The Bobcat Nation

As we are now into playoff season looking at the bracket really got me thinking.

Why are the northern schools so dominant compared to the southern schools? In the FBS the the tough teams typically are from the the south. The strongest hs football is played in Texas, fla, GA, and ca(LA had the most nfl players per capita than any other state every year). How are the montana st's, ndsu's, sdsu's, etc so strong year in and year out.

I think it's the coaching. And I think the northern schools get almost all their good players state by state. While there may be more talent in the south due to numbers, the fcs schools aren't getting their top talent and the fbs schools don't go up north.

Can some one explain this?

I don’t know. Part of it is coaching and investment in the programs. Just look at the facilities, nutrition, etc., the Dakotas and Montana schools invest in that other FCS programs do not. There aren’t a lot of kids in Montana that are recruited by FBS programs either. That’s starting to change a bit now but the vast majority still stay home.

New Hampshire is a northern school so....

Last year the FBS championship game was between Washington & Michigan.

Year in and year out Ohio State, Penn State, the Iowas, and so on are top tier.

Pull up the current FCS Top Ten, and you get Oregon OSU, Penn, Notre Dame, and Indiana in the Top 10.

Not exactly a lopsided North/South. True, the SEC and a couple of other southern schools (Texas & Okalahoma prior to joining the SEC, Miami, Florida State & Clemson) probably make a more consistent grouping, but then you think of

1) institutional support at those schools
2) the population density in the South
3) the cultural support & adulation that comes from athletics

And it makes sense why you would get consistently high performance...but its hard to suggest that somehow northern schools don't compete.

I am guessing there are more FBS schools in the south, so even though there are more high school recruits, maybe the is taking a larger share of football talent than in the north. For example, maybe FBS gets 70% (FCS 30%) of the D1 talent in Texas, where maybe FBS only gets 50% of the D1 talent in Washington. That would dilute the talent at the FCS level in Texas but make FCs stronger in the north. I am only guessing, but I don’t think it has much to do with coaching.

Cataholic wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 1:10 am

I am guessing there are more FBS schools in the south, so even though there are more high school recruits, maybe the is taking a larger share of football talent than in the north. For example, maybe FBS gets 70% (FCS 30%) of the D1 talent in Texas, where maybe FBS only gets 50% of the D1 talent in Washington. That would dilute the talent at the FCS level in Texas but make FCs stronger in the north. I am only guessing, but I don’t think it has much to do with coaching.

There was a thread on here a few years back when EWU was at the hight of its performance...because Washington is hardly recruited at all by ANY schools, in particular because WSU and UW recruited nationwide-and the entire state of Washington only has 3 D1 teams, EWU was able to get a lot of borderline FBS talent at in-state tuition & on partial scholarships.

Schools like the DSUs and the Montana schools aren't really competing in the recruiting pool for other FCS level talent, we are recruiting mostly against G5 schools (similar to where EWU was a few years back...). We have G5 coaching quality, G5 fan supports, G5 stadiums & facilities, and comparable to G5 academics.

So those handful of schools are able to recruit better athletes, have financial support to pay better coaching staffs & create better training facilities & hire better trainers than other FCS schools in the South or Northeast.

Just to take Texas as an example: MSU is able to offer a pretty compelling scholarship package to a 3 star Texas recruit relative to a school like North Texas or Sam Houston or Texas State. The good FCS schools are able to go head to head against certain G5 schools with a compelling package. And then back it up with money.

Which is how it works at the FBS level too, its just that in FCS the money is more concentrated in the population centers like Texas, Florida, California, Ohio, and Michigan.

The G5 is full of good southern FCS teams pretending to be FBS with 85 scholarships.

BobcatBuiltTexan wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 30, 2024 10:40 pm

As we are now into playoff season looking at the bracket really got me thinking.

Why are the northern schools so dominant compared to the southern schools? In the FBS the the tough teams typically are from the the south. The strongest hs football is played in Texas, fla, GA, and ca(LA had the most nfl players per capita than any other state every year). How are the montana st's, ndsu's, sdsu's, etc so strong year in and year out.

I think it's the coaching. And I think the northern schools get almost all their good players state by state. While there may be more talent in the south due to numbers, the fcs schools aren't getting their top talent and the fbs schools don't go up north.

Can some one explain this?

I'd say it's the amount of money spent on athletes and facilities coupled with large fan bases.

MSU, UM, NDSU & SDSU are all outliers in the FCS and don't truly belong at this level. No one else is dumping resources into football like we do, except the above named and FBS schools.

rivercat wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 8:40 am

The G5 is full of good southern FCS teams pretending to be FBS with 85 scholarships.

This. All of the good southern FCS teams that used to make deep playoff runs (App State, Georgia Southern, Jacksonville State, Sam Houston, etc) are now in the FBS.

