One Division I?

[rufus]

I've floated this idea in other threads related to the renaming of I-AA, but I wanted to get everyone's thoughts on the idea of a merged Division I. I've always believed that it doesn't matter whether you call it Division I-AA, FCS Subdivision, or the Super Wonderful Playoff Division. People view it as unequal because it is separate. So this is my plan:

- Merge I-AA and I-A into a single division
- Allow Division I schools to play DII or DIII football if it is in their best interests
- Allow ALL Division I teams to award 85 scholarships
- Allow ALL Division I teams to qualify for the playoffs
- If a team wishes to compete for a bowl bid rather than a playoff bid, the team must declare their intent to do so before the start of the season
- Playoff auto bids will be awarded to any conference with 6 or more playoff-elligible teams (i.e. conferences in which the majority of schools have opted for playoffs) awarding an average of 50+ scholarships
- The playoff field is expanded if necessary, and all teams are seeded.
- Playoff home games are decided by seed rather than bid.

If most of the A10/CAA wants to play in the playoffs, but Delaware wants to roll the dice for a bowl payout, they will be allowed to do so. Conversely, Duke can decide that they are better off competing in the playoffs if that's the route they pick.

As Ralph has pointed out previously, DII and DIII may not want the low-scholarship and non-scholarship I-AAs playing in their divisions for whatever reason. If that is the case, then those teams should simply play in the merged Division I with the rest of the current I-AAs and I-As. They are Division I after all. The NCAA could still add a bowl elligibility requirement of X number of wins over teams with at least X number of scholarships.

Thoughts?

[89Hen]

Thoughts?
No offense Rufus, but I don't like any of it.

- Merge I-AA and I-A into a single division
They already are a single division

- Allow Division I schools to play DII or DIII football if it is in their best interests
They already can play them, but they don't count toward bowl or playoff eligilbity.

- Allow ALL Division I teams to award 85 scholarships
That would destroy current I-AA conferences and the haves and have nots gap grows even more.

- Allow ALL Division I teams to qualify for the playoffs
Who do you see opting for the playoffs and what makes you think they would get a bid?

- If a team wishes to compete for a bowl bid rather than a playoff bid, the team must declare their intent to do so before the start of the season
Do you think current I-AA teams would do this? With bowl tie-ins, it would be a HUGE risk by a team not in a conference with a tie-in.

- Playoff auto bids will be awarded to any conference with 6 or more playoff-elligible teams (i.e. conferences in which the majority of schools have opted for playoffs) awarding an average of 50+ scholarships
But only those that don't have bowl tie-ins.

[McNeese72]

- Allow Division I schools to play DII or DIII football if it is in their best interests
They already can play them, but they don't count toward bowl or playoff eligilbity.


I think he means to go back to allowing a school to have its other sports in Div I but allow its football team to compete in Div II or III if they want. Some of the non-scholarship schools in I-AA used to do that until the NCAA said that to compete in Div I, all of your sports have to be Div I.

Doc

[LacesOut]

Ahhhhhhhh, no.

I like the classifications that currently exist.

Names, schnames. It will always be, to me, I-AA and I-A football.

[AppGuy04]

- Merge I-AA and I-A into a single division
They already are a single division.

I think he is more referring to how polls would rank teams. I-A teams are not ranked in the I-AA poll and vice versa. He is saying they would all be one, and thus, ranked in one poll.

[carney2]

Rufus: Others have already pointed out many of them, but there are so many holes in this that we might just label it Rufus's Swiss Cheese Proposal. The only schools that could keep up under your "rules" would be the large state universities (such as JMU) that are currently under the I-AA banner. The rest would be relegated to D-II or some yet to be created football limbo. The MAC or MAC-like I-As would get larger and the A-10, SoCon, Gateway, Big Sky would shrink as their "big kids" wandered off to follow a futile dream. Nothing good would come from this unless you consider an expanded I-A and a shrunken I-AA a desirable result.

[henfan]

If most of the A10/CAA wants to play in the playoffs, but Delaware wants to roll the dice for a bowl payout, they will be allowed to do so. Conversely, Duke can decide that they are better off competing in the playoffs if that's the route they pick.

