TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
I also like to be IrishDoogFuckingStupid and pretend that FCS teams with 63 scholarships are generally just as competitive as Sun Belt/MAC/C-USA teams with 85 scholarships.
I do that.
I do that.
I also like to be IrishDoogFuckingStupid and pretend that FCS teams with 63 scholarships are generally just as competitive as Sun Belt/MAC/C-USA teams with 85 scholarships.
I do that.
I also like to be IrishDoogFuckingStupid and pretend that FCS teams with 63 scholarships are generally just as competitive as Sun Belt/MAC/C-USA teams with 85 scholarships.
I do that.
Southern "Fucking" Utah approves this post.
They like to do that.
I am not sure what point that argument is trying to make, but assuming a relatively constant fraction of the population being college-age males then there is some validity to that since the population has grown almost 35% since then (as opposed to 8% scholarship increase).
My question is why does this matter at all?
IrishDoogFuckingStupid is trying to claim that the FCS teams now have just as much talent as the mid-major I-A schools did 30 years ago.
So given a constant talent level over the past 30 years that would mean there are currently 13338 players of equivalent quality to the top 9880 players in 1983. For the purpose of this exercise we are assuming all of the best talent is identified and signed. Thus if the top 10625 players go to FBS teams then that leaves 2713 players of 1983 D1 talent for the FCS. Given 63 scholarships on an FCS team, 43 teams can max out their allotment of scholarships on 1983-level talent. Of course these teams have lesser depth due to fewer scholarships and assuredly get the lower end of the 13338 players who meet/exceed the 1983 9880th player threshold.
Grow the hell up and learn the difference between memes and Photoshops.
Fact: we beat the crap out of the Pacific Tigers in '92
Interesting side note: Nigel Burton was on the Pacific team.
Race Bannon isn't a coog. HTH.