End of IAA?

[Hansel]

I-AA supporters, it’s over.
The move to stabilize-and-enhance I-AA football is dead. Sorry, Cedric, but to paraphrase John Blutarksy, there go seven years of effort, down the drain.

Legitimate, robust standards for I-A institutions are simply not going to happen. The NCAA Division I Board of Directors has made clear their intent through several recent and in-progress actions.

In lieu of I-AA enhancements, the Board has enacted legislation better characterized as I-A appeasements. A few years hence, they will become known as I-A inducements, at least for a significant percentage of those who currently occupy the upper echelon of I-AA football.

Otto Fad article (http://www.i-aa.com/news/article_10007.shtml)

[ChickenMan]

So, who were the three “I-AA” presidents who voted against the twelfth game? There ain’t a one from a solid playoff conference. Here they are by affiliation:

o Alcorn State president, representing the SWAC – a non-playoff league that is promoting itself primarily on the basis of its cultural heritage, with its current NCAA classification a mere afterthought. Strangely enough, the SWAC’s MC representative, Commissioner Robert Vowells, voted FOR the 12 game a few days earlier.

o Dayton’s president, representing the Atlantic-10. Dayton is a non-scholarship program that played Division III football until the NCAA forced them into I-AA in the 1990’s.

o American University’s president, representing the Patriot. Yep, a I-AAA president helping to determine the fate of I-AA legislation, and casting a vote that would make the big brothers in the Ancient Eight proud.


The Presidents of Alcorn St ... Dayton and American U were allowed to cast the only votes that decided the fate of a 12 game scheduled for all 1AA programs...??? :bang: :bang: :bang:

[colgate13]

For the record, American was just voting what the PL wanted. From what I've heard we did not want a 12th game.

[TexasTerror]

How did those institutions, namely AMERICAN get permission to vote on football issues? Shouldn't you have to have the sport to vote on issues related to it? Are we going to have Central Arkansas, a Div II program, having it's athletic director on the Div NCAA basketball selection commitee?

[arkstfan]

Since Otto and I ALWAYS agree :), a few comments.


It is now clear that the Board’s desire to avoid sentencing even a single I-A program to involuntary reclassification has driven its legislative agenda concerning I-A and I-AA football.

If the future of I-AA has to rely on FORCING schools to join, it begs the question of whether it is worth saving.

A tough attendance standard that formed the basis of reclassification was suspect under anti-trust law and incompatible with the NCAA Division I Philosophy Statement.

Personally I think I-AA has been foolish pushing the attendance criteria as the line. It makes I-AA appear to be low interest football rather than cost-containment football. That's not good marketing. Tying I-A membership to sports sponsored and grants awarded is the better option but to many I-AA leaders insisted that attendance remain part of the equation.


The Board’s collective actions have lowered the price for participating in the NCAA’s top subclassification, while providing top I-AA’s little incentive to remain in I-AA.

I disagree. From the formation of I-AA through the big reclassification after 1981 until the early 90's, I-AA schools weren't heading to I-A. You had a handful of MAC schools sent to I-AA for a year that reclassified back to stay in the MAC. You had Akron, La.Tech, Ark.St, and Nevada. The big trigger that sent Ark.St. and Nevada up was the new NCAA rule that would not allow I-A schools to count ANY I-AA game for bowl eligibility. For Nevada that meant losing the UNLV series. For Ark.St. it meant losing the 2 to 3 I-A games played each year that were essential to the budget.

Moving was simple. Add seats, do a one-season ticket push, add some scholies, then play some big guys on the road every year to make the home/away attendance component. Being I-A wasn't much more expensive but you gained access to money games.

Today moving means more sports, more scholies, and not significantly greater access to money games. Why spend more to get what you can get for less? High scholarship football in I-AA has a better chance to survive.

More importantly. If I'm wrong and suddenly there is another period of a landrush to I-A? Well it says the leadership of those schools don't buy into the idea of high scholarship cost-containment football and have bolted once an artificial market barrier has been removed. But I don't believe that is going to happen. There are a significant number of I-AA programs that could have moved to I-A easily under the old rules who didn't choose to. Moving today even with the change is still more expensive than it was three years ago. Schools that opted to stay I-AA now leave? Doubt it.

