What's in a Name? Leaving the 'I-AA' Stigma' Behind

[TexasTerror]

Another article on the change from I-AA...talks are heating up in the media with a decision that could come early as next week!

What's in a name? Leaving the 'I-AA stigma' behind
By Mark Alesia
[email protected]

For the first time since they were created 28 years ago, the top divisions of NCAA football could get new names next week.

Division I-A would become the "Football Bowl Subdivision" and Division I-AA the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision."

The 16-team postseason tournament in Division I-AA would be called the "NCAA Division I Football Championship."

The proposal came about because schools in Division I-AA felt stigmatized when the designation, which applies to football only, is used by media and others to describe the entire athletic program.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060725/SPORTS/607250392

[bluehenbillk]

OK, do people think changing the name to what they want to change it to os a good thing? I can see it both ways, you can argue that it is a "stigma" that you're labelled as inferior with the 1-AA. On the other hand, making the move I can see would just create a new stigma that we're playing to be the 119th best team in the country, or something similar. I know it's not true & the 1-AA champ is probably the 50th or so best college team in the country but I don't know if the change in name does anything to change the perception of the people who see that stigma currently.

[RabidRabbit]

:hurray: This Bunny prefers to be a Champ participant. Leave the various fruit/flowers/nuts & no name cities bowl to the bowlers. :thumbsup:

Love the excitement of playoffs, and qualifying for the play-offs.:twocents:

[ysuindy]

This was on the front page of the Indy Star sports section today. First time in the 10 years I have lived here that anything about I-AA has made the front page.

[foghorn]

:hurray: This Bunny prefers to be a Champ participant. Leave the various fruit/flowers/nuts & no name cities bowl to the bowlers. :thumbsup:

Love the excitement of playoffs, and qualifying for the play-offs.:twocents:

No matter what the new 'official' names become, a dollar to a donut says that the current Div. I-A, or 'big boys', will still be called D-1 in every day football jargon. Not sure what nickname will be acceptable to playoff teams, probably still 'double A'. :nono:

[paytonlives]

The classification really hurts recruiting for BASKETBALL!!!

UM is Division 1 basketball and division I-A for football. Selvig and Kyrsko have both stated at different times that teams from the PAC-10, WAC and MWC have used this against the Griz during recruiting.

"Well you know they are division 2"

Sounds crappy and hurts basketball recruiting, granted a win in the NCAA tourney has really helped, how can you expect an 18 year old kid to understand this?

[NoCoDanny]

Honestly I don't see this making one bit of difference.

[DUPFLFan]

The media will continue to call things as they choose to.

[bluehenbillk]

The Big 10 & Atlantic 10 don't have ten schools but hey, what's in a number?

[GeauxColonels]

The Big 10 & Atlantic 10 don't have ten schools but hey, what's in a number?
That's more a tradition thing than anything (besides, the Big 10 has worked the #11 into its logo ever so cleverly).

I think that the I-AA athletic directors are hoping that this will help them in other sports, not football. Like it was stated before, the I-A football schools are using the I-AA moniker as a stigma to identify the "weaker" programs for other sports too. Now, I'm not saying it will work, football dominates the college athletics landscape in this country and I'm sure the BCS league ADs will just as easily find a way to stigmatize the other schools with the new name.

[henfan]

Interesting that the term 'playoff' has disappeared from the equation entirely as it was to be related to the new I-AA moniker. Wonder why I-A would have objections to that term, unless they want to reserve the option of a playoff down the line?

How long before the term "FCS" becomes the pejorative D-I football term of choice for BCS recruiters and moronic media types?

[rufus]

The name doesn't matter. Label yourself inferior, and you'll be treated as such. Separate is inherently unequal. I am all for one big Division I that allows teams to grant 63-85 scholarships. The NCAA should also allow schools to play football in a lower division if they don't want to fund a DI football program.

[Shockerman]

NCAA Football Championship SubDivision...NFCS...or..NFC...anyone see any problems with that? I think I like the Playoff Championship Division/Bowl Championship Division better.

[*****]

Whatever they call, just get it done so we can move on!

[grizbeer]

Interesting that the term 'playoff' has disappeared from the equation entirely as it was to be related to the new I-AA moniker. Wonder why I-A would have objections to that term, unless they want to reserve the option of a playoff down the line?

Or maybe it was because of current I-AA teams that don't participate in the playoffs? It might have been something the Ivy's wanted?

[GeauxColonels]

Interesting that the term 'playoff' has disappeared from the equation entirely as it was to be related to the new I-AA moniker. Wonder why I-A would have objections to that term, unless they want to reserve the option of a playoff down the line?

