(01-20-2011 02:18 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2011 01:46 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-20-2011 01:00 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(01-20-2011 07:20 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-20-2011 01:17 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  I'll take the haterade and buy you a warm glass of reality.

Dude, what is with you? LOL! The thread is about USA. Why the constant GSU hate? Because I said that all of the recent startups will be sucessful? Do you really expect the school with an enrollment of 50k by 2015, in the number 4 recruitiing ground nationally in a city of 6 million to fail? What is with the Cobb County bias? The startup with the hardest road to hoe is Lamar and even they have WAC rumors circulating. All of these administrations have learned from those that came before them 10 to 12 years ago. There will be no Western Kentucky type issues. Heck, even Kennesaw has a chance with the right coach.

There are currently 120 FBS programs(USA will make 121) of the current 120, 55 of them are non-AQ, only 25 of those 55 finished with a winning record this year. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that that is less than half. So there are 55 non-AQ schools, all of us fighting the same uphill battle, fighting the same issues, battling differing levels of the same disadvantages. Many of the non-AQ schools have been playing at the FBS level since 1978 and many of them are struggling just as much as the rest of us.

Of the non-AQs who have been startups or moved up in the last twenty years.

Nevada(started football in 1896 moved to FBS in 1992) eleven winning seasons in FBS(out of 19)

ULM(started football in 1951 moved to FBS in 1994) zero winning seasons in FBS(out of seventeen)

UNT(started football in 1913 moved to FBS in 1995) three winning seasons in FBS(out of sixteen)

Boise State(started football in 1968 moved to FBS in 1996) thirteen winning seasons in FBS(out of fifteen)

UAB(started football in 1991 moved to FBS in 1996) three winning seasons in FBS(out of fifteen)

UCF(started football in 1979 moved to FBS in 1996) eight winning seasons in FBS(out of fifteen)

Idaho(started football in 1893 moved to FBS in 1997) three winning seasons in FBS(out of fourteen)

Marshall(started football in 1895 moved to FBS in 1997) eight winnings seasons in FBS(out of fourteen)

Buffalo(started football in 1894 moved to FBS in 1999) one winning season in FBS(out of twelve)

Middle Tennessee(started football in 1911 moved to FBS in 1999)four winning seasons in FBS(out of twelve)

Troy(started football in 1909 moved to FBS in 2002) six winning seasons in FBS(out of nine)

FAU(started football in 2001 moved to FBS in 2005) two winning seasons in FBS(out of six)

FIU(started football in 2002 moved to FBS in 2005) one winning season in FBS(out of six)

WKU(started football in 1908 moved to FBS in 2009) zero winning seasons in FBS(out of two)


Boise State is obviously the exception, there is more than likely not another Boise in the current crop, but the odds aren't good for there being more than one or maybe two schools that will even come close to being another Troy, Nevada, UCF or Marshall.

Georgia State may end up being good, but logic(and odds) point to them being a lot closer to UAB or Idaho than Troy or Nevada.

logic and odds points to the same for any startup including USA...but that is why they play the games

You forgot USF. Began football 1997, began FBS in 2001. Eight winning seasons out of 11. In total, 12 winning seasons out of 16.

Yeah, they get the asterisk. Its what we all hope for but few achieve.

(01-20-2011 02:18 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  You forgot USF. Began football 1997, began FBS in 2001. Eight winning seasons out of 11. In total, 12 winning seasons out of 16.

I didn't forget USF(or UCONN for that matter) I left them out because of the advantages they have from being in an AQ conference.

(01-20-2011 01:46 PM)panama Wrote:  logic and odds points to the same for any startup including USA...but that is why they play the games

You're absolutely right, ask USA fans, I haven't exactly been there biggest believer either and I just said I'm starting to drink their kool-aid.

My only point was, you make it sound like being a start-up or a FBS newcomer is easy and there's no reason that any of them can't be successful, but history looms largely against more than one or two being even above average in the first ten years. The best indicator of future events, is past events.

(01-23-2011 03:41 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(01-20-2011 02:18 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  You forgot USF. Began football 1997, began FBS in 2001. Eight winning seasons out of 11. In total, 12 winning seasons out of 16.

I didn't forget USF(or UCONN for that matter) I left them out because of the advantages they have from being in an AQ conference.

They went C-USA first and then BE. They get a huge asterisk. Everything about their rise has been atypical.

(01-23-2011 03:46 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(01-20-2011 01:46 PM)panama Wrote:  logic and odds points to the same for any startup including USA...but that is why they play the games

You're absolutely right, ask USA fans, I haven't exactly been there biggest believer either and I just said I'm starting to drink their kool-aid.

My only point was, you make it sound like being a start-up or a FBS newcomer is easy and there's no reason that any of them can't be successful, but history looms largely against more than one or two being even above average in the first ten years. The best indicator of future events, is past events.

No way man. There is nothing easy about this and I have my fears. I am alumni of the worst Division I basketball program historically over the last 50 years. So I know failure and have my trepidations. You're right, there is nothing easy about this. The main thing I think is to build a product where people are wanting to come to games. I think the biggest turnaround I have seen is among young students who are excited about the program and proud of their school. Its a far cry from 15 years ago.