Maybe the upper I-AA's want to move up for more power within the NCAA. Well good for them, its about time they paid a tad bit of attention to the rules of the game they are playing.

I know plenty of folks like to spit on the Sun Belt but anyone can see that 1) the conference smartly built its game plan on getting that seat on the Board of Directors 2) it used that seat effectively with MTSU's president presenting the case of the changes to attendance 3) what does it say for I-AA that none of the three presidents voting on its behalf lead schools that participate in the playoffs?

I-AA has virtually no unity. The rule change on attendance would have been adopted months earlier but my contacts from 3 I-A conferences each said that they had to wait because they were still trying to find out what I-AA wanted.

I-A had its ducks in a row. The lower I-A's made it clear they were headed to court and would support changes that would make it easier and cheaper for the big money schools to buy home games in return for getting the rule off their back. Deal done. The Big Sky and Southland seemed to be to busy doodling up new logos for when their prodigals would return to notice that they had an opportunity to get some changes and the p!ssed it away.

[arkstfan]

Ranting off. Now some comments on the proposals.

Bowls start after, the I-AA title game.

Man, I'd love it. The short lead time for the New Orleans Bowl has been a bear for the Sun Belt and the bowl. Even though the New Orleans has one of the smallest ticket purchase allotments last year Southern Miss had 10 days to sell.

Championship Saturday is a great concept. I'd go one step further though. Put all three at the same venue. If its indoor or with artificial turf it can be done and it would help to play in a "destination" city, ie. a place people associate with vacations and special events and one with a wide variety of air travel options.

Name Change
Go for it. People just don't get the current structure.

12th game
Let's go a step further. Any game hosted by a I-AA can be played a week early. That's a chance at TV a week before the I-A's start, it makes the season fit. Note though I said games HOSTED by a I-AA. A few years ago we got Grambling at San Jose. Why not San Jose hosted by Grambling in Shreveport or Southern Miss hosted by McNeese State in New Orleans, or Texas State hosting Houston in San Antonio? Give I-AA the power to let a I-A play a week early and increase the odds of television. That's a benefit and one that could get some I-AA's home/home and 2 for 1 deals with I-A's.

Bowl qualification
At one time a I-A could have in theory played 4 I-AA schools and go to a bowl with only 6 wins. When that was the case, I-A and I-AA schedules interlocked more and few schools were even contemplating moving to I-A.

Reclassification
Like the basic concept but prefer the Roy Kramer concept that I-A be everyone awarding 70 or more scholies and I-AA be everyone else. Otto's idea is more correct but the fact remains that Division II and III aren't going to play along with letting schools play football with them that are pulling in big crowds for Division I football.

Attendance
There has never been a study done by the NCAA that could be used to demonstrate a rational basis for attendance criteria, therefore there is no reason to believe that one could survive anti-trust scrutiny (doing a study after the fact to prove the point won't cut it in court, the horse is already out of the barn). The attendance criteria is in place today because of a few vocal I-AA commissioners.

NCAA Governance
At a MINIMUM, there must be created a I-AA Board of Directors to handle I-AA issues, even if they don't get to vote on all association matters. Follow the lead and give a seat to each I-AA conference. Sixty of the biggest, best supported programs in I-AA did not have a representative on the 12th game vote that was a "peer" institution (ie. member of their conference that is similar to them). More importantly than the vote, they didn't have a member involved directly in the wheeling and dealing leading up to the vote. That doesn't cut it.

Football required
TV won't bless it, but nice sentiment.

Delayed start to hoops
Why not?

Basketball suffers from the current start. Players can't go home to Momma for Thanksgiving because they are playing. Scheduling is spotty in December due to finals. Attendance is spotty because students are home for Thanksgiving break and then semester break. There are always cases of Player X not being available until after finals because he is a transfer.

[colgate13]

How did those institutions, namely AMERICAN get permission to vote on football issues? Shouldn't you have to have the sport to vote on issues related to it? Are we going to have Central Arkansas, a Div II program, having it's athletic director on the Div NCAA basketball selection commitee?
Again, I'd look more at the conference itself, not the individual school doing the voting. American is hardly going out on a limb and deciding this issue for itself.

