MVFC comissioner wants name changed from FCS to ....

[MplsBison]

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/369565/group/Sports/


Patty Viverito wouldn’t mind seeing it changed again.

She said the FCS level remains in an “identity crisis” despite I-A and I-AA changing its names to the FCS and Division I Football Bowl Subdivision in 2006.

“Lord, we’ve tried to fix this for years,” Viverito said.

She said the FCS will most likely wait to see what the Bowl Championship Series does with its format. Its plan, passed by a committee of university presidents, calls for a four-team playoff starting in 2014, which in essence would no longer make the FCS the only Division I level that determines its champion in a playoff format.

“They’re stealing our thunder a little bit,” Viverito said.


PS - shove that up your a___ LFN. Twit.

[MplsBison]

Really? No comment?

After all the huffing and puffing around here when changing from I-AA to FCS?

[MplsBison]

http://bisonmedia.areavoices.com/2012/08/02/from-i-aa-to-fcs-to-something-else/

[dgtw]

I never understood why the old names were a problem. They were much easier to understand and everybody knew which was which.

[MplsBison]

I never understood why the old names were a problem. They were much easier to understand and everybody knew which was which.

How about this: don't have separate names! Everyone is simply DI.

All the same rules apply in regards to scholarships, post season, number of sports sponsored, can't move up to the 85 scholarship level unless you're invited by an 85 scholarship conference, etc.

The media can use it's "mid-major" and "low-major" designations if they want.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

How about this: don't have separate names! Everyone is simply DI.

All the same rules apply in regards to scholarships, post season, number of sports sponsored, can't move up to the 85 scholarship level unless you're invited by an 85 scholarship conference, etc.

The media can use it's "mid-major" and "low-major" designations if they want.

I predict MplsBison will have the majority of the posts in this thread.

[alvinkayak6]

It's not an identity crisis due to nomenclature. It's that the Disney corporation is only focused on its bowl championship (semifinals) and promoting the SEC (and UConn (ESPN) or Florida (Disney Orlando) when it is achieving success). When the playoffs are starting, they are too busy promoting the Heisman or the BCS Top 10. The FCS is like the crunchy stuff at the bottom of the potato chip bag. It's the best stuff, but it's just crumbs by the time feeding is over. This is assuming there is no big Penn State, Cam Newton, or Reggie Bush scandal to address, as well. Can't miss a good opportunity to remind us how backwards society is.

[BEAR]

I think all FCS, FBS teams should be called division I. I mean they do it in basketball and every other sport...it's not like we're division II, even if perception is that way.

[Grizalltheway]

I predict MplsBison will have the majority of the posts in this thread.

Always fun to watch a mental case talk to himself.

[MplsBison]

I think all FCS, FBS teams should be called division I. I mean they do it in basketball and every other sport...it's not like we're division II, even if perception is that way.

Yes agreed. The media tends to use terms like "mid major" or "low major" anyway, from basketball. They're more comfortable with that.

[Sycamore51]

I still call it I-AA as well. I'd love to see just one D-1 however with a 70-75 scholarship limit.

[dgtw]

Basketball is all Division I because they all play under the same scholarship limits and all play for the same championship. In football, one group is limited to 63 scholarships and has a 20(?) team playoff format. Another group is allowed 85 scholarships and has a two (soon to be four) team playoff format that competes for a separate championship, albeit one not recognized by the NCAA.

[MplsBison]

Basketball is all Division I because they all play under the same scholarship limits and all play for the same championship. In football, one group is limited to 63 scholarships and has a 20(?) team playoff format. Another group is allowed 85 scholarships and has a two (soon to be four) team playoff format that competes for a separate championship, albeit one not recognized by the NCAA.

There could still be one classification, DI.

Think of it like basketball. Teams that chose to offer more scholarships wouldn't be eligible for the NCAA men's tournament but could hold their own, separate championship.

[MplsBison]

I still call it I-AA as well. I'd love to see just one D-1 however with a 70-75 scholarship limit.

As cool as that would be, I don't see any reason why there still can't just be a single DI division and only schools that offer 63 scholarships or less are eligible for the NCAA administered post season tournament.

