Division I football

[MplsBison]

One simple way to get rid of this stupid FCS to FBS mess: delete those meaningless labels.

Scholarships: 85 max, no minimum. Up to conferences if they want to impose a lower max. Patriot, Big Sky might impose 60 max. NEC might impose 40 max. Sun Belt and MAC might impose 70 max. Etc.

Minimum sports sponsorship/scholarship requirements: no different than the generic 'Division I' requirements (formally called I-AAA). No Division I football school is required to sponsor additional sports or scholarships than a non-football school. They may of course choose to do so, their choice.

Minimum conference requirements: must have seven, active Division I schools.

Regular season games: Minimum of nine games must be scheduled against DI teams from any DI conference. Max is 12 games total from all divisions.

Conf championship game: any DI conference may schedule a conference championship game as a 13th regular season game, if it chooses. No additional requirement for minimum number of teams.

Post season: any DI team may participate in a single post season event. Examples of events are bowl games, BCS post season tournament, another new independent post season tournament. No restriction on number of games that may be played within an event, you just can't participate in multiple events.

BCS and bowl games: they're completely independent from the NCAA. They're invite only. That's none of the NCAA's business. To which conferences they decide to distribute any or all of the revenue they earn (to just 10 of the DI conferences? to just five of the DI conferences?) - again, that's their business not the NCAA's. Just like if some billionaire started a brand new, invitation tournament with a $100 million payout to the winner. That's not the NCAA's business. Therefore it has nothing to do with Division I football - "FCS" and "FBS" labels are meaningless in this context.

Playoffs: the NCAA will still hold a post-season tournament. The winner will receive a trophy with the NCAA logo on it that says "Division I football champions". It may move back to a 16 team bracket or stay at 24 teams. The point is that, *ANY* Division I football conference champion that does not accept an invitation to an independent post season event will automatically receive an invitation to this tournament. In the current context, the champions from the top 10 DI conferences (SEC, B1G ... , MAC, SB) will accept invitations from the BCS or bowls. That leaves automatic invitations being sent out to the remaining 13 conference champions, of which the Ivy most likely will decline.


This removes any incentive to "move up" from FCS to FBS. There is no more moving up, you're Division I. End

The incentive for App and Georgia Southern moving from SoCon to Sun Belt may still be significant enough to warrant those moves (more TV, more money, bowl game tie-ins, etc.)

[CID1990]

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u281/guinneach/george-bush-gif1.gif (http://s171.photobucket.com/user/guinneach/media/george-bush-gif1.gif.html)

[MplsBison]

As a further stipulation to being invited to the NCAA's tournament: minimum 8 wins against Division I teams. That removes most "FBS" schools from the equation.

There were exactly two FBS teams last season that had at least 8 wins and did not get invited to a bowl game, Middle Tennessee (which lost to McNeese to open the season) and Louisiana Tech (which had an invite to the Indy Bowl, but sat on it so they invited Ohio instead -- if they had gone then it would've been Ohio as the other non-bowl team).

So there you have it, in a 24 team bracket you have 12 champions that accept (the top 10 accept invites to bowl games and Ivy League declines invite...though a team like Harvard could certainly play against a Northwestern in a bowl game, or something to that effect) and 12 at-large teams, two of which may be Middle Tennessee and Louisiana Tech/Ohio depending on how the selection committee picks. I doubt anyone team is going to scared of those programs. The SWAC can even now participate since its championship game wouldn't be in conflict with the playoff.

[IBleedYellow]

Mpls, Go away and post on Sunbeltbbs. They'll actually agree with your crazy ideas over there.

[Bisonator]

Mpls, Go away and post on Sunbeltbbs. They'll actually agree with your crazy ideas over there.

xlolx

[FargoBison]

Well this idea that he has actually has some potential.

[IBleedYellow]

Well this idea that he has actually has some potential.

I will give him that. Call all this **** DI and move on. But, still. When you throw out enough ideas, especially with 12,000 posts, you're bound to hit one post that actually has some valid points.

[Silenoz]

I'd take it (or at least something with the general idea) It'd basically be like basketball, and the playoffs are the NIT. Hell I hope something like this does happen if the big boys break away and take their crap bowls with them.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

I'd take it (or at least something with the general idea) It'd basically be like basketball, and the playoffs are the NIT. Hell I hope something like this does happen if the big boys break away and take their crap bowls with them.

Except football is not basketball. You only have 12-15 players on a bball team whereas you have almost 100 on a football team. It is easier for schools to compete in basketball because the investment is lower.