I realize the UD example was illustrative, but... I'm not sure why a school who makes money on the playoffs would want to opt for a minor bowl bid, where they'd most certainly lose money. Marshall and Troy State are still waiting for their huge bowl payouts! xlolx Conversely, why would schools/conferences with tie-ins to the bigger, more lucrative bowls voluntarily opt for the playoffs?

In theory, it wouldn't be horrible for schools/conferences to have the ability to select the post-season opportunity of choice; however, this idea is frought with numerous problems.

Most of all it would require BCS compliance. You just ain't gonna get that. You also aren't going to get current I-A schools opting for what is perceived as a lower level playoff anytime soon. Several schools have spent tens of millions trying to put as much distance as possible between them and their former I-AA counterparts. What's their incentive?

Implementing ridiculous rules like strict playoff seeding based on some subjective competitive measurement isn't something that's going to have current I-As flocking to participate in the playoff system, especially those looking to maximize post-season revenues.

Personally, I'd be much happier if I-AA conferences would work in a more formal and unified way to create a stronger brand identity. There's just been so little effort in that regard. We're our own worst enemy, with each conference operating like they were their own little fifedom. Sadly, there's very little vision and initiative from administrators at the I-AA level.:twocents:

[bluehenbillk]

I say keep it as it is right now, & keep the 1-A & 1-AA. I think everyone agrees the new names that are supposed to begin in December are pretty dumb.

[henfan]

I say keep it as it is right now, & keep the 1-A & 1-AA. I think everyone agrees the new names that are supposed to begin in December are pretty dumb.

I don't agree. Bowl Subdivision and Championship Subdivision are more descriptive and accurate than either I-A and I-AA. The latter terms mean absolutely nothing.

I would have preferred Playoff Subdivision instead of Championship Subdivision, but that's OK. IMO, it's still an improvement over I-AA.

[UNHWildCats]

I-A should create a playoff using the bowls 16 teams using 12 bowl games as the playoff games, the top 4, Rose, Fiesta, ORange and sugar, make up the quarterfinls games then the Championship is rotated between the top 4 bowl sites non playoff teams could still accept lesser bowl invitations that would be played during the week between the semi's and finals when the two championship teams would get a bye week.

[EKU05]

I don't agree. Bowl Subdivision and Championship Subdivision are more descriptive and accurate than either I-A and I-AA. The latter terms mean absolutely nothing.

I would have preferred Playoff Subdivision instead of Championship Subdivision, but that's OK. IMO, it's still an improvement over I-AA.

I don't think they picked the best possible name options, but I still like the idea of it better than I-A and I-AA. Call it what you want, but that gave people the distinct impression that we are not Division I. All of us follow I-AA football, so it seems quite elementary to understand, but because of the way things are presented in the media it is pretty confusing if you aren't specifically seeking out info on I-AA.

I liked of the original ideas of using "Playoff Championship Series." However, I am also delighted at the idea that our name includes championship and theirs doesn't. IMO, this was an attempt by the NCAA to (albeit very subtely) stick it to I-A. Everyone knows the NCAA as a body has always resented the fact that their own members essentially won't let them sponsor a championship in their most popular sport. The Bowls are big money for the schools and conferences, but the NCAA kind of gets shafted (and don't get me wrong, they deserve it).

Additionally, I know this will fall on deaf ears to some of the crowd here, but I think this is a move that will benefit sports like basketball even more than football itself. It annoyed me to death everytime I heard a certain Louisville basketball radio commercial that said, "follow Coach Rick Pitino and the Cards as they march through the Big East and NCAA Division I-A!" THERE IS NO I-A IN BASKETBALL. Even the media is ignorant on the matter. My hope is that this will help to clear things up even if it is a little awkward to get used to.

[rufus]

Wow -- no love for the proposal. :) A single Division I seems to work for other sports, so it seems reasonable to apply the same structure to football.


The only schools that could keep up under your "rules" would be the large state universities (such as JMU) that are currently under the I-AA banner.
I'm not sure why only large state schools could keep up, as there is no minimum scholarship requirement. You should also keep in mind that the schools in the top half if the Patriot League have some of the largest overall athletic budgets in I-AA (higher than anything in the MAC or Sun Belt). Villanova and Richmond have budgets that are among the top of the A10.


The rest would be relegated to D-II or some yet to be created football limbo.
Again, there is no minimum scholarship requirement. A team could play in Division I with zero scholarships. Right now in I-AA the scholarship range is 0-63. Is 0-85 really a drastic difference? A non-scholarship team will likely fair no better against a 63 scholarship team than against an 85 scholarship team.