[Sycamore51]

Yes agreed. The media tends to use terms like "mid major" or "low major" anyway, from basketball. They're more comfortable with that.


As cool as that would be, I don't see any reason why there still can't just be a single DI division and only schools that offer 63 scholarships or less are eligible for the NCAA administered post season tournament.
Ivy League schools don't offer basketball scholarships and are still DI, so it would work no matter many you offer I guess. I'd just like to see it happen. 32 team tourney could work as well. It wouldn't take any more time than the bowl season does now. 16 AQ conferences (big10/PAC 12/sec/big east/acc/mwc/big 12/c-USA/sun belt/Mac/mvfc/socon/big sky/caa/ovc/southland) and 16 at large bids, seed them 1-32 and get after it.

[bisonnation]

It's not an identity crisis due to nomenclature. It's that the Disney corporation is only focused on its bowl championship (semifinals) and promoting the SEC (and UConn (ESPN) or Florida (Disney Orlando) when it is achieving success). When the playoffs are starting, they are too busy promoting the Heisman or the BCS Top 10. The FCS is like the crunchy stuff at the bottom of the potato chip bag. It's the best stuff, but it's just crumbs by the time feeding is over. This is assuming there is no big Penn State, Cam Newton, or Reggie Bush scandal to address, as well. Can't miss a good opportunity to remind us how backwards society is.

You are spot on. They chose not to give it much coverage or advertise it. That has nothing to do with the name. Thanks ESPN3 for hijacking the playoffs.

[The Cats]

I predict MplsBison will have the majority of the posts in this thread.

Are you jealous?

[kdinva]

I never understood why the old names were a problem. They were much easier to understand and everybody knew which was which.

Amen xthumbsupx xbowx

It wasn't broke, yet someone wanted to "fix it".......I'll always use "1-A" and "1-AA"

[walliver]

Amen xthumbsupx xbowx

It wasn't broke, yet someone wanted to "fix it".......I'll always use "1-A" and "1-AA"

I never liked the new names. When describing current subdivision, I have to think through the names. On this board we argue about FBC vs FCS; but in real terms, the only labels that matter are BCS and non-BCS.

What makes it most confusing is that FCS sounds a lot like BCS.

[MplsBison]

I never liked the new names. When describing current subdivision, I have to think through the names. On this board we argue about FBC vs FCS; but in real terms, the only labels that matter are BCS and non-BCS.

What makes it most confusing is that FCS sounds a lot like BCS.

And now the BCS is dead and a playoff via a selection committee is left in it's place, just like what we have here.

Therefore none of the following labels have a context: BCS, FCS and FBS.

[UNIFanSince1983]

And now the BCS is dead and a playoff via a selection committee is left in it's place, just like what we have here.

Therefore none of the following labels have a context: BCS, FCS and FBS.

For 2 more years they do...

[walliver]

And now the BCS is dead and a playoff via a selection committee is left in it's place, just like what we have here.

Therefore none of the following labels have a context: BCS, FCS and FBS.

Here we have automatic bids.

The non-NCAA BCS replacement will have no automatic bids and a selection committee appointed to make sure that the SEC, Big-10, Big-12, and PAC will get spots with a rare appearance by an ACC team, and rarer appearance by a Big East team. Teams in the MWC, C-USA, MAC, SunBelt (and WAC if it survives) will be left out in the cold. The term "BCS" to refer to the big-time programs may go away, but a new term will evolve to fill its spot. The idea that there will be a real FBS "playoff" is vastly overrated.

[henfan]

Subdivision nomenclature was changed as a result of the NCAA's comprehensive D-I FB study, conducted in 2000. Originally, FCS leaders were pushing for the elimination of subdivision nomenclature but were overruled by conferences like CUSA, the Sun Belt and others, who obviously felt that their ability to distinguish themselves from what was then known as I-AA conferences would be somehow diminished. The FBS/FCS compromise was the result and not a great one.

IMO, there's absolutely no need for silly subdivision classification. Conferences should have the ability to choose to participate in bowls, the NCAA's D-I championship post-season or no post-season at all. Minimum criteria already exists that determines which conferences & schools participates in the bowls and NCAA post-season. Division I is Division I. It's not that complicated.

[MplsBison]

Here we have automatic bids.