[savannahjohn]

I'm afraid this will put a lot of pressure on certain Universities to take that step up, whether they can afford it or not. I know it will give firepower to those boosters who are clamoring for I-A.

But unless an entire conference were to move, it would make for some much higher athletic budgets amongst the Universities, particularly in the area of travel. Football is only one aspect. How much will expenditures soar for the basketball, softball & baseball teams? How about for some of the fringe sports?

I'm pleased that GSU has stood firm because I happen to love I-AA. Furthermore, I trust that the powers that be at GSU are very informed regarding the pros & cons & they've felt it to be in the schools best interest to remain in I-AA. I'd hate to see us pressured into a move that might not be prudent when considering the big picture.

[ChickenMan]

Again, I'd look more at the conference itself, not the individual school doing the voting. American is hardly going out on a limb and deciding this issue for itself.

My question is... why were the Patriot... the SWAC and the Metro Atlantic doing all the voting??? They are hardly representative of ALL 1AA football. :confused:

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The Presidents of Alcorn St ... Dayton and American U were allowed to cast the only votes that decided the fate of a 12 game scheduled for all 1AA programs...??? :bang: :bang: :bang:

One of the things that's not getting discussed is how the 12th game may have meant the death knell of the I-AA playoffs. Folks talk about changing barriers to I-AA vs. I-A, but I think anything that diminishes or kills the playoffs will absolutely kill the I-A vs. I-AA distinction.

A 12th game could essentially mean: do you want to play in the I-AA playoffs? Or do you want to add another money game versus (Clemson/Kansas St./Nebraska)? The SWAC already does this due to the "Classic" games. Who knows if other conferences might chase that money?

With the possible exception of Alcorn St., I don't think that Dayton or American voted in a way that the *institutions* didn't already want them to vote.

Now whether the ill-informed *fans* feel that way is a different matter. There are many A-10 fans that may have wanted a 12th game, but they don't actually suit up for up to 16 games a year. Add a 12th game, and to win a I-AA championship you would have to play more games than the NFL regular season!

I thought that the 12th game in I-A makes sense (max: 14 games a year) than in I-AA (max: 17 games a year).

[colgate13]

My question is... why were the Patriot... the SWAC and the Metro Atlantic doing all the voting??? They are hardly representative of ALL 1AA football. :confused:
A much more valid question... but if you replaced them with Big Sky, Gateway and A-10, would that be more representative?

LFN brings up a valid playoff point too.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If the future of I-AA has to rely on FORCING schools to join, it begs the question of whether it is worth saving.

A tough attendance standard that formed the basis of reclassification was suspect under anti-trust law and incompatible with the NCAA Division I Philosophy Statement.

Personally I think I-AA has been foolish pushing the attendance criteria as the line. It makes I-AA appear to be low interest football rather than cost-containment football. That's not good marketing. Tying I-A membership to sports sponsored and grants awarded is the better option but to many I-AA leaders insisted that attendance remain part of the equation.

Paradoxically it's the Eastern Michigan's, Louisiana-Lafayette's, and San Jose St's that are diminishing I-A as making the lower-echelon teams look like a bunch of chumps, so I-A *should* be forcing these turkey programs to reclassify.

Frankly, I wonder if we would even want these programs in I-AA - they've been such bozo teams in I-A, what's to think that in I-AA they'd be any different?

If institutions want to kill their own programs through mismanagement, who am I to stop them? If the NCAA wants to dirty I-A with struggling programs, why should I stop them? Just keep I-AA filled with great programs who want to be there, and who humiliate I-A programs like Mississippi St. every year. That does a better job of promoting I-AA than any Ivory Tower directive.



Today moving means more sports, more scholies, and not significantly greater access to money games. Why spend more to get what you can get for less? High scholarship football in I-AA has a better chance to survive.

More importantly. If I'm wrong and suddenly there is another period of a landrush to I-A? Well it says the leadership of those schools don't buy into the idea of high scholarship cost-containment football and have bolted once an artificial market barrier has been removed. But I don't believe that is going to happen. There are a significant number of I-AA programs that could have moved to I-A easily under the old rules who didn't choose to. Moving today even with the change is still more expensive than it was three years ago. Schools that opted to stay I-AA now leave? Doubt it.

