedule

2019 NCAA Division 1 Softball Teams

Regionals

Super Regionals

Women’s College World Series

Share this:

Like this:

Revisiting The Trends From The Kentucky Derby Points System

Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

Transitioning From FCS To FBS Part 2: Potential Teams

North Dakota State (Jump Up)

Sam Houston State (Jump Up)

James Madison (Jump Up)

Jacksonville State (Jump Up)

Eastern Washington (Jump Up)

Virginia Commonwealth (New Program)

University of Texas Arlington (New Program)

Share this: