DI Football - no subdivisions

[aceinthehole]

Don't know if anyone had already read this, but I saw it somewhere else and thought I'd post it here. Enjoy some light reading ;)


Abstract: In 2009, the Knight Commission, which addresses major problems facing intercollegiate athletics, polled the presidents of the Football Bowl Subdivision schools (I-A schools) about their views on the state of financial affairs in college athletics. Less than 25 percent of those polled thought intercollegiate athletics was sustainable in its present form. As a result, the Commission recommended a series of reforms to help maintain the health of collegiate athletics. Unfortunately, the Commission did not poll the presidents of Football Championship Subdivision schools (I-AA schools). They should have polled those presidents because the I-AA schools’ fiscal health is worse. In 2010, only five I-AA schools had minimal profits in football as compared to the large profits of sixty-nine I-A schools. Football is the largest moneymaking sport in college athletics and, unlike basketball, I-AA schools have unfairly been prevented from competing for, and playing in, the Division’s highest national championship and in its elite postseason bowls. I-AA schools are also excluded from the conferences with billion-dollar TV contracts that distribute millions to I-A schools. To correct these inequities, this Article argues that the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) should adhere to its constitutional principle of competitive equity and should amend its bylaws to eliminate the I-A/I-AA distinction. If self-reform is not possible, this Article argues that Congress should amend the antitrust laws and scrutinize the tax law covering non-profit organizations. If neither the NCAA nor Congress is willing to provide relief, I-AA presidents should follow the recent lead of the National Basketball Association players and seek antitrust relief through the courts.


Author: © 2012 John R. Maney. The author is a graduate of the University of Richmond School of Law and served as a prosecutor for the Department of Justice and an advisor for the Department of Treasury before his retirement. The author is deeply grateful for the assistance provided by Richard Loesing and Sophia Behnia and the rest of the VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF ENTERTAINMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAW editorial staff. This Article is much better because of it.

And here's an excerpt of his his conclusion:

The best course of action would be for I-AA presidents to work within the NCAA to obtain a merger of I-A and I-AA into one division, like it was before 1978. Eliminating the bylaw creating the distinction between I-A and I-AA would achieve this goal. In attempting to remove this bylaw, the I-AA presidents should point out that it is inconsistent with the NCAA’s constitutional “[p]rinciple of competitive equity,” which provides that:

The structure and programs of the Association and the activities of its members shall promote opportunity for equity in competition to assure that individual student-athletes and institutions will not be prevented unfairly from achieving the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics.

Full Article: http://www.jetlaw.org/wp-content/journal-pdfs/Maney.pdf

[MplsBison]

Thanks for posting that.

I've outlined the simplest way to merge the sub-divisions into a single Division I football division in the link below. Wouldn't cost anyone a cent and the big conferences wouldn't need to share any of their loot any more than they do now. Would just make things simple and nice for everyone.

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?131538-Division-I-football

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I read this over and it was an interesting, if long, legal brief. I will go to great pains to say I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like he's missing the best possible avenue for an antitrust case: the restriction of conferences choosing to move all their schools to FBS as a unit. I am not sure is an NCAA thing or a BCS thing, though.

The biggest trouble I have with this proposal is that a force-merge of the subdivisions would split the money more fairly, but get rid of the FCS playoffs for everyone. Ironically by force-merging the divisions it means less championship access for FCS schools - or, as he might say, "institutions will... be prevented unfairly from achieving the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics."

[MplsBison]

The issue is that every conference in the FBS sub-division feels entitled to a piece of the money generated by the biggest bowls, the ones historically associated only with the elite conferences, simply because they are in the sub-division.

In my opinion, that's wrongheaded and a conference being in FBS should not entitle it to any the money from the biggest bowls nor entitle it automatic participation in the biggest bowls.

But that's what has been granted, out of fear of bigger lawsuits and possibly government intervention. (thanks to guys like the Utah senator who was pissed off back when Utah was in the Mountain West)


Essentially, the lower conferences successfully bushwhacked the "bowl post season organization" (for lack of a better word .... it was easily referred to as simply the BCS in the past, but that moniker is now dead). And the clearinghouse for such agreements has (arbitrarily in my opinion) been chosen as being part of the FBS sub-division. Maybe that was just the easiest way for them to proceed? I don't know, but in being such it means that getting into the FBS becomes that gold standard by which a school or a conference can therefore start demanding to be included in the club.


So long as it stays like that, there can never be any new FBS conferences created from new move-ups. Because then the "bowl org" would be obligated to share money with this new conference. Therefore it forced the NCAA to disallow that from happening.