[darell1976]

I will give him that. Call all this **** DI and move on. But, still. When you throw out enough ideas, especially with 12,000 posts, you're bound to hit one post that actually has some valid points.


xlolx

[Silenoz]

Oh don't get me wrong, no-one from FCS would be pulling a George Mason or VCU on the big boys anytime soon. But it would let you gradually add schollies and increase the money poured into the sport, instead of the current system where you're forced to take the plunge on a dramatic change in budget, conferences affiliation, attendance requirements, number of sports, facilities, etc.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I've seen similar ideas in the past but it was more based on something like English Premier League Soccer I think. If you do well enough for a certain time period then you can move on up and the lower performing teams in the upper division move on down if they are not performing.

Just have the dviisions as "weight classes" and if benchmarks are met as far as performance you can move up to the next weight class.

50-59 scholarships
60-69 scholarships
70-79 scholarships
80-89 scholarships

[IBleedYellow]

I've seen similar ideas in the past but it was more based on something like English Premier League Soccer I think. If you do well enough for a certain time period then you can move on up and the lower performing teams in the upper division move on down if they are not performing.

Just have the dviisions as "weight classes" and if benchmarks are met as far as performance you can move up to the next weight class.

50-59 scholarships
60-69 scholarships
70-79 scholarships
80-89 scholarships

Yeah, I've seen that too. I am 50/50 on it.

[MplsBison]

I've seen similar ideas in the past but it was more based on something like English Premier League Soccer I think. If you do well enough for a certain time period then you can move on up and the lower performing teams in the upper division move on down if they are not performing.

Just have the dviisions as "weight classes" and if benchmarks are met as far as performance you can move up to the next weight class.

50-59 scholarships
60-69 scholarships
70-79 scholarships
80-89 scholarships

But the point is that there is no need for labels like FCS or FBS. They're meaningless.

Division I football. End

[ursus arctos horribilis]

But the point is that there is no need for labels like FCS or FBS. They're meaningless.

Division I football. End

Luckily, I already don't care about the labels. Teams are what they are and I can usually tell what I need to by watching them.

[CID1990]

Mpls, Go away and post on Sunbeltbbs. They'll actually agree with your crazy ideas over there.

Over/under on how long it would take him to be permanently banned there?


Sent from the center of the universe.

[henfan]

Eliminating subdivision labels was something that was put on the table in 2000 but resoundly rejected and eventually defeated by conferences like CUSA, Sun Belt and MAC. They didn't want the perception that their brand of I-A FB was anything similar to I-AA. I don't see this common sense idea being any more palpable now or in the near future than it was 13 or 14 years ago. We were left with the FBS/FCS label compromise.

[gotts]

Over/under on how long it would take him to be permanently banned there?


Sent from the center of the universe.

Not long enough... does that fall in the over or the under?

[MplsBison]

Luckily, I already don't care about the labels. Teams are what they are and I can usually tell what I need to by watching them.

Absolutely. Most people can. Again, that's the point. Without labels, no one is going to suddenly think that Marist is the same thing as Ohio State.

Just like they don't think that Sacramento State is the same thing as Louisville in basketball.


So given the simple rules I outlined above, what's the point of having sub-divisions in the first place? There is no, nor should there automatically be, any benefit simply by switching labels from FCS to FBS. Division I is Division I.

It is and should be entirely about which conference you belong to, as to the amount of benefit you reap by being a member.

In other words, you shouldn't get any extra money suddenly just because you're FBS. But if you join the Sun Belt Conference and that conference has an affiliation with the independent BCS organization that awards it money each season - then that's the benefit. Because you joined the Sun Belt (or the MAC or the CUSA), not because you're FBS.

Get rid of the meaningless labels.

[MplsBison]

Eliminating subdivision labels was something that was put on the table in 2000 but resoundly rejected and eventually defeated by conferences like CUSA, Sun Belt and MAC. They didn't want the perception that their brand of I-A FB was anything similar to I-AA. I don't see this common sense idea being any more palpable now or in the near future than it was 13 or 14 years ago. We were left with the FBS/FCS label compromise.

It wasn't brought up the right way. They were rightly scared that it was a thinly veiled attempt to push those conferences down to I-AA.

My proposal simply says "is your athletic department a member of 'NCAA Division I' and meeting the minimum requirements of that? Do you have a varsity football team? If you answer yes to both, then your team belongs to 'Division I Football'. End"

There is no possible argument against it. It's correct. And it ends this sillyness about moving from FCS to FBS as being some kind of benefit. There is none. It is silly.

Now...moving from SoCon to Sun Belt, from CAA to CUSA or from MVFC to MAC - there may be some benefit to those conference moves. Those are all examples of moves wholly within Division I football.


I've just developed and am driving into your minds the new paradigm. This is it. I am correct and you will all see. Be appreciative that you're on the bleeding edge.

[Bisonator]

I've just developed and am driving into your minds the new paradigm. This is it. I am correct and you will all see. Be appreciative that you're on the bleeding edge.

xbowx

[Tubakat2014]

I've just developed and am driving into your minds the new paradigm.

I suspect this little snippet will be quote-worthy for a *long* time to come.

[MplsBison]

Be honest. Don't hate just because you hate me.

What in there do you actually not agree with? It's everything that every I-AA/FCS apologist has preached for a long, long time.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Be honest. Don't hate just because you hate me.

What in there do you actually not agree with? It's everything that every I-AA/FCS apologist has preached for a long, long time.

You'll just have to get used to the fact that you have marginalized yourself and people just don't feel like rationally discussing things with you because they know what is coming.

Personally, I don't think I'd have anything against this but the devil's always in the details. That's from a fan perspective thogh and as was pointed out conferences don't come from that angle nor do the teams that are in those conferences I assume.

[MplsBison]

Absolutely conferences come from that angle! The only thing that matters in the FBS is which conference you're in. The sub-division itself doesn't do anything.

Technically any team moving from FCS to FBS should expect to get some amount of money from the BCS organization (now calling itself the "College Football Playoff" CFP), but again that's only because those teams are joining a new conference (like the Sun Belt, MAC or CUSA). It's not because they're in FBS.

So what's the difference? Delete them. And let any Division I team schedule as many other Division I teams as they want non-conference (up to the max 12). If they schedule too many weak teams, people will know - the selection committee will know. Just know people know that Marist and Ohio State aren't the same thing even though both are in Division I of the NCAA. That's the human element.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yeah.

We got it.

Let us know when you get that all done.

[Bisonoline]

Be honest. Don't hate just because you hate me.

What in there do you actually not agree with? It's everything that every I-AA/FCS apologist has preached for a long, long time.

There is enough confusion with the labels. Can you imagine what happens if they take them away? Plus people always want something quantified. If you remember back when there was big schools small schools Colgate etc was in the big schools division. The average fan needs label as they dont care about the entricacies of how the divisions came about and or why.

[MplsBison]

There is enough confusion with the labels. Can you imagine what happens if they take them away? Plus people always want something quantified. If you remember back when there was big schools small schools Colgate etc was in the big schools division. The average fan needs label as they dont care about the entricacies of how the divisions came about and or why.

There is a label, the only one that counts: 'Division I'. End

[Bisonoline]

There is a label, the only one that counts: 'Division I'. End

Aint going to happen. Now that IS the end.

[Nova09]

Be honest. Don't hate just because you hate me.

What in there do you actually not agree with? It's everything that every I-AA/FCS apologist has preached for a long, long time.

I don't hate you or this idea. But I'll present the most obvious counterargument, without taking any sides, because you don't seem to believe one exists.

The whole idea behind FCS (or any other name it ever had or will have) was/is cost containment. So, you argue that schools that want to contain costs could just do that on their own/as a conference. This is where your analogy to Division I basketball falls apart. MBB only has 13 scholarships, and there are no schools saying "we'll forgo a quarter of our available scholarships for cost containment but still be DI." When schools commit to DI, they commit to it. Your proposal ignores that there once was only one DI football, but some schools felt it would be unfeasible to continue spending as much as the "big boy" state universities, so they banded together and set their own rules. You say conferences could still do that in your model, but the reality is the conferences that are currently FCS would add more scholarships over time and then we'd be back where we were before the multi-tier football split. As soon as the 63 scholarship limit disappears, maybe the CAA says we need to allow, not mandate, more scholarships so we don't lose schools like JMU. Then the Big Sky says we need to allow more scholarships to keep up with CAA. Then MVFC says let's allow more scholarships than either of those conferences so we can have an advantage over them and compete better with B1G schools. Suddenly schools which already know they cannot afford to are trying to keep up with the big spenders, bankrupting their departments in the process.

[MplsBison]

Nova, nice post and a good try. But I don't buy it - not for a second.

First of all, I'm certain there are men's bball conferences that don't provide full scholarships. Ivy being one of those. I believe they are non-scholarship.


Now back to football, conferences like the Pioneer and NEC show that your argument is obviously wrong. They provide less than max in FCS, because they choose to do that.

There's not a single Division I conference that would have to mandate its members provide 85 or close to that. That's why my proposal works so well and why there's no possible counter-argument against it.

If your athletic department is division I and you have a varsity football team, then it's division I regardless of how many scholarships you provide. This is something that every single I-AA/FCS supporter has been preaching for years. You guys can't take that back now.

[MplsBison]

Put this way - can someone describe an actual, tangible benefit that having a separate sub-division provides to any FCS school over a single Division I football classification with 85 max and no minimum?

[DFW HOYA]

There's not a single Division I conference that would have to mandate its members provide 85 or close to that. That's why my proposal works so well and why there's no possible counter-argument against it.

The Big 8 probably gave it some thought when Kansas State was getting by with just 49 scholarships back in the mid-1980's before Bill Snyder arrived.

[Nova09]

Put this way - can someone describe an actual, tangible benefit that having a separate sub-division provides to any FCS school over a single Division I football classification with 85 max and no minimum?

Yes, it protects them from themselves. They know that no matter what, no matter how good they get or how much revenue they are generating, they cannot be tempted to start offering a few more scholarships. They know if they ever want to invest more in football it needs to be a big investment, so the costs won't be creeping up over time unnoticed.

It's similar to maximum contracts in professional sports. They exist to protect the owners from themselves. Everyone knows LeBron James is "worth" way more than his contract pays him in strict terms of financial value he brings to whatever franchise employs him. But the max salary wasn't written for him. It is written because if he gets his "true" value, owners know they will overpay someone else because the huge contract LeBron gets would become the benchmark. So, FCS teams gain by not overspending on football amounts that are not feasible for their situation, just as owners in the NBA protect themselves from overspending when the circumstances don't call for it.

[Bisonator]

There's not a single Division I conference that would have to mandate its members provide 85 or close to that. That's why my proposal works so well and why there's no possible counter-argument against it.

So if 4 schools were funding 85 schollies and bringing in the most money for the conference you think those schools would be OK with the bottom 4 schools who only want to fund 60 schollies sharing in the revenue???

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It's worth noting here that scholarship limits came about because a school, I believe it was Alabama, was scholarshipping 100+ football players, including some kids that would do nothing other than warm benches their entire football careers. It was worth it to them to scholarship a player and bench him so that nobody else could get him.

[Silenoz]

Didn't Florida State do it to? Right about the timeframe where they were relevant...

[ValleyChamp]

I like the idea. It simplifies everything and allows for there to be some flexibility and mobility.

Thus, it would never be considered.

[DuaneAllmanLives]

I for one agree with MplsBison, great idea.

[henfan]

It wasn't brought up the right way. They were rightly scared that it was a thinly veiled attempt to push those conferences down to I-AA.

My proposal simply says "is your athletic department a member of 'NCAA Division I' and meeting the minimum requirements of that? Do you have a varsity football team? If you answer yes to both, then your team belongs to 'Division I Football'. End"

In fact, this is EXACTLY how the idea was proposed in 2000 after the NCAA's Comprehensive D-I Football Study and was rejected for the reasons I mentioned. The Sun Belt, CUSA and others were not threatened by the idea that they would somehow be forced into playing with I-AA conferences or that they'd have similar/the same post-season opportunities; to the contrary. Those conferences just weren't interested in sharing the same title as then I-AA schools. BCS conferences didn't care and most of them (not all) supported the idea of a single D-I title.

Like you, I think the idea makes sense but I don't think it will have wide enough support any time soon to pass NCAA muster. It's an ego and marketing thing for the non-equity FBS conferences.

[Bisonoline]

It's worth noting here that scholarship limits came about because a school, I believe it was Alabama, was scholarshipping 100+ football players, including some kids that would do nothing other than warm benches their entire football careers. It was worth it to them to scholarship a player and bench him so that nobody else could get him.

Many many schools did it. That was at the time when there was very little player movement. If you went to a certain school you stayed whether you played or not. It was a different time.

[MplsBison]

The Big 8 probably gave it some thought when Kansas State was getting by with just 49 scholarships back in the mid-1980's before Bill Snyder arrived.

I know your comment was tongue in cheek, but I just want to make it crystal clear that what I meant was just because the maximum is 85 in Division I football does not mean any DI football conferences must require its members to provide 85 scholarships.

[MplsBison]

Yes, it protects them from themselves. They know that no matter what, no matter how good they get or how much revenue they are generating, they cannot be tempted to start offering a few more scholarships. They know if they ever want to invest more in football it needs to be a big investment, so the costs won't be creeping up over time unnoticed.

It's similar to maximum contracts in professional sports. They exist to protect the owners from themselves. Everyone knows LeBron James is "worth" way more than his contract pays him in strict terms of financial value he brings to whatever franchise employs him. But the max salary wasn't written for him. It is written because if he gets his "true" value, owners know they will overpay someone else because the huge contract LeBron gets would become the benchmark. So, FCS teams gain by not overspending on football amounts that are not feasible for their situation, just as owners in the NBA protect themselves from overspending when the circumstances don't call for it.