Maybe the upper I-AA's want to move up for more power within the NCAA. Well good for them, its about time they paid a tad bit of attention to the rules of the game they are playing.

I know plenty of folks like to spit on the Sun Belt but anyone can see that 1) the conference smartly built its game plan on getting that seat on the Board of Directors 2) it used that seat effectively with MTSU's president presenting the case of the changes to attendance 3) what does it say for I-AA that none of the three presidents voting on its behalf lead schools that participate in the playoffs?

I-AA has virtually no unity. The rule change on attendance would have been adopted months earlier but my contacts from 3 I-A conferences each said that they had to wait because they were still trying to find out what I-AA wanted.

I-A had its ducks in a row. The lower I-A's made it clear they were headed to court and would support changes that would make it easier and cheaper for the big money schools to buy home games in return for getting the rule off their back. Deal done. The Big Sky and Southland seemed to be to busy doodling up new logos for when their prodigals would return to notice that they had an opportunity to get some changes and the p!ssed it away.

Trusting the "smarts" of the leaders of these schools is a circular argument. You're saying: "If an institution wants to move up to I-A, it shows that the rules weren't that great to keep schools at I-AA in the first place." That may be true if university presidents made decisions to jump to I-A based on rational arguments. But most think that somehow jumping to I-A means you're going to now be a big-time program without actually doing any cost analysis. Think Florida Atlantic or *cringe* Florida International did any cost-justification for their I-A jump? Those programs will be struggling for years with virtually no perceived benefits.

I don't know a lot about the Sun Belt, but to my knowledge, every Sun Belt school is struggling financially, and it's quite debatable whether they'll even be around in a few years. Same with the MAC. The conferences that benefitted the most from the BCS changes were C-USA and the WAC. If you think the latest changes are going to make any appreciable difference in MAC or SB football you're fooling yourself.

I-A's "ducks in a row" have meant the BCS conferences - nothing more, nothing less. Everything has been rigged to benefit them, and it's only been due to incredible success that C-USA and the WAC have any seat at the party. If you somehow think the SB and MAC have equal seats at the table, you're fooling yourself. They're getting screwed as bad or worse than I-AA schools.

[ChickenMan]

A much more valid question... but if you replaced them with Big Sky, Gateway and A-10, would that be more representative?

LFN brings up a valid playoff point too.


Yes... :D

[Hansel]

My question is... why were the Patriot... the SWAC and the Metro Atlantic doing all the voting??? They are hardly representative of ALL 1AA football. :confused:


East Coast Bias ;)

[ChickenMan]

Now whether the ill-informed *fans* feel that way is a different matter. There are many A-10 fans that may have wanted a 12th game, but they don't actually suit up for up to 16 games a year. Add a 12th game, and to win a I-AA championship you would have to play more games than the NFL regular season!




UD played a 12 game regular season schedule in '03 on their way to the 1AA title and they didn't seem to have any problem with it. Why not approve a 12 game schedule and let each school decide for themselves as to the merits of adding the extra game???

[arkstfan]

Dimminish I-A? The largest programs are garnering more money, having more people walk through the gates, and are getting more media exposure than ever. I-A hasn't been diminished any more than Division I basketball has been lessened by its growth.

You cite Mississippi State as a program thaty dirties I-A. There has never been a set of criteria set forth for I-A that remotely had a shot at reclassifying them.

It is an institutional decision. Northwestern and Kansas State at one time were examples of horrendous football yet each now fields quality teams for the most part.

I've watched bad management and pretty much know it when I see it. The way Arkansas State was run after the I-AA title appearance the program was going to struggle regardless of division. Being I-A exposed the problems more but that was a mis-managed program. I've got a list of things that a variety of failed coaches said were essential to ever be successful, none of them were given until the past few years and in turn Steve Roberts has won more games in three years than Joe Hollis won in five or John Bobo won in four.

Not a classification issue, a how the school is run situation and classification changes aren't going to make a difference. Poorly run programs will sink to a level consistent with how they are run regardless of classification.

