NEC question

[hebmskebm]

If they had to make the choice today to pick one going forward, which NEC schools would choose

1) To go back to the non-schollie PFL model the league operated under until the mid-'00's

or

2) To go to the 63 max schollie "counter" model (even if they couldn't fully fund right away)

I feel like right now the conference is in a sort of purgatory where half the schools would ideally want to be FBS counters (even if it took a few years) and half would honestly rather play Pioneer style cost-containment ball.

[aceinthehole]

IMO - the simple answer right now is neither.

I do not think the NEC would ever choose to return the need-only model under which they previosuly operated. It really doesn't do anything for the current members. The league has moved slowly and steadily forward, and I doubt anyone wants to fall back to where they were.

It is entirely possible that in the near future that the NEC might allow up to 60 scholarships like the PL, but the league would still maintain NO MINIMUM for schollys (as it does now). The downside to this increase in schollys is that league will become just like the Big South - unbalanced with haves and have-nots.

The big spenders in the BS (Liberty, SBU, and CCU) dominated that league and the others programs just can't really compete. This is what the NEC has been trying to avoid -they want a competative league from top-to-bottom. And that's what has happened - 5 different teams (UA, CCSU, Duq, RMU, and Wag) have won a share of the NEC title in the last 3 years, and we have sent 3 different teams (RMU, UA, Wag) to the playoffs since we earned the AQ.

[hebmskebm]

IMO - the simple answer right now is neither.

I do not think the NEC would ever choose to return the need-only model under which they previosuly operated. It really doesn't do anything for the current members. The league has moved slowly and steadily forward, and I doubt anyone wants to fall back to where they were.

It is entirely possible that in the near future that the NEC might allow up to 60 scholarships like the PL, but the league would still maintain NO MINIMUM for schollys (as it does now). The downside to this increase in schollys is that league will become just like the Big South - unbalanced with haves and have-nots.

The big spenders in the BS (Liberty, SBU, and CCU) dominated that league and the others programs just can't really compete. This is what the NEC has been trying to avoid -they want a competative league from top-to-bottom. And that's what has happened - 5 different teams (UA, CCSU, Duq, RMU, and Wag) have won a share of the NEC title in the last 3 years, and we have sent 3 different teams (RMU, UA, Wag) to the playoffs since we earned the AQ.

But it seems that that would only make the league competitive in-conference; it actually works to make it less competitive out of conference when they have to face teams that are better funded. It's ultimately self-defeating. The league's tepid OOC record bears this out. I think that schools like SHU and SFPA like having football around, like having something for the students and alumni to do on Saturday afternoon, but don't really buy into the FCS model. They're here because they have to be and that's it.

[hebmskebm]

(for the record I'm not a mlpsbison type anti-Pioneer guy. I'm all for them getting an AQ even. It's just acknowledging these schools are playing the game at a distinctly different level)

[DFW HOYA]

The top of the Pioneer can prpbably hold their own with an NEC or Ivy opponent, but it's hard to tell given the conference's strength of non-confernece schedules. The PFL managed only three wins out of conference vs. Division I schools last season, two of which were vs. the NEC (Marist over Bryant, Dayon over Robert Morris).

There is a also a considerable gap within the league. Teams like Davidson, Campbell, and Valpo just get punished in the conference.