FCS programs you consider Elite

[houndawg]

Missouri State?

On what planet???

Did you read the whole post? That section was WITHIN CONFERENCE. I do NOT believe SW to be anywhere near national elite status. But they DO have the potential to get there, unlike someone like, oh, say, Presby....

Yeah, but you're still wrong.

[MSUDuo]

Missouri State?

On what planet???

Did you read the whole post? That section was WITHIN CONFERENCE. I do NOT believe SW to be anywhere near national elite status. But they DO have the potential to get there, unlike someone like, oh, say, Presby....

It wasn't a question based on potential. Missouri State is no where near elite status in the MVFC

[skinny_uncle]

Obviously, we need someone to define the parameters of "elite".

[89Hen]

Some of you guys are really missing the boat on the PL teams, especially Lehigh and Colgate. The leagues postseason ban from '86 until '97 really skews the numbers.

I think "screws the conference out of consideration" is more accurate than "skews the numbers" as we have NO idea how any PL team would have done during that time.

[89Hen]

I think you have to look at this in terms of the past 10 years or so. There are some schools that would fall into the historically "elite" category that have done very little in that amount of time, so in my opinion, they are no longer elite programs. My thought process is looking at total number of playoff appearances, recent national championships, and other recognition such as individual player awards.

Tier 1 - Schools with 2 or more National Titles and expected to make the playoffs every season.

-App State
-Montana
-GA Southern

Tier 2 - Schools with at least one recent national title or championship appearances, expected to challenge for their conference title every season, and expected to be in the playoffs every season.

-Delaware
-Eastern Washington
-North Dakota State
-UNI
-Villanova
-James Madison

Tier 3 - Schools expected to challenge for their conference title generally every season and fairly regular playoff participant. May not have a national title but have the ability to make a playoff run.

-Montana State
-UNH
-William & Mary
-SHSU

Cannot argue with this.

Maybe you can't.

[ASUMountaineer]

Tier 1: GSU, Montana
Tier 2: Appy, Delaware, Youngstown
Tier 3: Northern Iowa, EWU

Oh, that was serious...

[Appaholic]

Tier 1: GSU, Montana
Tier 2: Appy, Delaware, Youngstown
Tier 3: Northern Iowa, EWU

Oh, that was serious...

No shit Dudes fokking delusional. If you want to include GSU based upon history more than recent, fine. But to exclude App with 3 while including Griz with 2, well, now you just look like a bitter GSU / BVG fan....

[Appaholic]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as to what they consider "elite", but it is my opinion that you are being foolish if you do not believe UNI is one of the elite FCS programs. If you subscribe to the theory that you need a championship to validate 30 years of achievement, fine, that's your opinion. But having a great program, and having one great season are completely different things. The idea that, if UNI would have had one championship season 20 years ago or whatever, the whole program would be looked upon in a different light is a little silly when you consider the amount of consistent success that they have achieved. (with that said, it is not my intention to devalue a national championship, whatsoever. It is the ultimate achievement for any team, and it is what UNI strives for every single year. It is literally the one and only thing that UNI has not accomplished at the 1AA level.)

Here is my case for UNI:

UNI has 16 playoff appearances (first in 1985), 7 times to the semifinals, 1 time to the championship. Has 16 conference championships in that same period, in one of the top FCS conferences. Has six seasons of 10+ wins since 2001. Has been ranked in the top 5 in the final poll six times since 2001. Has been ranked in 95 consecutive polls.

Only 5 DI football programs in the nation (FBS & FCS combined) have finished Top 5 in the polls at least 6 times since 2001 – USC, Ohio State, Appalachian State, Montana and UNI.

Only 2 DI FCS coaches in the nation have led their schools to 6 seasons of 10+ wins since 2001. UNI's Mark Farley and App. St's Jerry Moore.