I've seen the inner-workings of schools moving from I-AA to I-A, having reviewed not only what Arkansas State did but a few other schools. The basic sales pitch went like this. We are spending this amount and bringing this amount in. If we keep our current revenue and add 2 money games paying this, it will pay the cost of going I-A. The equation is different now. A Southern Conference school can now generate about as much from game guarantees as a Sun Belt member. That cuts the first leg out from under the stool. Instead of a difference in adding 23 scholarships, it will generally be closer to adding 50 scholies. More expense for less return, the analysis is different now.

The Sun Belt and MAC have presidents sitting at the table. They in turn used that position to get a course reversal. I-AA couldn't even get a 12th game approved with its representation.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Dimminish I-A? The largest programs are garnering more money, having more people walk through the gates, and are getting more media exposure than ever. I-A hasn't been diminished any more than Division I basketball has been lessened by its growth.


That is true. But how does that affect any MAC or Sun Belt school? Many have moribund attendance, but not all. However, *every* MAC and Sun Belt school has less attendance than the top BCS schools.


You cite Mississippi State as a program that dirties I-A. There has never been a set of criteria set forth for I-A that remotely had a shot at reclassifying them.

I never said that Miss. St. dirties I-A since they were bad last year. I only mention Miss. St. since they lost to I-AA Maine last year. It was more about celebrating a good I-AA win instead of singling out Miss. St.


It is an institutional decision. Northwestern and Kansas State at one time were examples of horrendous football yet each now fields quality teams for the most part.

They had the blessing of sucking while existing in BCS conferences and having leaguemates like Michigan, Nebraska and Ohio St, who are financial powerhouses, represent them in the NCAA's. They managed to hang on long enough and finally make a commitment to big-time football. La-LF, FIU and Eastern Michigan maybe could have done the same if they historically hung on to BCS conference affiliations, but as members of the SB and MAC they don't have that luxury.


I've watched bad management and pretty much know it when I see it. The way Arkansas State was run after the I-AA title appearance the program was going to struggle regardless of division. Being I-A exposed the problems more but that was a mis-managed program. I've got a list of things that a variety of failed coaches said were essential to ever be successful, none of them were given until the past few years and in turn Steve Roberts has won more games in three years than Joe Hollis won in five or John Bobo won in four.

So you're saying that you agree with me, that people make bad management decisions when they make jumps to I-A and really don't make a rational decision? Personally I don't think it was worth it for ASU to make the jump. Do you?


Not a classification issue, a how the school is run situation and classification changes aren't going to make a difference. Poorly run programs will sink to a level consistent with how they are run regardless of classification.

That sounds like another point of mine too, except I come from the I-AA perspective. San Jose St. sucks at I-A. Why would we want I-AA to take them, when it's likely they'll suck there too>


I've seen the inner-workings of schools moving from I-AA to I-A, having reviewed not only what Arkansas State did but a few other schools. The basic sales pitch went like this. We are spending this amount and bringing this amount in. If we keep our current revenue and add 2 money games paying this, it will pay the cost of going I-A. The equation is different now. A Southern Conference school can now generate about as much from game guarantees as a Sun Belt member. That cuts the first leg out from under the stool. Instead of a difference in adding 23 scholarships, it will generally be closer to adding 50 scholies. More expense for less return, the analysis is different now.

The Sun Belt and MAC have presidents sitting at the table. They in turn used that position to get a course reversal. I-AA couldn't even get a 12th game approved with its representation.


I agree 100% with your assesment on the (IMO, bad) decision-making process ASU and other schools made for the I-A jump. I also agree that there may not be a I-A exodus since lots of the financial "incentives" are not really there, or totally illusory, for teams wanting to make the jump.

Where I disagree is - is that "seat at the table" really worth it? Are the interests of the MAC and Sun Belt *really* going to get hearings at the table with Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, and even C-USA and Big East representatives above you? Once those 5 agree, does it even matter what the SB and MAC say?

[Ronbo]

I think it's hilarious that guys from a division (I-AA) that averages about 6000 attendance collectively puts down the MAC, Sun Belt, etc. when they collectively average about 15,000 attendance. That would be top 20 in I-AA. Gosh, let's not throw stones and call these schools scum when they are superior to 85% of I-AA.