Again, there are currently several FCS teams that do not offer the maximum 63 scholarships allowed by the sub-division. That simple fact completely disproves your idea.

And any DI football conference could dictate that their members shall not offer more than X scholarships, where X is less than 85. That is any DI football conferences' right.

So I just can't follow how you're able to apply that argument to justify the existence of artificially, arbitrarily defined sub-divisions. You are welcome to try again, but your last two posts were basically the same thing. You might think about your idea a bit more and try to convince yourself that everything you're talking about can be mandated and controlled at the conference level. Therefore, sub-divisions have no context and are invalid.

Or perhaps can I suggest that you come up with a hypothetical example that you feel demonstrates the potential negative impact you foresee by deleting sub-divisions.

[MplsBison]

So if 4 schools were funding 85 schollies and bringing in the most money for the conference you think those schools would be OK with the bottom 4 schools who only want to fund 60 schollies sharing in the revenue???

That's a matter for the conference, not the NCAA. The conference probably should have an honest discussion amongst itself to determine if it should implement a conference wide scholarship ceiling. I doubt that would solve the "issue" you're talking about, since those top four programs would most likely continue to bring in the lion's share of the conference revenue. But as I said, that is a conference matter.

Sub-divisions have nothing to do with such a matter. In fact, the scenario you're talking about could well be happening this year in the Sun Belt! Say the top four programs are at or near 85 scholarships and the bottom four are at the current FBS minimum (90% of 85). One more time for posterity: that's a conference issue, not a division/sub-division issue.

[MplsBison]

It's worth noting here that scholarship limits came about because a school, I believe it was Alabama, was scholarshipping 100+ football players, including some kids that would do nothing other than warm benches their entire football careers. It was worth it to them to scholarship a player and bench him so that nobody else could get him.

That's all well an interesting, but since I did not propose increasing the maximum beyond 85 then it's completely irrelevant.

[MplsBison]

In fact, this is EXACTLY how the idea was proposed in 2000 after the NCAA's Comprehensive D-I Football Study and was rejected for the reasons I mentioned. The Sun Belt, CUSA and others were not threatened by the idea that they would somehow be forced into playing with I-AA conferences or that they'd have similar/the same post-season opportunities; to the contrary. Those conferences just weren't interested in sharing the same title as then I-AA schools. BCS conferences didn't care and most of them (not all) supported the idea of a single D-I title.

Like you, I think the idea makes sense but I don't think it will have wide enough support any time soon to pass NCAA muster. It's an ego and marketing thing for the non-equity FBS conferences.

Well first of all, if those three conferences were the only ones against it out of 23 football playing DI conferences, they wouldn't have the power to block it. Therefore other conferences must've voted it down for it to fail.

But mainly, I'd be curious to know the specifics of the proposal especially in terms of the post season. There's no way it was exactly the same as I'm proposing here and I'm confident that the differences are what led to the objections you note.


Otherwise, the MAC, SB and CUSA couldn't possibly misconstrue eliminating the sub-divisions as I've proposed it above in any negative way. I dare them to try.

[Nova09]

Again, there are currently several FCS teams that do not offer the maximum 63 scholarships allowed by the sub-division. That simple fact completely disproves your idea.

And any DI football conference could dictate that their members shall not offer more than X scholarships, where X is less than 85. That is any DI football conferences' right.

So I just can't follow how you're able to apply that argument to justify the existence of artificially, arbitrarily defined sub-divisions. You are welcome to try again, but your last two posts were basically the same thing. You might think about your idea a bit more and try to convince yourself that everything you're talking about can be mandated and controlled at the conference level. Therefore, sub-divisions have no context and are invalid.

Or perhaps can I suggest that you come up with a hypothetical example that you feel demonstrates the potential negative impact you foresee by deleting sub-divisions.

Let me reiterate before I start my response that I'm not opposed to your idea. I just see the pros and cons of it.

How does the fact that some (select few) fcs schools decide not to fully fund their program negate that fact that many top tier fcs schools would be willing to offer a few more scholarships than they currently do? To take that further, let's assess the not 63-scholarshiiop conferences. The Ivy is a very unique setup that has no bearing on anyone else. Ignore them in this discussion. Pioneer exists solely for the few schools that want to be able to say they have football but not offer scholarships at all. We let it exist, but no one really cares about it. The Patriot is transitioning from having something like scholarships to officially having scholarships and the NEC is continually adding scholarships, which both SUPPORT my point, not negate it.