The two up and comers in Texas that I see are Tarleton State and Abilene Christian. Tarleton will go CUSA ASAP. Not sure what ACU's ambitions are. Any other up and comers?
FCS football just means more in the Dakotas, Montana, and maybe Northern Idaho.

MSU01 wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:54 am

rivercat wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 8:40 am

The G5 is full of good southern FCS teams pretending to be FBS with 85 scholarships.

This. All of the good southern FCS teams that used to make deep playoff runs (App State, Georgia Southern, Jacksonville State, Sam Houston, etc) are now in the FBS.

This wouldn't even be a discussion if we had double our current population. The reason the northern schools are so dominant is that they're stuck in the FCS. Or to flip that, the only reason southern schools are middling G5 teams instead of competitive to dominant FCS teams is that they are located in populated areas.

BelgradeBobcat wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 10:06 am

The two up and comers in Texas that I see are Tarleton State and Abilene Christian. Tarleton will go CUSA ASAP. Not sure what ACU's ambitions are. Any other up and comers?
FCS football just means more in the Dakotas, Montana, and maybe Northern Idaho.

UIW is another one. Been pretty good for a while now, but don't appear to have the facilities ACU has.

BelgradeBobcat wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 10:37 am

BelgradeBobcat wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 10:06 am

The two up and comers in Texas that I see are Tarleton State and Abilene Christian. Tarleton will go CUSA ASAP. Not sure what ACU's ambitions are. Any other up and comers?
FCS football just means more in the Dakotas, Montana, and maybe Northern Idaho.

UIW is another one. Been pretty good for a while now, but don't appear to have the facilities ACU has.

uiw is another one that wants to jump to FBS. so again, no one left.

Combination of the Southern FCS powers have moved up over the last 20 years, and the Northern FCS powers being large flagship state schools in areas devoid of FBS or pro sports. All the attention goes into our college football, same with the Dakotas

onceacat wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 1:04 am

Last year the FBS championship game was between Washington & Michigan.

Year in and year out Ohio State, Penn State, the Iowas, and so on are top tier.

Pull up the current FCS Top Ten, and you get Oregon OSU, Penn, Notre Dame, and Indiana in the Top 10.

Not exactly a lopsided North/South. True, the SEC and a couple of other southern schools (Texas & Okalahoma prior to joining the SEC, Miami, Florida State & Clemson) probably make a more consistent grouping, but then you think of

1) institutional support at those schools
2) the population density in the South
3) the cultural support & adulation that comes from athletics

And it makes sense why you would get consistently high performance...but its hard to suggest that somehow northern schools don't compete.

I think you completely missed the purpose of the post. I never said northern schools can't compete. Let's not act like over the last 15yrs the NC on the fbs level has come from a team in the south with the small exceptions here and there.

Ohio, Penn state and the iowas aren't considered northern schools in the least. And the Iowa St just recently got good. They typically were doormats. Iowa is an avg team at best that plays above their head which makes them a touch above avg.

My post is that on the fcs level the northern schools seem way stronger than the southern schools year in and year out. I wonder why because by population you would think they have access to more talent.

BobcatBuiltTexan wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:41 pm

onceacat wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 1:04 am

Last year the FBS championship game was between Washington & Michigan.

Year in and year out Ohio State, Penn State, the Iowas, and so on are top tier.

Pull up the current FCS Top Ten, and you get Oregon OSU, Penn, Notre Dame, and Indiana in the Top 10.

Not exactly a lopsided North/South. True, the SEC and a couple of other southern schools (Texas & Okalahoma prior to joining the SEC, Miami, Florida State & Clemson) probably make a more consistent grouping, but then you think of

1) institutional support at those schools
2) the population density in the South
3) the cultural support & adulation that comes from athletics

And it makes sense why you would get consistently high performance...but its hard to suggest that somehow northern schools don't compete.

I think you completely missed the purpose of the post. I never said northern schools can't compete. Let's not act like over the last 15yrs the NC on the fbs level has come from a team in the south with the small exceptions here and there.

Ohio, Penn state and the iowas aren't considered northern schools in the least. And the Iowa St just recently got good. They typically were doormats. Iowa is an avg team at best that plays above their head which makes them a touch above avg.

My post is that on the fcs level the northern schools seem way stronger than the southern schools year in and year out. I wonder why because by population you would think they have access to more talent.

IIRC FBS is the anomaly in having Southern teams dominate. FCS, D2, and D3 are dominated by Northern teams

Yall make some compelling stances.

I'll spray on what I know, Texas. ACU is in a medium size city and is really the only draw around there. 2hrs from dfw, a football hot bed, and they do have nice facilities. Tarleton, again, in a small medium city... only horse in town nice faculties... maybe an hr or so from from dfw. Sam houston an hr from Houston.. one horse town 3hrs from dfw... nice faculties. UIW is the outlier here... in a big city.... multiple schools in the city, I've seen their facilities acs they aren't far off from ACU.