How long before the term "FCS" becomes the pejorative D-I football term of choice for BCS recruiters and moronic media types?



Or maybe it was because of current I-AA teams that don't participate in the playoffs? It might have been something the Ivy's wanted?

Actually, I think it may have had something to do with the fact that MOST I-A college football fans want a playoff system. Labelling one group that way might actually have a negative impact (however minor it may be, but nonetheless a NEGATIVE impact) on recruiting and $$$.

[henfan]

Or maybe it was because of current I-AA teams that don't participate in the playoffs? It might have been something the Ivy's wanted?

Can't be, since, by virtue of their voluntary noncommitment to the playoffs, the SWAC and Ivy don't participate in the championship either. Those conferences don't really fit the broad sense of the FCS label either, unless the SWAC & Ivy somehow consider their regular season championships to be subdivision championships. :bang:

[golionsgo]

That's more a tradition thing than anything (besides, the Big 10 has worked the #11 into its logo ever so cleverly).

I think that the I-AA athletic directors are hoping that this will help them in other sports, not football. Like it was stated before, the I-A football schools are using the I-AA moniker as a stigma to identify the "weaker" programs for other sports too.

I think you're right in why I-AA ADs want the change as far as other sports go but it's not going to make much difference in my estimation. Those schools are still going to be labeled as "mid-majors" in those sports and there will still be a line drawn between the haves and the have nots. I don't mind the change for football purposes but I don't see it making a lot of difference there either. I guess dropping the "AA" designation will help with perception some but you're only going to be able to trick people for so long.

[GeauxColonels]

I think you're right in why I-AA ADs want the change as far as other sports go but it's not going to make much difference in my estimation. Those schools are still going to be labeled as "mid-majors" in those sports and there will still be a line drawn between the haves and the have nots. I don't mind the change for football purposes but I don't see it making a lot of difference there either. I guess dropping the "AA" designation will help with perception some but you're only going to be able to trick people for so long.
I totally agree. I don't think it will actually make much difference; but I think that's what some ADs are hoping for.

[skinny_uncle]

A rose by any other name..............
:D

[Shockerman]

I think this is a great idea. What do Wichita State, Gonzaga Xavier, etc.... all have in common? They are listed by the NCAA as DIAAA schools. Yet they are not perceived as less than DI. Maybe not BCS schools, but they are not referred to as DIAAA schools. Football schools that are DIAA have a negative stigmatism to it, like it or not. We are all DI, either you play for a Bowl championship or a playoff championship or don't CURRENTLY have football. With this new designation, I think you will see schools in the Sunbelt, WAC, MAC and maybe CUSA switch to the playoff division. Why not? If the stigmatism isn't there why shouldn't they. Now with that said, will that be good for the health of the current DIAA schools? Yes for the upper teir of the divison. Perhaps a death blow for others. A thought that deserves its own thread.

[EKU05]

If you've paid any attention to this issue at all it is a move that is motivated, in reality, by every sport EXCEPT for football. Basketball coaches (fore example) at I-A schools have long been known to use the dirty trick of trying to apply the I-AA label to their sport. Read the quotes from Presidents, ADs and commisioners...that's mostly what they talked about.

But look at it this way...

This is not going to be a groundbreaking change. But a change doesn't have to be groundbreaking to be positive. And by the way, people ALREADY look at our tournament as the playoff for the 119th best team. That will be the same either way so it's kind of a moot point.

[EKU05]

I think this is a great idea. What do Wichita State, Gonzaga Xavier, etc.... all have in common? They are listed by the NCAA as DIAAA schools. Yet they are not perceived as less than DI. Maybe not BCS schools, but they are not referred to as DIAAA schools. Football schools that are DIAA have a negative stigmatism to it, like it or not. We are all DI, either you play for a Bowl championship or a playoff championship or don't CURRENTLY have football. With this new designation, I think you will see schools in the Sunbelt, WAC, MAC and maybe CUSA switch to the playoff division. Why not? If the stigmatism isn't there why shouldn't they. Now with that said, will that be good for the health of the current DIAA schools? Yes for the upper teir of the divison. Perhaps a death blow for others. A thought that deserves its own thread.

I don't think I'd go that far to say that schools will be switching. This is a positive change but it isn't going to work miracles.

[UAalum72]

With this new designation, I think you will see schools in the Sunbelt, WAC, MAC and maybe CUSA switch to the playoff division.
If the Sunbelt, WAC, MAC, and CUSA switch, will they get autobids immediately, or will they have to spend four years 'proving' themselves against the A-10 and Gateway first?:rolleyes:

[EKU05]

Actually since they were new to the subclassification I believe they would have to wait a few years before they were eligible which would be kind of funny. Maybe that's not true though....it's kind of unprecidented.