Yes, the maximum could be determined by the conference instead of the NCAA. This would allow more flexibility for a conference to meet the needs of its membership. But right now, the CAA, BSC, MVFC, SoCon, and others don't just want ot be on an even playing field within their conferences, they want an even playing field from conference to conference. That's exactly why FCS exists. You continue to pretend FCS just came into being because of an overreaching authoritative presence at NCAA offices. It didn't. Many schools found themselves in a football arms race they couldn't keep up with and wanted to have a cost containment model. They created that model across conferences, no just for one conference, and turned to the NCAA to keep all of those conferences united.

As for a hypothetical, I already gave one. I described the CAA allowing a few more scholarships, then BSC doing the same to keep up, then MVFC jumping ahead of them, etc. 63 may be arbitrary, but take it away (even if you expect the conference to still enforce it) and schools will start creeping closer to 85. You still haven't explained why this wouldn't happen.

[MplsBison]

Let me reiterate before I start my response that I'm not opposed to your idea. I just see the pros and cons of it.

How does the fact that some (select few) fcs schools decide not to fully fund their program negate that fact that many top tier fcs schools would be willing to offer a few more scholarships than they currently do? To take that further, let's assess the not 63-scholarshiiop conferences. The Ivy is a very unique setup that has no bearing on anyone else. Ignore them in this discussion. Pioneer exists solely for the few schools that want to be able to say they have football but not offer scholarships at all. We let it exist, but no one really cares about it. The Patriot is transitioning from having something like scholarships to officially having scholarships and the NEC is continually adding scholarships, which both SUPPORT my point, not negate it.

Yes, the maximum could be determined by the conference instead of the NCAA. This would allow more flexibility for a conference to meet the needs of its membership. But right now, the CAA, BSC, MVFC, SoCon, and others don't just want ot be on an even playing field within their conferences, they want an even playing field from conference to conference. That's exactly why FCS exists. You continue to pretend FCS just came into being because of an overreaching authoritative presence at NCAA offices. It didn't. Many schools found themselves in a football arms race they couldn't keep up with and wanted to have a cost containment model. They created that model across conferences, no just for one conference, and turned to the NCAA to keep all of those conferences united.

As for a hypothetical, I already gave one. I described the CAA allowing a few more scholarships, then BSC doing the same to keep up, then MVFC jumping ahead of them, etc. 63 may be arbitrary, but take it away (even if you expect the conference to still enforce it) and schools will start creeping closer to 85. You still haven't explained why this wouldn't happen.

These are your points as I understand them:

A) By de facto increasing the maximum allowable scholarships in the (sub-)division from 63 to 85, member teams of conferences formally playing in the FCS sub-division will be FORCED to increase their scholarships from 63 to 85

B) this is a bad thing.


A ->The fact that the NEC is successfully able to mandate that its members may offer no more than a certain amount of scholarships which is less than the sub-division maximum ends your argument and declares me the winner.

I am having difficulty in understanding how you do not understand that. It's a very simple point, perhaps you're trying to over complicate things?


B -> why?? For all you know, perhaps some of the teams in conferences like Big Sky, MVFC, Southland, SoCon and CAA are perfectly capable and would be willing to increase to 85. While those conferences don't have bowl ties, potentially they could start competing with teams from MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt for spots in lower tier bowls without having to switch conferences.


You have yet to make an argument that supports either point. You simply keep saying that teams from the CAA will be forced up to 85 and that this would be a bad thing.


Either support your points with valid arguments and evidence or admit that you were wrong and agree to change your stance to support my proposal.



I don't have to explain why conferences wouldn't start allowing their members to go from 63 to 85, because I'm not arguing against that. I don't care if they do that. Simply, I'm saying that if those conferences care enough about keeping scholarships at 63, they have the power to mandate their members to that effect. I can't make it any more uncomplicated and straightforward than that.

[parr90]

One simple way to get rid of this stupid FCS to FBS mess: delete those meaningless labels.

Scholarships: 85 max, no minimum. Up to conferences if they want to impose a lower max. Patriot, Big Sky might impose 60 max. NEC might impose 40 max. Sun Belt and MAC might impose 70 max. Etc.

Minimum sports sponsorship/scholarship requirements: no different than the generic 'Division I' requirements (formally called I-AAA). No Division I football school is required to sponsor additional sports or scholarships than a non-football school. They may of course choose to do so, their choice.

Minimum conference requirements: must have seven, active Division I schools.

Regular season games: Minimum of nine games must be scheduled against DI teams from any DI conference. Max is 12 games total from all divisions.

Conf championship game: any DI conference may schedule a conference championship game as a 13th regular season game, if it chooses. No additional requirement for minimum number of teams.

Post season: any DI team may participate in a single post season event. Examples of events are bowl games, BCS post season tournament, another new independent post season tournament. No restriction on number of games that may be played within an event, you just can't participate in multiple events.