[UAalum72]

Originally Posted by ChickenMan
My question is... why were the Patriot... the SWAC and the Metro Atlantic doing all the voting??? They are hardly representative of ALL 1AA football. :confused:
East Coast Bias ;)

What Metro Atlantic team? Dayton is Atlantic-10 playing football in the Pioneer FL, which extends from Jacksonville to Iowa to San Diego.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I think it's hilarious that guys from a division (I-AA) that averages about 6000 attendance collectively puts down the MAC, Sun Belt, etc. when they collectively average about 15,000 attendance. That would be top 20 in I-AA. Gosh, let's not throw stones and call these schools scum when they are superior to 85% of I-AA.

Do your homework man!

Numbers Inflated, Eastern Concludes (http://www.mlive.com/sports/aanews/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/1116427225211020.xml)


Eastern Michigan University athletics department officials regularly reported football attendance figures to the NCAA that were more than double the actual figure over the past five years, according to a university report.

A three-member committee, chaired by Eastern Michigan vice president of student affairs Jim Vick, contends in a May 1 report that attendance inflation is a widely accepted practice at mid-major universities. But the report also holds former athletics director Dave Diles mainly responsible for allowing "startling" inflation rates of up to 134 percent to be reported by the department during his tenure.

...

The committee discovered that:

# While the attendance for the Sept. 2 season opener against Buffalo was recorded at 17,750, the university's ticket office calculated attendance at 8,810 - a discrepancy of 8,940.

# Attendance for Eastern Michigan's nonconference game with Idaho suggested a turnout of 18,920. The ticket office number registered 7,187 - a discrepancy of 11,733.

# The six-game home schedule drew an average of 16,060 per game, according to the athletics department. The ticket office's per game average: 7,244.

It's not like EMU is alone either. Many MAC (and presumably SB) schools do the same thing. I think all of them do, to be honest.

THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE THROWING STONES!

[ChickenMan]

What Metro Atlantic team? Dayton is Atlantic-10 playing football in the Pioneer FL, which extends from Jacksonville to Iowa to San Diego.


Sorry my mistake... 'Pioneer' rather than 'Metro Atlantic'... but does it really matter... the point is still the same.

[Ronbo]

Do your homework man!

Numbers Inflated, Eastern Concludes (http://www.mlive.com/sports/aanews/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/1116427225211020.xml)



It's not like EMU is alone either. Many MAC (and presumably SB) schools do the same thing. I think all of them do, to be honest.

THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE THROWING STONES!

Use your brain! That's one school. Bowling Green 17,423, Marshall 25,933, Troy 21,233, Utah State 19,500, La-Lafayette 21,401, Toledo 24,025, N. Illinois 27,052, New Mexico State 18,301, Idaho 16,620, W. Michigan 15,993, Akron 15,849, N. Texas 15,184, C. Michigan 15,043, Miami Ohio 15,742, Ark. State 15,323, etc., etc., etc. Yeah they average 15K or more as a whole. Just because a couple schools are failures you group everyone together and put them down. Anything to make you feel better. Go for it.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Use your brain! That's one school. Bowling Green 17,423, Marshall 25,933, Troy 21,233, Utah State 19,500, La-Lafayette 21,401, Toledo 24,025, N. Illinois 27,052, New Mexico State 18,301, Idaho 16,620, W. Michigan 15,993, Akron 15,849, N. Texas 15,184, C. Michigan 15,043, Miami Ohio 15,742, Ark. State 15,323, etc., etc., etc. Yeah they average 15K or more as a whole. Just because a couple schools are failures you group everyone together and put them down. Anything to make you feel better. Go for it.

It's not just 1 school or a couple schools. During this investigation, it has been alluded to that EMU's thinking is "every school does it, so why shouldn't we?" I have no reason to disbelieve that assertion.

Funny this comes from a Montana fan, whose Grizzlies probably outdraw more than half of these schools. Maybe even all of them if they used honest numbers.

[arkstfan]

So you're saying that you agree with me, that people make bad management decisions when they make jumps to I-A and really don't make a rational decision? Personally I don't think it was worth it for ASU to make the jump. Do you?



Did Arkansas State move badly? Yes.
Was it a mistake? At the time you bet. We didn't have the facilities in place and weren't spending enough to compete against Sun Belt type schools.
Is it still a mistake? I don't think so.

Arkansas State drew more fans last year as a 3-8 struggling through an odd year (some weird last minutes losses) than we did as a top program in I-AA. Our fans never bought into the playoffs.

