How do you know if a D-II school made the right decision to go D-I?

[chapmaja]

Then no one outside of the Power 5 should be D1 because those schools cannot compete for natty's and thus are failures.

People need to remember that NCAA Atheltics is more than just football and basketball, including winning national titles.

Here are a few of the national champions recently who shouldn't be D1 because they aren't in a Power 5 conference.

2022-2023 Men's Basketball (UCONN) (I do think the Big East is absolutely a power conference for basketball, but they aren't a "Power 5"
2022-2023 Cross Country - Northern Arizona
2022-2023 Men's Ice Hockey Quinnipiac (a former DII school who has what Boise State and UCF don't have).
2022-2023 Rifle - UA Fairbanks (a DII school)


Yes, some of these sports are not "mainstream" sports, but many of them do have a large representation among Power 5 conference schools, such as men's cross country, but teams that "shouldn't be competing at the D1 level" because they can't compete for natty's can not only compete, but also win them.

This doesn't include the teams like Coastal Carolina baseball, Loyola Chicago Basketball, Butler Basketball, or other sports which have competed quite well for national championships in major sports.

[D2Ohio]

Interesting that Wayne and GVSU are the two highest for on campus enrollment for D2 football playing universities in the United States.

[zimmy21]

Interesting that Wayne and GVSU are the two highest for on campus enrollment for D2 football playing universities in the United States.

Weird to see that Mankato looks like they are 6th in enrollment for Football playing members of D2.

[KleShreen]

People need to remember that NCAA Atheltics is more than just football and basketball, including winning national titles.

Here are a few of the national champions recently who shouldn't be D1 because they aren't in a Power 5 conference.

2022-2023 Men's Basketball (UCONN) (I do think the Big East is absolutely a power conference for basketball, but they aren't a "Power 5"
2022-2023 Cross Country - Northern Arizona
2022-2023 Men's Ice Hockey Quinnipiac (a former DII school who has what Boise State and UCF don't have).
2022-2023 Rifle - UA Fairbanks (a DII school)


Yes, some of these sports are not "mainstream" sports, but many of them do have a large representation among Power 5 conference schools, such as men's cross country, but teams that "shouldn't be competing at the D1 level" because they can't compete for natty's can not only compete, but also win them.

This doesn't include the teams like Coastal Carolina baseball, Loyola Chicago Basketball, Butler Basketball, or other sports which have competed quite well for national championships in major sports.

Those schools, with the exception of UConn, which absolutely is in a "power" conference as it pertains to that sport, don't have any other sports competing for titles in anything. They're one-trick ponies. Any school can win a national title in a niche sport if they devote all of their resources to it at the expense of the rest of the athletics program. If GV decided to move up, I wouldn't be surprised if they punt on every sport besides FCS football and cross country. They'd never compete for a national title again in any other sport. We'll see what they do with wrestling, because you can get some success in that as a "small" school.

[KleShreen]

I would disagree with you on the most successful school to move up from DII to DI in the last 50 years. I don't think it is Boise St. I think it is Central Florida, who was in DII from 1982 until moving up to D1 in 1990. Unlike Boise State, UCF, within a few short weeks will be competing in a Power 5 conference, the Big 12. While it has taken 40 years, you are seeing former DII schools which are growing towards being Power Conference athletic programs.

I do think Boise State will end up being the next program to move into a Power Conference from being a DII school when the Pac 12 decides to admit them.

Neither one of them have ever won a national championship, though, and it has been, as you noted, 40-50 years for both of them. That seems like a failure, to me. It may not be a failure to them. Maybe they don't care about winning anything. But, to me, it is a failure.

[zimmy21]

Neither one of them have ever won a national championship, though, and it has been, as you noted, 40-50 years for both of them. That seems like a failure, to me. It may not be a failure to them. Maybe they don't care about winning anything. But, to me, it is a failure.

It's all perspective. If you were to ask the average Joe would you rather be D1 in a power 5 conference with no National Titles, or Win the occasional National Title in D2 I would bet heavily that people would want the D1 title. UCF has existed as a school for 60 years and they were aggressive with their growth strategies (including athletically) and it paid off. I'd argue the same for Boise State, it's only 90 years old but is fairly well recognized brand to anyone that even pays a modicum of attention to athletics.

If every school was deemed a failure athletically because they didn't win a National Championship then 99% of programs are failures. The true success is in the money, and college sports is a business first and foremost.

[Brandon]

I was told about an interview with one of the national college sports writers. The subject of the interview was the potential of the Power 5 conferences kicking out the dead weight. It will be something to keep an eye on.