The MAC or MAC-like I-As would get larger and the A-10, SoCon, Gateway, Big Sky would shrink as their "big kids" wandered off to follow a futile dream.
Why would top a top CAA school leave the CAA to join the Sun Belt? They have the option of remaining in the CAA and shooting for a bowl bid. Looking at geography, academics, etc, the move just wouldn't make sense.


Nothing good would come from this unless you consider an expanded I-A and a shrunken I-AA a desirable result.
There would be no I-A and I-AA -- just Division I like every other sport!

[chattanoogamocs]

Wow -- no love for the proposal. :) A single Division I seems to work for other sports, so it seems reasonable to apply the same structure to football.

It works better in other sports because all other sports have many fewer scholarships (and equal scholarship levels).

Fewer schollies = more parity.

[EKU05]

That's exactly right. There used to be one Division I. They subdivided it for a reason. Football because of the massive rosters, and the nature of the game itself is a completely different animal that any other NCAA sport. It only takes a few lucky recruits to have a good basketball team. It would take 20-30 (really probably more) lucky recruits to be good in football. Also, football is probably the hardest of the major team sports in which to overcome a talent deficit. Basketball teams can overcome talent deficits with hot shooting and some good team passing. It's easier still in baseball (which is also highly dependent on the starting pitcher). In football there are just way too many obstacles for underdogs to overcome on a TRULY regular basis.

[chattanoogamocs]

I agree...basketball has proven it time and again

...a team with two or three bonafide stars and a bunch of good role players can win a title.

that is why college baseball is so competitive...so few schollies, so many good players...every team has a lot of walkons.

but back to football...I am not sure this is taking it off topic, but I wouldn't mind seeing all DI schools be leveled off on scholarships...make the big schools drop down to 70 (the NFL makes it work with even less) and make the smaller schools have to have at least 60 (or go to DII...just for football, everything else can stay DI).

I just get tired of watching schools with better teams, but less bodies, get beat in the 4th quarter...just because of numbers alone.

[rufus]

Even if I-AA and I-A remain separate subdivisions, I am definitely for raising the I-AA scholarship limit to 85. With more I-AA vs I-A games scheduled in the coming years, it's important to remove this barrier that prevents I-AA from having the depth needed to compete in many I-A games.

I am still all for a single Division I, but at a minimum I would love to see the I-AA scholarship disadvantage removed.

[henfan]

Wow -- no love for the proposal. :) A single Division I seems to work for other sports, so it seems reasonable to apply the same structure to football...

There would be no I-A and I-AA -- just Division I like every other sport!

Rufus, I wouldn't say there's no love. The new move by the NCAA does work towards creating a more unified image of Division I. That's about the best we can hope for at this point.

If schools or conferences decide they want to participate in the bowl system vs. the playoff system now, they are free to do that. Of course, level of financial committment is tied to a move in either direction and there is a process of applying for participation in either tier. It's can't be done willy nilly because these type of moves impact sports aside from FB.

People here have pointed out some of the problems with your proposals. In an equal world, some of the stuff you put out there might actually have a chance of passing NCAA muster. Alas though, the 'haves' control the D-I legislative process. Change happens at their pace.

[henfan]

Even if I-AA and I-A remain separate subdivisions, I am definitely for raising the I-AA scholarship limit to 85.

The purpose of our level of play has always been cost containment. If you move the maximum scholarship barriers up to the current I-A level, it's no longer cost containment D-I FB.

There remains an option for D-I schools who want to offer more than 63 scholarships. It's called the bowl division.

[89Hen]

Even if I-AA and I-A remain separate subdivisions, I am definitely for raising the I-AA scholarship limit to 85.
But that's the very definition of I-AA football. Without a limit, there is no subdivision.

[EKU05]

But that's the very definition of I-AA football. Without a limit, there is no subdivision.

Absolutely, but that's not the only problem. If teams in our current subdivision were randomly allowed to shoot for bowls on any given year (and teams would almost certainly pick their best years to do this)...then how much would it water down our championship?

Who wants to say, "We won the NCAA playoffs...against the teams that decided they weren't good enough to compete for bowls this year!" Right now we have a specific membership of our subdivision, and we have our own championship. Blurring the lines would make us all but irrelevant.