The non-NCAA BCS replacement will have no automatic bids and a selection committee appointed to make sure that the SEC, Big-10, Big-12, and PAC will get spots with a rare appearance by an ACC team, and rarer appearance by a Big East team. Teams in the MWC, C-USA, MAC, SunBelt (and WAC if it survives) will be left out in the cold. The term "BCS" to refer to the big-time programs may go away, but a new term will evolve to fill its spot. The idea that there will be a real FBS "playoff" is vastly overrated.

An overly pessimistic and ultimately incorrect view. You and LFN will be proven wrong.

[MplsBison]

Subdivision nomenclature was changed as a result of the NCAA's comprehensive D-I FB study, conducted in 2000. Originally, FCS leaders were pushing for the elimination of subdivision nomenclature but were overruled by conferences like CUSA, the Sun Belt and others, who obviously felt that their ability to distinguish themselves from what was then known as I-AA conferences would be somehow diminished. The FBS/FCS compromise was the result and not a great one.

IMO, there's absolutely no need for silly subdivision classification. Conferences should have the ability to choose to participate in bowls, the NCAA's D-I championship post-season or no post-season at all. Minimum criteria already exists that determines which conferences & schools participates in the bowls and NCAA post-season. Division I is Division I. It's not that complicated.

Great post!

I'm with you absolutely. There should be a big push by FCS schools to get rid of sub-divisions for DI football. Those schools which choose to follow the already well established rules and procedures for offering 85 scholarships will be ineligible for the NCAA post season tournament and the rest will be ineligible for the 35 bowl games.

[aceinthehole]

Subdivision nomenclature was changed as a result of the NCAA's comprehensive D-I FB study, conducted in 2000. Originally, FCS leaders were pushing for the elimination of subdivision nomenclature but were overruled by conferences like CUSA, the Sun Belt and others, who obviously felt that their ability to distinguish themselves from what was then known as I-AA conferences would be somehow diminished. The FBS/FCS compromise was the result and not a great one.

IMO, there's absolutely no need for silly subdivision classification. Conferences should have the ability to choose to participate in bowls, the NCAA's D-I championship post-season or no post-season at all. Minimum criteria already exists that determines which conferences & schools participates in the bowls and NCAA post-season. Division I is Division I. It's not that complicated.


+1

[jmufan]

I think all FCS, FBS teams should be called division I. I mean they do it in basketball and every other sport...it's not like we're division II, even if perception is that way.

I agree but there are lot teams in the FCS that should not be d-1 in football.

[The Eagle's Cliff]

It doesn't matter what it's called. College Football outside of 40 or so schools is obscure.

[MplsBison]

I agree but there are lot teams in the FCS that should not be d-1 in football.

True, but there's nothing that can be done about it. The NCAA won't stop teams like Dayton from simply "participating" in varsity football and DII and DIII won't allow them in their divisions because they play DI bball. Rock and a hard place.

[BearsCountry]

I agree but there are lot teams in the FCS that should not be d-1 in football.

And there are lot of teams that shouldn't be D-1 in basketball either.

[ndsubison]

I predict MplsBison will have the majority of the posts in this thread.



MPLSBison is an idiot. He got caught in the spoon position with Darrell76

[TheBisonator]

And there are lot of teams that shouldn't be D-1 in basketball either.

I hope we're not one of em. xdohx

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

MPLSBison is an idiot. He got caught in the spoon position with Darrell76


I got a good laugh out of this......LOL

[MplsBison]

I got a good laugh out of this......LOL

I can picture this in my head.

Some 70 old guy, cackling away at his 15" CRT monitor...the other browser window is on his AOL mail account viewing a chain letter about president Obama Muslim jokes.

[WileECoyote06]

Ivy League schools don't offer basketball scholarships and are still DI, so it would work no matter many you offer I guess. I'd just like to see it happen. 32 team tourney could work as well. It wouldn't take any more time than the bowl season does now. 16 AQ conferences (big10/PAC 12/sec/big east/acc/mwc/big 12/c-USA/sun belt/Mac/mvfc/socon/big sky/caa/ovc/southland) and 16 at large bids, seed them 1-32 and get after it.

xeyebrowxxeyebrowx


LMAO. . . .okay