UNI has good support, good attendance, fantastic athletic facilities, Mark Farley is one of the highest paid coaches in the country. UNI has been one of the single winningest programs in the country since the start of the FCS division, and has attained consistency in doing so that is almost impossible to achieve.

You make a compelling case. It's also a familiar one....say App St circa 2004 & prior....good luck with that....

[DJH]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as to what they consider "elite", but it is my opinion that you are being foolish if you do not believe UNI is one of the elite FCS programs. If you subscribe to the theory that you need a championship to validate 30 years of achievement, fine, that's your opinion. But having a great program, and having one great season are completely different things. The idea that, if UNI would have had one championship season 20 years ago or whatever, the whole program would be looked upon in a different light is a little silly when you consider the amount of consistent success that they have achieved. (with that said, it is not my intention to devalue a national championship, whatsoever. It is the ultimate achievement for any team, and it is what UNI strives for every single year. It is literally the one and only thing that UNI has not accomplished at the 1AA level.)

Here is my case for UNI:

UNI has 16 playoff appearances (first in 1985), 7 times to the semifinals, 1 time to the championship. Has 16 conference championships in that same period, in one of the top FCS conferences. Has six seasons of 10+ wins since 2001. Has been ranked in the top 5 in the final poll six times since 2001. Has been ranked in 95 consecutive polls.

Only 5 DI football programs in the nation (FBS & FCS combined) have finished Top 5 in the polls at least 6 times since 2001 – USC, Ohio State, Appalachian State, Montana and UNI.

Only 2 DI FCS coaches in the nation have led their schools to 6 seasons of 10+ wins since 2001. UNI's Mark Farley and App. St's Jerry Moore.

UNI has good support, good attendance, fantastic athletic facilities, Mark Farley is one of the highest paid coaches in the country. UNI has been one of the single winningest programs in the country since the start of the FCS division, and has attained consistency in doing so that is almost impossible to achieve.

You make a compelling case. It's also a familiar one....say App St circa 2004 & prior....good luck with that....

So your saying UNI is on the cusp of 3 straight national championsips?

[rkwittem]

FWIW, I always thought of the word "program" to be the whole package: on field accomplishments, attendance, fans that travel, tailgate experience, name recognition, facilities, etc...

This. For me, an elite program has to good at EVERYTHING. On-field and off field. Basically everything 89Hen said and I'd add money to it. Programs who make big money off the field, not just from ticket sales, are those that are elite, in my opinion.

For me to answer this question, I think about what FBS teams are "elite" under this definition. Obviously Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Texas come to mind. Say what you will about these teams, but the only distinction that seperates them from other top FBS programs (like the Florida schools, for example) is their long-time staying power. You can still have a down period and still be an elite school, provided you meet nearly every standard that other elite programs do.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Some of you guys are really missing the boat on the PL teams, especially Lehigh and Colgate. The leagues postseason ban from '86 until '97 really skews the numbers.

I think "screws the conference out of consideration" is more accurate than "skews the numbers" as we have NO idea how any PL team would have done during that time.

Even if you discount the PL teams during that era, which is hard to do given Holy Cross's domination, the numbers are still pretty good. There's no way you can mention the Woffords, Montana State's, W&M's of the world and not include Lehigh and Colgate.

[UNI88]

FWIW, I always thought of the word "program" to be the whole package: on field accomplishments, attendance, fans that travel, tailgate experience, name recognition, facilities, etc...

This. For me, an elite program has to good at EVERYTHING. On-field and off field. Basically everything 89Hen said and I'd add money to it. Programs who make big money off the field, not just from ticket sales, are those that are elite, in my opinion.

For me to answer this question, I think about what FBS teams are "elite" under this definition. Obviously Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Texas come to mind. Say what you will about these teams, but the only distinction that seperates them from other top FBS programs (like the Florida schools, for example) is their long-time staying power. You can still have a down period and still be an elite school, provided you meet nearly every standard that other elite programs do.