Besides, with all of the conference tie ins to Bowls it would never work anyway. The only way it would work (and I AM NOT arguing for this...it would be stupid) would be to increase the number of bowls (probably double) and THEN totally combine subdivisions while doing away with the playoffs entirely. But no one wants that...it people wanted that we would have never had a I-AA to begin with.

[89Hen]

I think he means to go back to allowing a school to have its other sports in Div I but allow its football team to compete in Div II or III if they want.
Oh, thanks for the catch Doc. I am actually FOR that. :nod:

[rufus]

The purpose of our level of play has always been cost containment. If you move the maximum scholarship barriers up to the current I-A level, it's no longer cost containment D-I FB.

There remains an option for D-I schools who want to offer more than 63 scholarships. It's called the bowl division.
Increasing the I-AA scholarship limit to 85 will not have much impact on the cost containment aspect of I-AA. Unlike I-A, there would be no minimum number of scholarships required. The range would simply be 0-85 rather than 0-63.

In my opinion, the biggest advantage of I-AA is the playoff system rather than cost containment anyway.

[89Hen]

Increasing the I-AA scholarship limit to 85 will not have much impact on the cost containment aspect of I-AA.
It absolutely would! Don't forget that thanks to Title IX, if you add 22 schollies for football you have to fund the same for women's teams. So you're talking 44 extra schollies. It wouldn't be fair to teams that are struggling to keep up with the Monantas, Delawares and JMUs of the I-AA world as it is now. You'd be giving a death sentence to quite a few I-AA's.

[DUPFLFan]

You'd be giving a death sentence to quite a few I-AA's.

Nope, they would just join us in Non-Scholarship football :hurray:

[*****]

In my opinion, the biggest advantage of I-AA is the playoff system rather than cost containment anyway.Very few, if any college presidents would utter that statement.

[rufus]

It absolutely would! Don't forget that thanks to Title IX, if you add 22 schollies for football you have to fund the same for women's teams. So you're talking 44 extra schollies. It wouldn't be fair to teams that are struggling to keep up with the Monantas, Delawares and JMUs of the I-AA world as it is now. You'd be giving a death sentence to quite a few I-AA's.
I have trouble believing that a large number of I-AAs couldn't find a way to fund 85 scholarships. Looking at overall athletic budgets, the average A10 budget is larger than the average MAC or Sun Belt budget. Even the schools with the smallest budgets in the A10 would fall in the middle of the pack in the Sun Belt. The schools at the top of the A10 have some of the largest total budgets outside of the BCS.

And again, increasing the limit to 85 does not increase costs for those schools that choose not to make a full commitment to their football programs.

[EKU05]

I have trouble believing that a large number of I-AAs couldn't find a way to fund 85 scholarships. Looking at overall athletic budgets, the average A10 budget is larger than the average MAC or Sun Belt budget. Even the schools with the smallest budgets in the A10 would fall in the middle of the pack in the Sun Belt. The schools at the top of the A10 have some of the largest total budgets outside of the BCS.

And again, increasing the limit to 85 does not increase costs for those schools that choose not to make a full commitment to their football programs.

No, but it will increase the gap between the big boys and the struggling programs of I-AA. You could kiss any kind of parity good-bye. That having been said, funding scholarships is not as much of a strain as it seems like inititally.

[89Hen]

I have trouble believing that a large number of I-AAs couldn't find a way to fund 85 scholarships.
THAT's the problem. A good number would fund 85 scholarships, but the 30% that don't are doomed.

[rufus]

THAT's the problem. A good number would fund 85 scholarships, but the 30% that don't are doomed.
I think that most of these teams that are currently national championship contenders would be able to fund 85 scholarships. The past 23 I-AA national champions all currently play in the A10, SoCon, Gateway, Big Sky, or I-A. There are 3 runners up from the SLC and 1 from the Patriot League during the same time frame, but I-AA has generally been dominated by teams that currently play in those top four conferences. I would guess that most of the schools in the 4-5 top conferences would fund the full 85 scholarships.

I just don't see it having a major impact on the other conferences. If Dayton were to play a 63 scholarship Delaware team or an 85 scholarship Delaware team, the results would probably look pretty similar. Dayton is pretty much doomed either way.