[GeauxColonels]

I think this is a great idea. What do Wichita State, Gonzaga Xavier, etc.... all have in common? They are listed by the NCAA as DIAAA schools. Yet they are not perceived as less than DI. Maybe not BCS schools, but they are not referred to as DIAAA schools. Football schools that are DIAA have a negative stigmatism to it, like it or not. We are all DI, either you play for a Bowl championship or a playoff championship or don't CURRENTLY have football. With this new designation, I think you will see schools in the Sunbelt, WAC, MAC and maybe CUSA switch to the playoff division. Why not? If the stigmatism isn't there why shouldn't they. Now with that said, will that be good for the health of the current DIAA schools? Yes for the upper teir of the divison. Perhaps a death blow for others. A thought that deserves its own thread.
Why not?? Because most of these schools have made a significant monetary investment in the programs. Ask anyone associated with those schools, they will tell you that moving to the Playoff Championship is a step down. :mad: :mad: :bang:

[golionsgo]

I think this is a great idea. What do Wichita State, Gonzaga Xavier, etc.... all have in common? They are listed by the NCAA as DIAAA schools. Yet they are not perceived as less than DI.

No one refers those schools as I-AAA (very few people even know that designation exists) but they are certainly referred to as mid-majors by most media outlets. I don't see where dropping the A and AA nomenclature for football playing schools will change much in terms of general perception.

[Shockerman]

Why not?? Because most of these schools have made a significant monetary investment in the programs. Ask anyone associated with those schools, they will tell you that moving to the Playoff Championship is a step down.

If your Rice, Kent State, Ball State, Tulsa etc... wouldn't you love to have the opportunity to be able to play meanigful post season ball? Granted, I am assuming that the negativity attached to PCD or whatever would be minimilized by a name change but I could see a major change happening. Maybe it is just wishful thinking though and the status quo will be the, well, status quo. : smh :

[Tod]

If your Rice, Kent State, Ball State, Tulsa etc... wouldn't you love to have the opportunity to be able to play meanigful post season ball? Granted, I am assuming that the negativity attached to PCD or whatever would be minimilized by a name change but I could see a major change happening. Maybe it is just wishful thinking though and the status quo will be the, well, status quo. : smh :

They'd have to drop scholarships (might take a few years to get down to 63) and find a new conference.

[EKU05]

The change would be more trouble than it's worth. Plus, even if it would be partially appealing you aren't taken into account the shame that most people would associate with any kind of "drop down." People would look at it like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays randomly deciding they'd rather play AAA ball.

[89Hen]

The classification really hurts recruiting for BASKETBALL!!!

UM is Division 1 basketball and division I-A for football. Selvig and Kyrsko have both stated at different times that teams from the PAC-10, WAC and MWC have used this against the Griz during recruiting.
You really think they're not selling Pac10 vs. Big Sky? No offense but that's a no brainer and no I-AA/D2 talk needed. You think Villanova or Georgetown is going to lose a player to East Carolina because of football nomenclature?

Leave it I-AA and be done with it. :nonono2:

[GeauxColonels]

The change would be more trouble than it's worth. Plus, even if it would be partially appealing you aren't taken into account the shame that most people would associate with any kind of "drop down." People would look at it like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays randomly deciding they'd rather play AAA ball.
Actually, I think the Devil Rays already play Triple-A ball. :D

[ucdtim17]

No one would move down for the same reasons they don't voluntarily move down now.

[EKU05]

Actually, I think the Devil Rays already play Triple-A ball. :D

Touche, that was kind of my point. They don't draw any kind of a crowd and they suck...but they still wouldn't officially admit that in the form of moving down (if that were an option in pro sports).

[EKU05]

You really think they're not selling Pac10 vs. Big Sky? No offense but that's a no brainer and no I-AA/D2 talk needed. You think Villanova or Georgetown is going to lose a player to East Carolina because of football nomenclature?

Leave it I-AA and be done with it. :nonono2:

It does hurt for basketball. We're not talking about recruiting head to head with UCLA or Kentucky here, but some of the lesser "I-A basketball schools." You'd be suprised though...about three years ago EKU actually beat out Tennessee head to head for a recruit....it can happen if the player thinks they will play more (and still be in D1).

This change would be a good thing...not a miracle but a good thing. No longer will you have to cringe when your own school identifies itself as..