The whole concept is ridiculous. There should just be one division I for football and the "bowl org" should only have to give out money to those conferences that earn it.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

I read this over and it was an interesting, if long, legal brief. I will go to great pains to say I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like he's missing the best possible avenue for an antitrust case: the restriction of conferences choosing to move all their schools to FBS as a unit. I am not sure is an NCAA thing or a BCS thing, though.

The biggest trouble I have with this proposal is that a force-merge of the subdivisions would split the money more fairly, but get rid of the FCS playoffs for everyone. Ironically by force-merging the divisions it means less championship access for FCS schools - or, as he might say, "institutions will... be prevented unfairly from achieving the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics."

Or...it could mean we would have a massive NCAA football tournament sort of like we have for basketball, no? It wouldn't happen right away, but the FBS playoffs will inevitably grow. There is just too much money to be made from such a playoff.

[Bisonator]

Or...it could mean we would have a massive NCAA football tournament sort of like we have for basketball, no? It wouldn't happen right away, but the FBS playoffs will inevitably grow. There is just too much money to be made from such a playoff.

I don't see that happening. Anything more than about 16 teams would take a month or more to complete. Even if it was more teams then that it will always be skewed for the current BCS schools. Unless you allow the NCAA to run it like the FCS playoffs, but good luck with that. You think a 3rd place SEC team with an 10-2 or 11-1 record is going to like sitting home while the MAC champ with a 9-3 or 8-4 record gets a shot at the playoff?

[MplsBison]

I don't see why the NCAA can't hold a tournament in parallel with other organizations' post-season activities (whether those be tournaments themselves or one-off games "bowl games").

That's what you have now in a single division I of men's college basketball. The NCAA administers two independent tournaments and there are at least two (maybe three?) independent tournaments in addition.


Just know that in a single division I of football, the NCAA's tournament would never, ever be bigger or more important than the historical bowl games. That's just how tradition is.

[walliver]

My solution would be to eliminate the subdivisions and set the scholarship maximum to 85. Teams would be allowed to choose any post-season options they wish.

The NCAA could sponsor a "National Championship" tournament for schools wishing to participate with some additional restrictions such as 63 scholarships. Schools and conferences would be free to set up their own tournaments. They could participate in bowls as they do now. There could be an HBCU bowl. A non-scholarship bowl game, and football fans with nothing else to do might actually watch it. The only significant restriction would be that teams announce their intentions to participate or not in the NCAA tournament prior to the start of the season.

Many of the problems in D-I football are due meddling by the NCAA.
Why care if a losing team goes to a bowl game, theses are non-NCAA events?
Why care how many people actually sit in the stands?
Why care if Liberty, Jax State, or JMU offers 85 scholarships?
Why care how many home games against FBS teams are played?
Why force a school to play FCS against it's will?
Why create a monopoly (actually a Trust) for "big time football" and give it to 10 conferences?
Why artificially increase expenses to play FBS, just to keep smaller schools from moving? If a team wants to play with fewer than 90% of 85, why can't they.

Schools with lower attendance, lower revenues, etc. will be very unlikely to get bowl bids, TV contracts, and home games against Alabama. But, why should the NCAA regulate this.

The bowl games generate too much money for too many people for the "FBS championship" extended tournament to come about. An expanded tournament would probably decrease, not increase total revenue. With a single D-I, things would be pretty much be as they are now at the top of the heap, but the Gang of 5 vs. FCS divide would lessen and the FCS label stigma would lessen.

The NCAA has created a completely un-necessary wall between FBS and FCS.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

My solution would be to eliminate the subdivisions and set the scholarship maximum to 85. Teams would be allowed to choose any post-season options they wish.

The NCAA could sponsor a "National Championship" tournament for schools wishing to participate with some additional restrictions such as 63 scholarships. Schools and conferences would be free to set up their own tournaments. They could participate in bowls as they do now. There could be an HBCU bowl. A non-scholarship bowl game, and football fans with nothing else to do might actually watch it. The only significant restriction would be that teams announce their intentions to participate or not in the NCAA tournament prior to the start of the season.

What you're really saying is to get rid of all barriers to entry to FBS - eliminate all the restrictions.

But that sounds like a nightmare. What if Sam Houston State wanted to offer 85 scholarships but Nicholls only wanted to offer 30? Would the Southland champion still get an autobid to the FCS playoffs, but only is SHSU doesn't win, or to the second-placed team? If SHSU wins the league, is there a Southland representative there to help pick the playoff field, or not?