BCS and bowl games: they're completely independent from the NCAA. They're invite only. That's none of the NCAA's business. To which conferences they decide to distribute any or all of the revenue they earn (to just 10 of the DI conferences? to just five of the DI conferences?) - again, that's their business not the NCAA's. Just like if some billionaire started a brand new, invitation tournament with a $100 million payout to the winner. That's not the NCAA's business. Therefore it has nothing to do with Division I football - "FCS" and "FBS" labels are meaningless in this context.

Playoffs: the NCAA will still hold a post-season tournament. The winner will receive a trophy with the NCAA logo on it that says "Division I football champions". It may move back to a 16 team bracket or stay at 24 teams. The point is that, *ANY* Division I football conference champion that does not accept an invitation to an independent post season event will automatically receive an invitation to this tournament. In the current context, the champions from the top 10 DI conferences (SEC, B1G ... , MAC, SB) will accept invitations from the BCS or bowls. That leaves automatic invitations being sent out to the remaining 13 conference champions, of which the Ivy most likely will decline.


This removes any incentive to "move up" from FCS to FBS. There is no more moving up, you're Division I. End

The incentive for App and Georgia Southern moving from SoCon to Sun Belt may still be significant enough to warrant those moves (more TV, more money, bowl game tie-ins, etc.)


Why would the Sunbelt and Mac impose a 70 max when many of those schools worked so hard to get where they are in the first place? They worked to get there for a reason. They wont want to give up any scholarships. JMO.

[Bisonator]

Why would the Sunbelt and Mac impose a 70 max when many of those schools worked so hard to get where they are in the first place? They worked to get there for a reason. They wont want to give up any scholarships. JMO.

He said it's up to the conference to decide what their max is going to be. If they want to fund 85 then have at it.

Still don't see his system taking place, but I'm starting to warm to the idea.

[MplsBison]

As I was explaining in the other thread, the "bowl post season organization" (the group that runs bowl games and makes huge sums of cash off of them) basically made a deal with the lower conferences at the behest of some senators representing those schools: you can keep the party going, as it has been without any government regulation, oversight or taxes - so long as you share "enough" of that money with lower schools.

And the deal was made such that "enough" translated into having to share that money with the NCAA defined entity called "the FBS sub-division". That's an NCAA term and the NCAA controls what it means and who can apply to be a member. Therefore, the bowl org then forced the NCAA to disallow any new move-ups to the FBS at the conference level. Even schools can't one-off move up without receiving an invitation first.


So even though my proposal is correct and the way that it should be done (a single division and the bowl org only has to give money to the conferences it deems) -- fear has driven the status quo. Fear of lawsuits brought on by the smaller FBS schools and fear of more government regulation/oversight/taxes of bowl games.


FBS has become the arbitrary line in the sand between college football that matters and the rest of it.

[Nova09]

These are your points as I understand them:

A) By de facto increasing the maximum allowable scholarships in the (sub-)division from 63 to 85, member teams of conferences formally playing in the FCS sub-division will be FORCED to increase their scholarships from 63 to 85

B) this is a bad thing.


A ->The fact that the NEC is successfully able to mandate that its members may offer no more than a certain amount of scholarships which is less than the sub-division maximum ends your argument and declares me the winner.

I am having difficulty in understanding how you do not understand that. It's a very simple point, perhaps you're trying to over complicate things?


B -> why?? For all you know, perhaps some of the teams in conferences like Big Sky, MVFC, Southland, SoCon and CAA are perfectly capable and would be willing to increase to 85. While those conferences don't have bowl ties, potentially they could start competing with teams from MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt for spots in lower tier bowls without having to switch conferences.


You have yet to make an argument that supports either point. You simply keep saying that teams from the CAA will be forced up to 85 and that this would be a bad thing.


Either support your points with valid arguments and evidence or admit that you were wrong and agree to change your stance to support my proposal.



I don't have to explain why conferences wouldn't start allowing their members to go from 63 to 85, because I'm not arguing against that. I don't care if they do that. Simply, I'm saying that if those conferences care enough about keeping scholarships at 63, they have the power to mandate their members to that effect. I can't make it any more uncomplicated and straightforward than that.

A) No, not forced, they would just do it. It would happen organically. You keep citing the NEC, but ignore that it has never consistently remained at a set level of scholarships. It is constantly increasing. That supports my point, not yours, sorry.

B) Never said good or bad. I'm pragmatic, I don't use such labels. But the schools don't want it. That's why they chose to create/be a part of FCS. You still pretend something was forced on these schools, when in reality conditions existed which made (what is now) FCS appealing, and it is still appealing to the majority of the schools in the subdivision. You act as though those conditions would not return under your model.