[Brandon]

UCF has existed as a school for 60 years and they were aggressive with their growth strategies (including athletically) and it paid off. I'd argue the same for Boise State, it's only 90 years old but is fairly well recognized brand to anyone that even pays a modicum of attention to athletics.

If every school was deemed a failure athletically because they didn't win a National Championship then 99% of programs are failures.

I think you overestimate Boise's brand.

I agree with the last quoted sentence. I think the measure is having a real chance to compete for one.

[cwfenn]

I was told about an interview with one of the national college sports writers. The subject of the interview was the potential of the Power 5 conferences kicking out the dead weight. It will be something to keep an eye on.

It may end up being Power 4. The Big 12 might be eyeing PAC 12 schools like Colorado and Arizona.

https://hookemheadlines.com/2023/06/...nsion-cu-zona/

[zimmy21]

I think you overestimate Boise's brand.

I agree with the last quoted sentence. I think the measure is having a real chance to compete for one.

Tough to tell without running a survey, but I would feel pretty confident.

[KleShreen]

It's all perspective. If you were to ask the average Joe would you rather be D1 in a power 5 conference with no National Titles, or Win the occasional National Title in D2 I would bet heavily that people would want the D1 title. UCF has existed as a school for 60 years and they were aggressive with their growth strategies (including athletically) and it paid off. I'd argue the same for Boise State, it's only 90 years old but is fairly well recognized brand to anyone that even pays a modicum of attention to athletics.

If every school was deemed a failure athletically because they didn't win a National Championship then 99% of programs are failures. The true success is in the money, and college sports is a business first and foremost.

I agree. I've said multiple times that my personal version of success for collegiate athletics is winning. Not money.

However, UCF only made about 700k in profits last year for athletics. Boise State made $1,300. Yes, 1,300. So if we're saying "making money" is the determining factor for success, I don't know if either of them fall under that, either. Are we saying "brand recognition" is the measure for success, then? Not winning, not making money, just getting your name out there? Or maybe there's some kind of study that says how much money the school as a whole made, not just athletics, because of athletics?

Those are according to here:

https://www.collegefactual.com/colle...t-life/sports/

https://www.collegefactual.com/colle...t-life/sports/

[GorillaTeacher]

I agree. I've said multiple times that my personal version of success for collegiate athletics is winning. Not money.

However, UCF only made about 700k in revenues last year for athletics. Boise State made $1,300. Yes, 1,300. So if we're saying "making money" is the determining factor for success, I don't know if either of them fall under that, either. Are we saying "brand recognition" is the measure for success, then? Not winning, not making money, just getting your name out there? Or maybe there's some kind of study that says how much money the school as a whole made, not just athletics, because of athletics?

Those are according to here:

https://www.collegefactual.com/colle...t-life/sports/

https://www.collegefactual.com/colle...t-life/sports/

Athletic budget reporting is voodoo.

[zimmy21]

I agree. I've said multiple times that my personal version of success for collegiate athletics is winning. Not money.

However, UCF only made about 700k in profits last year for athletics. Boise State made $1,300. Yes, 1,300. So if we're saying "making money" is the determining factor for success, I don't know if either of them fall under that, either. Are we saying "brand recognition" is the measure for success, then? Not winning, not making money, just getting your name out there? Or maybe there's some kind of study that says how much money the school as a whole made, not just athletics, because of athletics?

Those are according to here:

https://www.collegefactual.com/colle...t-life/sports/

https://www.collegefactual.com/colle...t-life/sports/

Even with the UCF making nearly 3/4 of a million in Athletic profit, it's about to get a heck of a lot more in the Big 12!

[chapmaja]

Athletic budget reporting is voodoo.

Nothing is worse than the "athletic department profit" discussion. Those who are opposed to big time intercollegiate athletics will always argue that few athletic departments ever come close to making a profit. Those in favor of athletics will turn around and say how much they actually provide to the university. The thing is both arguments are generally correct and both are also incorrect at the same time.

If you look at a lot of schools, the athletic department at the school enrolls a substantial number of student athletes. At D1 schools a lot or on scholarship, but there are still a lot paying their own way to attend the school as well. They would not be attending the school if it were not for the athletic program.

[D2Ohio]

Weird to see that Mankato looks like they are 6th in enrollment for Football playing members of D2.

I think Mankato and Wayne's stadiums are small for the enrollment, but MSU is a hockey first and Wayne just doesn't get crowds