Certainly some of the problems with D-I football have come about from this firewall between FCS and FBS, not to mention the inconsistent rules for inclusion in FBS. But I don't think blowing up the subdivisions would help. It either eliminates things like the playoffs that makes the FCS level of college football so great, or opens up a chaos that makes realignmentaggeddon look like a spring rainfall.

[MplsBison]

My solution would be to eliminate the subdivisions and set the scholarship maximum to 85. Teams would be allowed to choose any post-season options they wish.

The NCAA could sponsor a "National Championship" tournament for schools wishing to participate with some additional restrictions such as 63 scholarships. Schools and conferences would be free to set up their own tournaments. They could participate in bowls as they do now. There could be an HBCU bowl. A non-scholarship bowl game, and football fans with nothing else to do might actually watch it. The only significant restriction would be that teams announce their intentions to participate or not in the NCAA tournament prior to the start of the season.

Many of the problems in D-I football are due meddling by the NCAA.
Why care if a losing team goes to a bowl game, theses are non-NCAA events?
Why care how many people actually sit in the stands?
Why care if Liberty, Jax State, or JMU offers 85 scholarships?
Why care how many home games against FBS teams are played?
Why force a school to play FCS against it's will?
Why create a monopoly (actually a Trust) for "big time football" and give it to 10 conferences?
Why artificially increase expenses to play FBS, just to keep smaller schools from moving? If a team wants to play with fewer than 90% of 85, why can't they.

Schools with lower attendance, lower revenues, etc. will be very unlikely to get bowl bids, TV contracts, and home games against Alabama. But, why should the NCAA regulate this.

The bowl games generate too much money for too many people for the "FBS championship" extended tournament to come about. An expanded tournament would probably decrease, not increase total revenue. With a single D-I, things would be pretty much be as they are now at the top of the heap, but the Gang of 5 vs. FCS divide would lessen and the FCS label stigma would lessen.

The NCAA has created a completely un-necessary wall between FBS and FCS.

You know, a wise man once said something pretty close to what you just described....

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?131538-Division-I-football


:)

[MplsBison]

What you're really saying is to get rid of all barriers to entry to FBS - eliminate all the restrictions.

But that sounds like a nightmare. What if Sam Houston State wanted to offer 85 scholarships but Nicholls only wanted to offer 30? Would the Southland champion still get an autobid to the FCS playoffs, but only is SHSU doesn't win, or to the second-placed team? If SHSU wins the league, is there a Southland representative there to help pick the playoff field, or not?

Certainly some of the problems with D-I football have come about from this firewall between FCS and FBS, not to mention the inconsistent rules for inclusion in FBS. But I don't think blowing up the subdivisions would help. It either eliminates things like the playoffs that makes the FCS level of college football so great, or opens up a chaos that makes realignmentaggeddon look like a spring rainfall.

Those are valid arguments but not really what's important.

The thing that's important is that the bowls have to share money money with non-elite schools and the line in the sand that was drawn (arbitrarily) was being in FBS or not. Those on the outside don't get anything from the bowl loot.

Getting rid of the sub-divisions could potentially mean that the bowls have to share that money with all of the division I teams.

[walliver]

What you're really saying is to get rid of all barriers to entry to FBS - eliminate all the restrictions.

But that sounds like a nightmare. What if Sam Houston State wanted to offer 85 scholarships but Nicholls only wanted to offer 30? Would the Southland champion still get an autobid to the FCS playoffs, but only is SHSU doesn't win, or to the second-placed team? If SHSU wins the league, is there a Southland representative there to help pick the playoff field, or not?

....

In practice, scholarship limits set at less than 85 would be enforced by the conferences. Each conference would decide whether or not to limit scholarships. It would be very unlikely to have markedly dissimilar teams in a conference. Independent's could do as they please. A team offering 85 scholarships would not be in a conference with a team offering 30 (unless the 30 scholarship team chose to play for a bowl spot).

If the artificial barriers were removed, there would not be a lot of change in current conference memberships. There would be no change in the Big 5. There would probably be some reorganization among the gang of 5 and top FCS conferences, but it would primarily be among similar institutions and similar geography.

[MplsBison]

Exactly as I said it, walliver. Glad to have you on-board.

Now we just have to live with the fact that FBS have been made into "the club" and that no one is going to bust that club up while the money is still free flowing.


They still would've done better to follow our examples and set it up that way...but it's too late now. The ship has sailed.