NCAA classification: Division I (I-AA in football)

And rest assured, most of them do it that way. It gives people the impression that somehow you aren't a "real" division I school. Again, it won't change things on a grand scale, but that doesn't have to be the case for the change to be positive.

[Keeper]

IMO any attempt to change nomenclature but not division status is only going to confuse further. BCS schools recruit vs non-BCS who are often called "mid-major". Non-BCS recruit vs I-AA who are often referred to as D-2. Coaches will pull out all the gimmicks to recruit, so education and media clarity are what is needed if AA schools want to be recognized as Division I. The prospects certainly know who the BCS schools are, and believe me, most of them are keenly aware of the non-BCS I-A teams.

I-AA schools need a better platform to market their status or increased media coverage, not just during the playoffs. Either get really aggressive and raise more money for marketing. or be resigned to the fact that AA really is a lesser division in football, and be prepared for a massive reclassification, which many already consider overdue.

The NCAA Basketball Championship tournament is coincidentally trying
to include more teams from the power leagues and forcing more of the play-in games for bottom-RPI leagues, despite the recent successes of
"mid-majors". The Question here is: Should clinging to the dream of
appearing in March Madness, only to be ousted in first round games for the most part, be worthy of consideration by the public as having D-1 status.

Granted, there are many schools who don't belong in I-A but are allowed there by the present rules. The reality of your position in the football world is clouded by the perception of schools who desire to be referred to as Division One members. It is quite natural to want to be associated with the best that you can. But see here, the best athletes will always go to the best programs, and the pecking order does what it can.
This hand-wringing over nomenclature is tiresome and non-productive.
However, if the committees feel the need to rename something for their own gratification, then keep it simple for effectiveness. I would suggest
a change in football classification as follows:
= Division I-AA becomes Division I-A
= Division I-A becomes Division I.
= Grab a major sponsor (example McDonalds) for the "McDonalds NCAA Division I-A Football Tournament" (formerly the I-AA playoffs)

Nobody on television ever refers to Division I or I-A except when talking
about stats. All the talk is about BCS, SEC, ACC, etc. The so-called non-BCS schools sued to be included the BCS party; their stigma is no less felt than that of I-AA. Smaller programs will always have to fight for their share. Keep the faith baby.
:twocents:

[Tod]

IMO any attempt to change nomenclature but not division status is only going to confuse further. BCS schools recruit vs non-BCS who are often called "mid-major". Non-BCS recruit vs I-AA who are often referred to as D-2. Coaches will pull out all the gimmicks to recruit, so education and media clarity are what is needed if AA schools want to be recognized as Division I. The prospects certainly know who the BCS schools are, and believe me, most of them are keenly aware of the non-BCS I-A teams.

I-AA schools need a better platform to market their status or increased media coverage, not just during the playoffs. Either get really aggressive and raise more money for marketing. or be resigned to the fact that AA really is a lesser division in football, and be prepared for a massive reclassification, which many already consider overdue.

The NCAA Basketball Championship tournament is coincidentally trying
to include more teams from the power leagues and forcing more of the play-in games for bottom-RPI leagues, despite the recent successes of
"mid-majors". The Question here is: Should clinging to the dream of
appearing in March Madness, only to be ousted in first round games for the most part, be worthy of consideration by the public as having D-1 status.

Granted, there are many schools who don't belong in I-A but are allowed there by the present rules. The reality of your position in the football world is clouded by the perception of schools who desire to be referred to as Division One members. It is quite natural to want to be associated with the best that you can. But see here, the best athletes will always go to the best programs, and the pecking order does what it can.
This hand-wringing over nomenclature is tiresome and non-productive.
However, if the committees feel the need to rename something for their own gratification, then keep it simple for effectiveness. I would suggest
a change in football classification as follows:
= Division I-AA becomes Division I-A
= Division I-A becomes Division I.
= Grab a major sponsor (example McDonalds) for the "McDonalds NCAA Division I-A Football Tournament" (formerly the I-AA playoffs)

Nobody on television ever refers to Division I or I-A except when talking
about stats. All the talk is about BCS, SEC, ACC, etc. The so-called non-BCS schools sued to be included the BCS party; their stigma is no less felt than that of I-AA. Smaller programs will always have to fight for their share. Keep the faith baby.
:twocents:

The two main issues for I-AA football in recruiting are, IMHO:

1. Name recogition, as you stated. Thinking back to the really good QB's (for example) who came out of Montana high schools, they have played at Washington State, Wyoming, etc. (Dave Dickinson excluded, but he has always had size issues, and may have played for the Griz anyway, who knows?).