I think yall really are on to something. Being in a small to medium sized city is the key because you aren't fighting for resources. You put together a nice package for players to see. You aren't fighting everyone around for players so to speak. I think about an hcu. They are a very very young program. Their facilities honestly are below some high schools in Texas. They function like it's 1997. But they are in Houston so you would think they would have access to plenty of money but it doesn't seem that way.

It's an interesting dynamic that I just wanted some thoughts on.

damnyoutuesday wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:48 pm

BobcatBuiltTexan wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:41 pm

onceacat wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 1:04 am

Last year the FBS championship game was between Washington & Michigan.

Year in and year out Ohio State, Penn State, the Iowas, and so on are top tier.

Pull up the current FCS Top Ten, and you get Oregon OSU, Penn, Notre Dame, and Indiana in the Top 10.

Not exactly a lopsided North/South. True, the SEC and a couple of other southern schools (Texas & Okalahoma prior to joining the SEC, Miami, Florida State & Clemson) probably make a more consistent grouping, but then you think of

1) institutional support at those schools
2) the population density in the South
3) the cultural support & adulation that comes from athletics

And it makes sense why you would get consistently high performance...but its hard to suggest that somehow northern schools don't compete.

I think you completely missed the purpose of the post. I never said northern schools can't compete. Let's not act like over the last 15yrs the NC on the fbs level has come from a team in the south with the small exceptions here and there.

Ohio, Penn state and the iowas aren't considered northern schools in the least. And the Iowa St just recently got good. They typically were doormats. Iowa is an avg team at best that plays above their head which makes them a touch above avg.

My post is that on the fcs level the northern schools seem way stronger than the southern schools year in and year out. I wonder why because by population you would think they have access to more talent.

IIRC FBS is the anomaly in having Southern teams dominate. FCS, D2, and D3 are dominated by Northern teams

Ok I here you.. but if the fbs is the strongest level there is I don't see that as an anomaly. Why wouldn't it be the standard? I think there's more talent down that way and we all know that recruiting in general is very regional, so the best talent stays closer to home. So more talent in the south, better fbs teams in the south, less talent goes to fcs teams. Very good talent to north but northern schools come south to get talent, northern kids that should be fbs go to lower levels.. lower levels stronger.

It comes down to population density, in my opinion.

The FCS is currently buoyed by the Dakotas and the state of Montana. If they lost the 6 programs from those states, the sub-conference would cease to be relevant.

These are sparsely populated states with strong appetites for good football. They don't have the market to make them attractive to FBS conferences, but they do have the support and will to invest in great programs. The result is excellence at the FCS level.

In other parts of the country where the population density is much higher and the TV markets are much stronger, programs with the same level of support/investment (actually even programs with much less) are going to get picked up by FBS conferences.

The FCS programs that are left in those regions are not well supported and lack the investment to achieve consistent excellence.

BobcatBuiltTexan wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:41 pm

onceacat wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2024 1:04 am

Last year the FBS championship game was between Washington & Michigan.

Year in and year out Ohio State, Penn State, the Iowas, and so on are top tier.

Pull up the current FCS Top Ten, and you get Oregon OSU, Penn, Notre Dame, and Indiana in the Top 10.

Not exactly a lopsided North/South. True, the SEC and a couple of other southern schools (Texas & Okalahoma prior to joining the SEC, Miami, Florida State & Clemson) probably make a more consistent grouping, but then you think of

1) institutional support at those schools
2) the population density in the South
3) the cultural support & adulation that comes from athletics

And it makes sense why you would get consistently high performance...but its hard to suggest that somehow northern schools don't compete.

I think you completely missed the purpose of the post. I never said northern schools can't compete. Let's not act like over the last 15yrs the NC on the fbs level has come from a team in the south with the small exceptions here and there.

Ohio, Penn state and the iowas aren't considered northern schools in the least. And the Iowa St just recently got good. They typically were doormats. Iowa is an avg team at best that plays above their head which makes them a touch above avg.

My post is that on the fcs level the northern schools seem way stronger than the southern schools year in and year out. I wonder why because by population you would think they have access to more talent.

LOL, sure, if you redefine "north" to mean something other than what it actually means, then you won't have many "northern" teams in the convo. (Anyone else watch the snow game in Cleveland-100 miles from Columbus-last week)

Yes, the SEC is consistently the best football conference. It's also very densely populated with a climate well suited to outdoor sports & where theres a massive cultural attachment to the game of football.

And 'Southern' teams have won FCS championships & played in the national title game a dozen or so times in the last 15 years (Sam Houston 4 or 5 times, JMU 4 or 5 times).

Its just that all the southern FCS teams have moved to FBS (App State, JMU, Sammy, Jax State...)

You are seriously overthinking this.