I agree with what 89 says but also believe that you should factor in economic, demographic, etc. conditions. On field performance is critical but the other factors should be considered within the context of the bigger picture. Montana, Delaware and North Dakota State are flagship universities in smaller (population-wise) states. They're likely to receive more fan and government support than UNI (#3 school in a state of 3 million) or Furman (private school). I don't think you can have extremely low attendance but also don't think you need to reach the same attendance figures that Montana or Delaware do to be considered elite.

[Ibanez]

This school isn't FCS, but UNCC is an elite, prestigious university.

[Aho Old Guy]

Charlotte 49ers take over new field house

[JohnStOnge]

I think of it terms of a function of ultimate success (national championships) and long term relatively sustained success. And I think when you do that it's between Georgia Southern and Montana. The edge in ultimate success goes to Georgia Southern, of course. Six national championships. National championships in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. And the program is relevant in the 2010s as it's been to the semifinals the past two years in a row. Extending the streak of decades with national championships won into the 2010s is a realistic possibility.

Montana, of course, has only missed the playoffs once in the past 19 years. Two national championships. Made the national title game 7 times if I counted right and narrowly missed making it last year as they lost by 3 in the semifinals.

I'd go with Georgia Southern but it just depends on whether or not one thinks national championships are more important than being more consistent year in and year out.

[JohnStOnge]

Since I'm a Southland fan I'll comment on that league. McNeese State is clearly the elite program in the context of that conference. It's got 13 Southland football championships while no other program currently in the league has more than 4. It's been to the national championship game twice while Stephen F. Austin and now Sam Houston State have each been once. It's also, while I'm not going to take the time to count right now, got more playoff wins than any other Southland program. Yes, it's slipped some in recent years but has still been relevant within the conference recently. The Cowboys got the automatic bid in 2006 and 2007 then tied for the conference title in 2009. In 2010, the difference between McNeese getting the automatic bid and ending up sitting home was Stephen F. Austin scoring with 55 seconds left to come from behind and beat the Cowboys 32-27. It will take a while for any other single Southland program to establish itself as the same kind of consistent force in that league; if it's going to be done. Sam Houston State, for example, is a very long way away from doing that.

Sam Houston State had one really good year last year and has had a few relatively good years in the past. But the only way you could call it the elite program of the Southland is if you just look at one year; the last one. They are favored to win it this year and should be as they've got a lot of starters returning from a very good team. But one batch of good players that makes for one, two, or three good years does not an elite program make.

[JohnStOnge]

Cannot argue with this.

Maybe you can't.

I don't know if I argue with the criteria or not but I do argue with some of the teams. I think it looks like perception was biased by one or two outstanding seasons in the recent past. For example: Eastern Washington and Villanova are not expected to make the playoffs every season or even most seasons. Eastern Washington made it five times in the past 10 years which is good but it's just half the time. Also, there have been only two instances in the history of the program in which the Eagles made the playoffs during two consecutive years. Villanova made the playoffs four times during the most recent 10 seasons. And, since the Wildcats were 2-9 last season, I don't think anybody's expecting them to make it in 2012. They might. But I doubt that a lot of people expect it.

I already wrote once about Sam Houston State. Yes, Sam Houston State is and should be expected to make the playoffs in 2012 because they had a very good team last year and have almost all their starters back. But that doesn't mean the are a "fairly regular" playoff participant. I guess it depends on what "fairly regular" means but the BearKats have only made the playoffs twice during the most recent 10 seasons and five times during the 33 years of the I-AA/FCS tournament. Their program clearly has not established itself as one that can, over any reasonably extended period, be expected to make the playoffs on a "fairly regular" basis. Making it two or three years in a row like Villanova did won't do it either. One has to see how they do as a program after the current nucleus of players leaves.

It's possible that I could look at some of the other programs in a similar way but those are the three that jump out. Basically you have three programs that would not be in the conversation at all if they had not had one short flash of glory. Now, it could be that what we saw in each flash of glory was the start of something. But it'll take some time to determine that.