[89Hen]

I think that most of these teams that are currently national championship contenders would be able to fund 85 scholarships.
Yes, and again you nailed the point. UD would, JMU would, UMass would... URI no, NU no, Maine probably not... you'd not only create a major rift between the A10 a conference that wouldn't fund it, you'd create a major rift within the A10 and other conferences with have's and have not's.

[DetroitFlyer]

I would not count out Dayton so quickly. We would not win 8/10 times, but 1 or 2 out of 10 times might not be out of the question. Dayton, Drake, San Diego and Morehead State are all improving their recruiting and competitiveness. San Diego has two Division I-A transfers on their roster this season, ( Wyoming and Washington State ). Dayton seems to be recruiting against the PL and Ivy League primarily, and against teams like YSU to a lesser degree. Believe me, the top PFL teams are much closer to I-AA scholly teams than Division II, Division III or NAIA teams. Notice I did not say we are there yet, but we are improving every year!

[Champs]

Flyer, sell that elsewhere. You play D-III Wittenberg this year. Last year AT YOUR PLACE, you trailed 20-13 at the half vs. Berg. You won eventually,but Wittenberg was just a .500 D-III team last year. Certainly NOT a Mount Union. Our AD has tried unsuccessfully to schedule you three times, even offering more than you take in in a HOME GAME. No dice. They know what we know-- Dayton is a glorified D-III masquerading as a I-AA, like many of the "frauds" in the division. The East Coast is littered with this garbage. Not the eqivalent of good D-II ,but certainly D-III .But the boys over there "love" to count the "win" as a I-AA.

This mismash in I-AA soon gets separated out. Sooner the better.

[*****]

Flyer, sell that elsewhere... Dayton is a glorified D-III masquerading as a I-AA, like many of the "frauds" in the division. The East Coast is littered with this garbage...No, "Champs", you sell your garbage elsewhere. Dayton is a D-I school and plays I-AA, no masquerade. This is a I-AA board so peddle your smack somewhere else.

[DetroitFlyer]

I have spoken directly with the AD at Dayton and YSU HAS NOT contacted Dayton about a game. As you mentioned, we beat Wittenberg handily last season! We will do so again this season. I am not a big fan of playing Division III teams and I hope Wittenberg is the last one we ever play. In case you forgot, we also pummeled Division II Tiffin, 38-0, at Tiffin last season. If you think Dayton is still a Division III level school, you need to do some research and get your head on straight!

[Paladin1aa]

I'll disagree with you Ralph. I'm a Morehead St. grad ( I-AA non-schollie now)and the Eagles annually win the South division of the PFL. They are a "shell" of their former selves when they were in the OVC with YSU as a schollie. It is glorified D-III. Most of the good PSAC D-II teams and many of the GLIAC D-II teams would whip them. D-III Mount Union would also beat them

And YSU has tried to schedule Dayton, which they duck.

So, we move on with frauds like Iona, Dayton, Morehead St.,etc,etc,etc.

They may be CALLED I-AA, but they AIN'T. Not on the field. xlolx :nod:

[henfan]

And again, increasing the limit to 85 does not increase costs for those schools that choose not to make a full commitment to their football programs.

True but, as 89Hen has pointed out, it would totally disrupt the competitive balance of the entire FB subdivision and split apart Olympic sport conferences.

More importantly, IMO, there would be little incentive for teams offering 85 to want to remain with those schools who couldn't afford to fund more athletic equivalancies. If they could afford to fund athletics in the same manner as bowl eligible schools, they'd already have reclassified.

[*****]

I'll disagree with you Ralph...Disagree all you want, smack all you want, Dayton is a D-I school and plays I-AA. FACT.:nod:

[EKU05]

I guess I fall somehwere in the middle here. On the one hand, a few years ago UD almost made the I-AA top 25. Clearly this is a program competing on-level with many I-AA scholarship programs. I have no doubt that they could beat at least half of the teams in auot-bid conferences (probably 2/3 of our own OVC). On the other hand, they probably would still be playing in D3 if NCAA rules allowed them to do so. I think that was a good rule change...I think it's fine for schools to play "up" a level in certain sports, but playing down isn't fair to the schools already in the lower Division.

I guess in the end Dayton is doing a pretty good job as a DI program, but as long as they keep playing non-scholarship football then the vast majority of people aren't going to take them as seriously as they'd like. That is also a fact.