Our cost of doing business in the Big West, independent, early Sun Belt days was horrid because of travel. No more trips to Moscow, Idaho (coming from the south its about as bad of a road trip as you can concot), Logan, Utah (another bear trip), and Las Cruces, NM. No more of players arriving at the football complex at 5:00 am on Sunday morning from a road trip.

Now our long league trip is to the Miami metro area and starting in 2006 our non-revenue sports and basketball can bundle two games with one flight playing both FIU and FAU.

Competent administration brings Army to Jonesboro in 2006 to open the season, Oklahoma State to Little Rock the next week, and SMU to Jonesboro in 2007. It's only taken better than a decade but fans are finally getting the types of games promised. We can only pray the luck is better than when we brought Ole Miss in, that game occurred when games resumed after 9/11.

But you have to remember that the big push for our move to I-A was scheduling in the first place. The elimination of I-AA games counting drove it. We lost access to games against Memphis and Ole Miss. The two closest Division I football programs to our campus. If the NCAA hadn't changed the rules, we probably don't move.

[JaxSinfonian]

Yeah they average 15K or more as a whole.
I think as long as a 15,000 attendence requirement was being talked about, these schools were going to make sure they listed an average over 15,000. Did they actually average that many people? I'm inclined to believe that many people followed the EMU model of attendance "estiamation."

[Ronbo]

They still as a collective kick I-AA's ass in attendance. Come on these were the premier I-AA's before they moved on and would be the top 10% if they came back. Quit making excuses for the pathetic attendance that I-AA has.

If you draw 9800 you are #28 in I-AA out of 117. If you draw 6500 you are #58 out of 117. That's the middle. If you drew 9800 in IA you would be 116th out of 117 and 6500 would make you 117th.

[ngineer]

For the record, American was just voting what the PL wanted. From what I've heard we did not want a 12th game.

That is true. The PL, Ivy and NEC voted against the 12th game. Simple philosophy was that the 12th game does nothing more for the programs and that a line should be drawn somewhere.

[eagle1]

Just because you average 23,000 a game you automatically think that attendance is the one and only measure of a program or teams success. You are one of two NCAA universities in your state where Lehigh is one of about twenty five. Not everyone can average 23,000 a game but that doesn't make them a pathetic program attendance wise. Remember that I-AA is very diversified with it's member institutions and I for one think that is a good thing and makes for interesting match ups. Go Eagles!!!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

They still as a collective kick I-AA's ass in attendance. Come on these were the premier I-AA's before they moved on and would be the top 10% if they came back. Quit making excuses for the pathetic attendance that I-AA has.

If you draw 9800 you are #28 in I-AA out of 117. If you draw 6500 you are #58 out of 117. That's the middle. If you drew 9800 in IA you would be 116th out of 117 and 6500 would make you 117th.

You're calling Florida Atlantic and Florida International premier I-AA's? Their sorry butts didn't on their best day outdraw Montana.

If you draw 9,800 in I-AA you report it as 7,800 and pocket the rest. If you draw 9,800 in I-A you call it 27,062 and hope nobody notices.

My point is, you can't trust the official attendance figures. Saying "they still as a collective kick I-AA's ass" isn't accurate unless we're dealing with accurate numbers. None of them are.

[arkstfan]

Premier? Some but not all. Only 8 schools with 5 or more playoff wins have moved to I-A. Six have moved with 2 or fewer appearances. Four have moved with appearances but no wins.

I-A Playoff Records of I-A Members
Sorted by wins and appearances in the playoffs
Marshall (8 appearances, 23-7)
Nevada (7 appearances, 9-7)
Boise State (4 appearances, 8-4)
ASU (4 appearances, 6-4)
Middle Tennessee State (7 appearances, 6-7)
Idaho (11 appearances, 6-11)
Troy (7 appearances, 5-7)
Louisiana-Monroe (4 appearance, 5-3)
La.Tech (2 appearances, 4-2)
Florida Atlantic (1 appearance, 2-1)
North Texas (4 appearances, 0-4)
Central Florida (2 appearances, 0-2)
Akron (1 appearance 0-1)
UConn (1 appearance, 0-1)
Buffalo (0 appearances 0-0)
South Florida (0 appearances 0-0)
Florida International (0 appearances, 0-0)

[arkstfan]

If you draw 9,800 in I-AA you report it as 7,800 and pocket the rest.

