Northern vs Southern FCS teams

[BelgradeBobcat]

FCS in the Dakotas and Montana is the CFL of college football. Not very many teams, spread far apart. Super passionate fans, long standing traditions, cold weather, and the highest level of football available. Sure there's a higher level of football across the border that will steal our best players, but we love our FCS!

[BobcatBuiltTexan]

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.

Penn st isn't considered north, most people would say east over north...Ohio and the iowas are midwest... there's no over thinking you're trait just being contrary for the sake of it.

Again I live in Texas and Sam was never considered a blue blood fcs school. They were eh at best unto fitz got there. He did great for his tenure then moved on. I acknowledged that it was a good point about the stronger fcs teams in the south moving up.

Again looking at the landscape the BSC and the dakotas conf are considered royalty in the fcs. I find these dynamics interesting so I asked. You may not, fine...I do so I posed a question to the group of people I feel would be able to shed a little light to it.

[BobcatBuiltTexan]

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.

Makes a ton of sense......

[BleedingBLue]

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.

Penn st isn't considered north, most people would say east over north...Ohio and the iowas are midwest... there's no over thinking you're trait just being contrary for the sake of it.

Again I live in Texas and Sam was never considered a blue blood fcs school. They were eh at best unto fitz got there. He did great for his tenure then moved on. I acknowledged that it was a good point about the stronger fcs teams in the south moving up.

Again looking at the landscape the BSC and the dakotas conf are considered royalty in the fcs. I find these dynamics interesting so I asked. You may not, fine...I do so I posed a question to the group of people I feel would be able to shed a little light to it.

We're arguing semantics, but put me in the category of "not most people." The entire real Big Ten is in the north. East, west, Midwest has no bearing on north and south. The Midwest is a collection of states from Canada to the south. Next you'll tell us Michigan isn't considered a northern state

[BobcatBuiltTexan]

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.

Penn st isn't considered north, most people would say east over north...Ohio and the iowas are midwest... there's no over thinking you're trait just being contrary for the sake of it.

Again I live in Texas and Sam was never considered a blue blood fcs school. They were eh at best unto fitz got there. He did great for his tenure then moved on. I acknowledged that it was a good point about the stronger fcs teams in the south moving up.

Again looking at the landscape the BSC and the dakotas conf are considered royalty in the fcs. I find these dynamics interesting so I asked. You may not, fine...I do so I posed a question to the group of people I feel would be able to shed a little light to it.

We're arguing semantics, but put me in the category of "not most people." The entire real Big Ten is in the north. East, west, Midwest has no bearing on north and south. The Midwest is a collection of states from Canada to the south. Next you'll tell us Michigan isn't considered a northern state

Yeah you're definitely like not most... you're arguing just to argue..... the big ten is considered a Midwest conf. Are some teams "north" yes they are but most folks aren't saying psun is north, it's east.....Iowa is midwest...Nebraska Midwest Ohio Indiana midwest..... they AREN'T logged at as a north but midwest... again this isn't the point of the post... you want to argue to argue you can miss me with that nonsense. You know full well the way states are classified, so let's just quit it.... good day

[grizzh8r]

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.

Penn st isn't considered north, most people would say east over north...Ohio and the iowas are midwest... there's no over thinking you're trait just being contrary for the sake of it.

Again I live in Texas and Sam was never considered a blue blood fcs school. They were eh at best unto fitz got there. He did great for his tenure then moved on. I acknowledged that it was a good point about the stronger fcs teams in the south moving up.

Again looking at the landscape the BSC and the dakotas conf are considered royalty in the fcs. I find these dynamics interesting so I asked. You may not, fine...I do so I posed a question to the group of people I feel would be able to shed a little light to it.

We're arguing semantics, but put me in the category of "not most people." The entire real Big Ten is in the north. East, west, Midwest has no bearing on north and south. The Midwest is a collection of states from Canada to the south. Next you'll tell us Michigan isn't considered a northern state

If we kick it Old School - like ca. 1865 - and use the Mason Dixon line, it's pretty clear which states are considered North and South.

Just sayin'...

[BleedingBLue]

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.

Penn st isn't considered north, most people would say east over north...Ohio and the iowas are midwest... there's no over thinking you're trait just being contrary for the sake of it.

Again I live in Texas and Sam was never considered a blue blood fcs school. They were eh at best unto fitz got there. He did great for his tenure then moved on. I acknowledged that it was a good point about the stronger fcs teams in the south moving up.

Again looking at the landscape the BSC and the dakotas conf are considered royalty in the fcs. I find these dynamics interesting so I asked. You may not, fine...I do so I posed a question to the group of people I feel would be able to shed a little light to it.

We're arguing semantics, but put me in the category of "not most people." The entire real Big Ten is in the north. East, west, Midwest has no bearing on north and south. The Midwest is a collection of states from Canada to the south. Next you'll tell us Michigan isn't considered a northern state

Yeah you're definitely like not most... you're arguing just to argue..... the big ten is considered a Midwest conf. Are some teams "north" yes they are but most folks aren't saying psun is north, it's east.....Iowa is midwest...Nebraska Midwest Ohio Indiana midwest..... they AREN'T logged at as a north but midwest... again this isn't the point of the post... you want to argue to argue you can miss me with that nonsense. You know full well the way states are classified, so let's just quit it.... good day

I guess you can say I'm arguing to argue. I'm also correct. Outside of the SoCal schools and Maryland, the rest of the Big Ten is north of Denver. That's north. Minnesota is a midwest state, it's also a northern state. Same with Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio. And Pennsylvania is in the NORTHeast. Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota are in the western US, but they're northern states.

[tdub]

This has devolved into directional vs. regional semantics. I’m interested to read opinions on the topic if you all can get past that.

[BleedingBLue]

This has devolved into directional vs. regional semantics. I’m interested to read opinions on the topic if you all can get past that.

Aye aye captain!!!

My take on it is similar to others. Lots of teams in the more populated areas, especially at the FBS level competing for the same recruits.

I also believe the quality of football, and continued under recruitment of areas is helping. WA, ID, OR, and MT are severely under recruited by bigger schools. The football, especially in MT is getting better and better. It wasn't too long again we'd see 1 big time recruit every 3 or 4 years. Now it's almost a yearly thing. Reed Harris a couple years ago, the Gallatin WR who went to Nebraska last year. Matt Ludwig, TE from West this year. Jackson Presley at Glacier next year.

I think NDSU and SDSU benefit from this as well, especially in MN and IA.

[tdub]

This has devolved into directional vs. regional semantics. I’m interested to read opinions on the topic if you all can get past that.

Aye aye captain!!!

My take on it is similar to others. Lots of teams in the more populated areas, especially at the FBS level competing for the same recruits.

I also believe the quality of football, and continued under recruitment of areas is helping. WA, ID, OR, and MT are severely under recruited by bigger schools. The football, especially in MT is getting better and better. It wasn't too long again we'd see 1 big time recruit every 3 or 4 years. Now it's almost a yearly thing. Reed Harris a couple years ago, the Gallatin WR who went to Nebraska last year. Matt Ludwig, TE from West this year. Jackson Presley at Glacier next year.

I think NDSU and SDSU benefit from this as well, especially in MN and IA.

Lol, good work sailor.

This is an interesting topic to me, and I agree with your perspective on it. I think the cost of parents sending Montana kids to FBS camps to get these offers, or the overall cost/benefit of FBS schools sending people to Montana definitely plays a role in the area states being under-recruited by the FBS level.