[DetroitFlyer]

Ah yes, 1996. Dayton finished 11-0, PFL Champs, ranked number 24 in the I-AA, Sports Network Final Poll, ( Not that silly "MM" poll ), and we sat at home.... Then came 1997.... 9-1, PFL Champs, ranked 23 in the I-AA Sports Network Final Poll and ranked number 24 in the USA Today / ESPN final I-AA poll, and we sat home again.... 1997 may have been our best chance. We lost the final game of the season to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, a I-AA scholarship team at the time. If we would have won, we just might have received that at large bid.

[rufus]

...
More importantly, IMO, there would be little incentive for teams offering 85 to want to remain with those schools who couldn't afford to fund more athletic equivalancies. If they could afford to fund athletics in the same manner as bowl eligible schools, they'd already have reclassified.
I just don't agree with that statement. I think there are a lot of schools in I-AA that could easily fund I-A football programs. Some of the schools with the top I-AA athletic budgets (like JMU, Villanova, Georgetown, Richmond, etc) spend more on athletics than almost any school outside of the BCS, yet they remain in I-AA. These schools all have their reasons for staying in I-AA, but lack of athletic budget is not reason #1.

[89Hen]

Some of the schools with the top I-AA athletic budgets (like JMU, Villanova, Georgetown, Richmond, etc) spend more on athletics than almost any school outside of the BCS, yet they remain in I-AA.
That's why they stay in I-AA, they're already spending tons of money on their athletic department, they certainly don't need to be spending MORE money on football. Villanova and G'town are almost lucky to have football at all based on their admins philosophy on football.

[rufus]

Those private schools are also loaded. I'm pretty sure they could spend a couple million more on football if they really wanted to do so.

It's not just schools that are focused on basketball. I would hardly say that JMU's basketball program has been anything to brag about in the past decade. I would also say that football is out admin's #1 athletic priority, but we haven't bolted for I-A. UNH's budget is also in the same range as the other examples I used. Maybe they spend a lot on hockey -- who knows?

[EKU05]

Ah yes, 1996. Dayton finished 11-0, PFL Champs, ranked number 24 in the I-AA, Sports Network Final Poll, ( Not that silly "MM" poll ), and we sat at home.... Then came 1997.... 9-1, PFL Champs, ranked 23 in the I-AA Sports Network Final Poll and ranked number 24 in the USA Today / ESPN final I-AA poll, and we sat home again.... 1997 may have been our best chance. We lost the final game of the season to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, a I-AA scholarship team at the time. If we would have won, we just might have received that at large bid.

A few years ago when Dayton was on quite a role I emailed Tony Moss at the Sports Network to ask him a few questions...and through out there if he thought Dayton had a chance to make the playoffs that year. This was either 2002 or 2003. His answer was no way even if they go undefeated because of their schedule. According to Moss, he said that Dayton would have to basically schedule all of their non-conference games against scholarship teams that had a chance to get into the playoffs, and not only win them but win them all big to even have a chance to get in. As harsh as that is, the Flyers have a limited chance to prove themselves with the PFL schedule taking up so much of their space.

Barely cracking the top 25 won't do it...since there are only 16 playoff spots there is a minimum of 9 top 25 teams left out each year, and often more because of auto-bids.

[EKU05]

Those private schools are also loaded. I'm pretty sure they could spend a couple million more on football if they really wanted to do so.

It's not just schools that are focused on basketball. I would hardly say that JMU's basketball program has been anything to brag about in the past decade. I would also say that football is out admin's #1 athletic priority, but we haven't bolted for I-A. UNH's budget is also in the same range as the other examples I used. Maybe they spend a lot on hockey -- who knows?

Not all private schools are loaded. People assume that because they cost a lot of money...but they cost a lot because it takes a lot to run a school without any government assistance. Obviously I went to a State University, but I went to a Catholic high school in Louisville, KY that costed over $7,000. Now, we did alright for ourselves because of very high alumni donations (we're building an amazing new football stadium as we speak), but my point is...

They showed us what is spent on each student at the school...and it is WAY over what tuition is. Priviate schools don't all have money to burn. They are expensive because they have to be.

[89Hen]

Those private schools are also loaded. I'm pretty sure they could spend a couple million more on football if they really wanted to do so.
:confused: Villanova dropped football in 1980 for five years. Georgetown has stopped work on their new stadium because of budget. History is not on your side in this one.