That's called lying.


If you draw 9,800 in I-A you call it 27,062 and hope nobody notices.

That's called stealing.

[JaxSinfonian]

Quit making excuses for the pathetic attendance that I-AA has.
I didn't mention I-AA attendance.

[SoCon48]

That's my cue.

Yep. Stealing is stealing, lying is lying, cheating is cheating.
In the play-offs, the bastards not only are stealing from the NCAA, they are stealing from the visiting team, who has to leave players and staff at home to meet the NCAA I-AA play-off travel budget criteria for the play-off game while the SOB home team pockets extra dough.
Real class.
They probably turn in phony grade reports, too.

[JohnStOnge]

I agree with ArkStFan on several points. There really hasn't been that much migration so far to I-A and there's been migration into I-AA to make up for the migration that has occurred. The overwhelming majority of top I-AA programs historically are still in I-AA. I'd put the top 5 historically as Georgia Southern, Younstown State, Marshall, Montana, and Eastern Kentucky and only one of those isn't still in I-AA. I think you'd get a similar picture if you tried to list out the top 10, 15 or 20 programs as well. Meanwhile, very good D-II programs such as North Dakota State, Cal Poly, and Northern Colorado have moved in.

I do think the pressure to get big money games was on but it'll be mitigated some by the change in the 1 in 4 rule. What's really needed is to get rid of all bowl eligibility restrictions on opponents' levels. With one exception bowls are just exhibition games anyway. There's no reason not to just let the bowls themselves decide if they are put off by who the wins came against. And there's so much overlap in caliber between I-A and I-AA that it's not valid to assume "I-A" automatically means "better team."

I also agree that there should be no effort to "force" teams to stay in I-AA. Rather, the effort should be to eliminate the advantages lower level I-As have with respect to access to revenue. A lot of that could happen just through education. Nobody ever lost bowl eligibility over playing a I-AA during the tenure of the "1 in 4" rule and they certainly don't have to worry about it now. Playing a I-AA in lieu of a lower level I-A doesn't really hurt a team in the BCS standings either...and it would help if an effort were made to disabuse media members if their beliefs in that regard. The idea that a I-A is going to end up lower in the BCS standings because it played, say, Georgia Southern instead of, say, North Texas just because Georgia Southern is I-AA while North Texas is I-A is in error and needs to be eliminated.

[FightinBluHen51]

Reclassification
Like the basic concept but prefer the Roy Kramer concept that I-A be everyone awarding 70 or more scholies and I-AA be everyone else. Otto's idea is more correct but the fact remains that Division II and III aren't going to play along with letting schools play football with them that are pulling in big crowds for Division I football.



That basically goes back to the old D-I and small college system, which you're correct, doesn't work in today's environment.

[arkstfan]

Premier? Some but not all. Only 8 schools with 5 or more playoff wins have moved to I-A. Six have moved with 2 or fewer appearances. Four have moved with appearances but no wins.

I-A Playoff Records of I-A Members
Sorted by wins and appearances in the playoffs
Marshall (8 appearances, 23-7)
Nevada (7 appearances, 9-7)
Boise State (4 appearances, 8-4)
ASU (4 appearances, 6-4)
Middle Tennessee State (7 appearances, 6-7)
Idaho (11 appearances, 6-11)
Troy (7 appearances, 5-7)
Louisiana-Monroe (4 appearance, 5-3)
La.Tech (2 appearances, 4-2)
Florida Atlantic (1 appearance, 2-1)
North Texas (4 appearances, 0-4)
Central Florida (2 appearances, 0-2)
Akron (1 appearance 0-1)
UConn (1 appearance, 0-1)
Buffalo (0 appearances 0-0)
South Florida (0 appearances 0-0)
Florida International (0 appearances, 0-0)

Left off UAB (0 appearances, 0-0)

Just for grins some oddities.
UConn was 0-1 in the post-season in 22 years in I-AA but is 1-0 in bowls in five years of I-A.
North Texas was 0-4 in I-AA post-season but has gone 1-3 in bowls since moving back to I-A.