2. The obvious answer; scholarships. But I put this one at #2 for a specific reason. If Notre Dame had 63 and Montana had 85, ND would still be the superior team due to name recognition, NBC contracts, etc.

Your proposal to go Div. I-A and Div. I doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see how it would make any difference. While I'm not fully for the name changes that they're currently discussing, your proposal doesn't seem to do anything worthwhile.

It would be great to do something about name recognition, etc., but the NCAA has to be the ultimate driving force behind that, with much fan/sponsor support.

But at the same time, I-AA football has millions of fans. Maybe if people FOLLOWED I-AA as they do some other sports, there would be more support. Millions of people who are not fans of the teams still watch the Superbowl. If I-AA fans broaden their horizons and care about I-AA as a whole, rather than not caring once their team is out, that would make a huge difference.

:twocents:

[Mike Johnson]

Interesing discussion.

I don't see a mass exodus from IA (non-BCS) to IAA (whatever it ends up getting called). I say this for a few reasons:

1. One bowl trip brings in more money than winning the IAA tournament.

2. One bowl trip brings in more exposure than winning the IAA tournament.

3. Every IA conference has a bowl tie-in. Except for the SunBelt, they all have more than one.

4. 58 off 119 teams go to a bowl (number varies slightly every year). 16 of 121 teams go to the IAA playoffs.

5. Even if your team doesn't go to a bowl, it gets a share from the teams that do. Even the struggling teams would lose money going IAA and they, without a tradition of winning, likely will still have a tough time getting on track. None of the struggling IA teams wants to risk struggling at IAA.

Personally, I feel the proposal to change the labels does little more than add confusion--particularly for the people who matter most in this--the potential recruits.

[Keeper]

To be sure, the I-AA classification was created for their benefit, to be able to play for some kind of trophy in lieu of any possible bowl bids.
A football only concept to help the smaller programs survive. As the NCAA rules are now for minimum attendance to qualify as I-A, too many are allowed to exist there. Schools would not voluntarily leave I-A ever.
They would be forced to drop if the NCAA changed requirements or had a total classification makeover. If schools are complaining for not being perceived as Division I because of the football label, there is probably no suitable label to appease them. The size of the overall athletic program will determine their popularity. Athletes will usually accept scholarship to the biggest name school to offer, or to one which affords the best opportunity to play. I don't think the division standing means much to them. The biggest thing that AA ball has going for it is the chance to compete in playoffs for a true national championship, something that most fans would like to see in some form at the BCS level. Perhaps it is time for AA schools to further embrace that fact, enhance and expand the playoff field, and introduce new exposure and marketing into the tournament. One way to remove perceived stigmas is to better sell and inform the public of your product. If people really enjoy your level or brand of football, they will hardly care about the "nomenclature".

Saturday college football is the greatest sporting experience in the world - at any level. Our universities have more important issues than fussing over division name-calling. They need to protect the total student-athlete model and maintain a co-respect for academics and athletics. The economics of surrounding populace, wealth, and/or state or private support will always shape the direction and size of an athletics program. It is okay to be as big as you can possibly be, but you get there by working hard and being aggresive. I-AA members and fans have done a fine job of it thus far. I can't help but think it could be done better.
:read: xsmileyclapx :nod:

[*****]

wow, these I-A lovers are coming out of the woodwork... scared are they? They're losing more money than I-AA, losing money at their bools, losing out being NCAA champs, losing period. Congrats to the BCS champs... all dressed up, pockets filled, congratulating themselves... sincerely hope they are happy.

[*****]

hey y'all

[rufus]

I'm kind of torn on the name change. I don't know whether it will reduce the stigma or simply confuse things further.

I agree with others who feel that the best way to eliminate the stigma is to simply have a single Division I. The divison could require a minimum of 63 scholarships and allow a maximum of 85. I'm sure a lot of former I-AAs would go to 85 scholarships, but cost containment would still be an option if a school wants to remain at 63. I know JMU for example has a $22.4 million athletic budget, which is larger than any school's in the Sun Belt, MAC, WAC, and CUSA with the exceptions of Memphis, SMU, UTEP, and Fresno State. A lot of other current I-AAs aren't that far off from JMU's budget, so I imagine they could easily fund 85 scholarships if we competed in a single Division I. Many current I-AAs could be competitive in a single Division I.

Those schools that do not wish to fund 63 scholarships, should be allowed to play football only in DII or DIII. I see no harm in allowing a school to play in the division that is the best fit for them.

Eliminate the stigma by eliminating the subclassifications. We are Division I -- let's make that clear to the world.