[Hammerhead]

Doesn't the TV contract for March madness provide a substantial amount of money for every D1 school? A single football division might work if there was a way to share TV revenue for NCAA playoff and bowl games among all schools that sponsor football.

[walliver]

Doesn't the TV contract for March madness provide a substantial amount of money for every D1 school? A single football division might work if there was a way to share TV revenue for NCAA playoff and bowl games among all schools that sponsor football.

The FBS schools don't want to share.

That's also why the D2 to D1 transitiona is so long for basketball.

[MplsBison]

A) No, not forced, they would just do it. It would happen organically. You keep citing the NEC, but ignore that it has never consistently remained at a set level of scholarships. It is constantly increasing. That supports my point, not yours, sorry.

B) Never said good or bad. I'm pragmatic, I don't use such labels. But the schools don't want it. That's why they chose to create/be a part of FCS. You still pretend something was forced on these schools, when in reality conditions existed which made (what is now) FCS appealing, and it is still appealing to the majority of the schools in the subdivision. You act as though those conditions would not return under your model.

You keep citing the NEC choosing to gradually increase their scholarship limit as evidence that every previously-FCS conference would eventually increase their scholarship limits to 85.

That's not the argument. You have changed the argument into something that seems similar, but is incorrect.


My argument supersedes your argument because it's much simpler. My argument is simply that conferences will have the ability to govern themselves. If they choose to hold a limit at 40, that's their choice. If they choose to hold a limit at 63, that's their choice. If they choose to increase the limit to 85, that's their choice.

That's all my argument is and I've won the argument, simply by evidence of FCS conferences that right now have limits lower than 63. I've won the argument and there's nothing you can do about it -- except try to change the argument, which is what you're attempting.


I don't care if conferences would in fact have "scholarship creep", such as the NEC has displayed. It doesn't matter to my argument - they have the ability to govern themselves and that's good enough.



The conditions for creating the I-A and I-AA sub-divisions have nothing whatsoever to do with what you're talking about. I suggest you read about the history of the sub-divisions and why they were created back in the 70's in the first place.

[Nova09]

You keep citing the NEC choosing to gradually increase their scholarship limit as evidence that every previously-FCS conference would eventually increase their scholarship limits to 85.

That's not the argument. You have changed the argument into something that seems similar, but is incorrect.


My argument supersedes your argument because it's much simpler. My argument is simply that conferences will have the ability to govern themselves. If they choose to hold a limit at 40, that's their choice. If they choose to hold a limit at 63, that's their choice. If they choose to increase the limit to 85, that's their choice.

That's all my argument is and I've won the argument, simply by evidence of FCS conferences that right now have limits lower than 63. I've won the argument and there's nothing you can do about it -- except try to change the argument, which is what you're attempting.


I don't care if conferences would in fact have "scholarship creep", such as the NEC has displayed. It doesn't matter to my argument - they have the ability to govern themselves and that's good enough.



The conditions for creating the I-A and I-AA sub-divisions have nothing whatsoever to do with what you're talking about. I suggest you read about the history of the sub-divisions and why they were created back in the 70's in the first place.

I never changed my argument. My argument was quite simple--take away FCS, and even if all the current FCS conferences kept a 63 limit for the time being, or whatever their current limit is, many of those conferences would eventually add more to the permissible limit. I contend it would be sooner rather than later, but that's not central to my argument. Your initial response was that t wouldn't happen, and you cited some conferences less than the maximum as evidence there would always be some conferences less than the maximum. This didn't refute my argument, because my argument wasn't "no conference will remain less than 85 in the long run" it was "some (most) conferences will see an increase in scholarships, therefore an increase in expenses." You then changed the argument--not me--by saying you don't care if there is scholarship creep. That's fine, but I can guarantee the vast majority of the current FCS membership would care. And that was my point from the start, that there is a very real counter-argument to your proposal. You can say the counter-argument shouldn't be something anyone would care about, but you can't keep pretending it doesn't exist.

[Herder]

Onto Something (or) On Something? Clearly the Latter Mpls.

The reasons are many, here are a few:
There is a clear separation between FBS and FCS, that is on purpose.
85 scholly teams, even the non-bowl crappy ones, will not be invited to the DI Championship (today's FCS title game) anytime soon, nor would they want to be.
FCS teams or conferences will not be given the option to carte blanch move up or down the scholarship ladder. That is crazy talk. Moving to the top level is controlled, tightly controlled, your idea would not pass anyone's vote.
63 Scholly teams playing a 63 scholly schedule in a 63 scholly conf would never get a bowl invite, even if they were deserving, never.