NCAA President "Open" To Additional Subdivision

[DFW HOYA]

Just another reminder to the Sun Belt aspirants that the big conferences still don't want them at their table.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/01/emmert-tells-big-12-officials-hes-open-to-another-subdivision/

[Saint3333]

This barely qualifies as news. This is like reporting Fox News likes conservatives.

The P5 conferences don't want the AAC, MWC, or any of the Go5 and they also want to discontinue games vs FCS schools. Gtown would be pushed even one level lower by the way.

[RichH2]

Heck, they dont want the NCAA at their table.

[darell1976]

It will be a matter of when not if that we will see teams like UND, NDSU and others in the new subdivision with teams from the MAC and MW. The P5 has the money and that's what counts.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

A subdivision for the upper-echelon of the FCS and most of the non-BCS FBS teams sounds great to me. Do not hold your breath waiting for it, though. You will almost surely get stood up waiting around for this to happen.

[darell1976]

A subdivision for the upper-echelon of the FCS and most of the non-BCS FBS teams sounds great to me. Do not hold your breath waiting for it, though. You will almost surely get stood up waiting around for this to happen.

I think Doug Fullerton (BSC commish) had this in mind when adding 4 teams for football and having a big conference incase half the conference (or all of us) moves up into the new subdivision.

[Apphole]

Just another reminder to the Sun Belt aspirants that the big conferences still don't want them at their table.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/01/emmert-tells-big-12-officials-hes-open-to-another-subdivision/
It's always been a decision made to account for the increasingly unpredictable dynamic of conference realignment. It was to join with the highest subdivision in college football, but it still surrounds us with more like minded schools in the event of another division of D-1. No matter what happens we're in much better shape now than we were in Febraury.

[Panther88]

I think there needs to be an additional subdivision w/in Division-I FCS. Those schools w/ enrollments > 10,000 and those w/ enrollments < 10,000.

There's a divide between these FCS haves and FCS have nots. And some of you FCS have are actually lower-level FBS cloaked in FCS garb. xreadx

[AppMan]

This may come as a shock to some, but I would be perfectly fine with it. Since ASU dropped to 1-AA in 1982 my goal has always been to one day see my Mountaineers in a division with "like minded" schools. Unlike some seem to think, to me going FBS has never been about being at the same level as the SEC, ACC ect, I was never a fan of 1-AA because the concept was completely wrong from the beginning. By requiring schools be connected by maximums without any thought to minimums was a recipe for strife. The NCAA designed 1-AA to be a dumping ground and the seemingly constant agitation and fluctuation of the membership is proof positive. Non scholarship, low scholarship, need based scholarship, stadiums with hardly any seating capacity to those with ones seating 30,000 created a mix of schools that was destined for trouble. The diversity is simply too great to keep everyone happy. Constant posturing from the non to low scholarship leagues for inclusion in the playoffs are rebuffed by schools who put a heavy emphasis on their programs saying they are not committed enough to be in it.

I have also been an advocate of a fourth division, complete with an 8 team playoff. Granted, one aspect of moving up has been the availability to play schools from those power leagues once in a while, but I would be very happy with a schedule that included the SB schools, a FCS home game, and a combination of ECU, WF, Marshall, ODU, WKU, MTSU and Charlotte. While the FCS snobs will say there is nothing to play for in that schedule I disagree. I am not of the opinion you have to play for a national championship to have a successful year. If ASU gives our fans games they enjoy and are competitive, most of our folks will be happy. If the Group of Five decides they also need a playoff I'm good with that as long as it is only 8 teams. A 15 game season is long enough.

[PaladinFan]

This may come as a shock to some, but I would be perfectly fine with it. Since ASU dropped to 1-AA in 1982 my goal has always been to one day see my Mountaineers in a division with "like minded" schools. Unlike some seem to think, to me going FBS has never been about being at the same level as the SEC, ACC ect, I was never a fan of 1-AA because the concept was completely wrong from the beginning. By requiring schools be connected by maximums without any thought to minimums was a recipe for strife. The NCAA designed 1-AA to be a dumping ground and the seemingly constant agitation and fluctuation of the membership is proof positive. Non scholarship, low scholarship, need based scholarship, stadiums with hardly any seating capacity to those with ones seating 30,000 created a mix of schools that was destined for trouble. The diversity is simply too great to keep everyone happy. Constant posturing from the non to low scholarship leagues for inclusion in the playoffs are rebuffed by schools who put a heavy emphasis on their programs saying they are not committed enough to be in it.

I have also been an advocate of a fourth division, complete with an 8 team playoff. Granted, one aspect of moving up has been the availability to play schools from those power leagues once in a while, but I would be very happy with a schedule that included the SB schools, a FCS home game, and a combination of ECU, WF, Marshall, ODU, WKU, MTSU and Charlotte. While the FCS snobs will say there is nothing to play for in that schedule I disagree. I am not of the opinion you have to play for a national championship to have a successful year. If ASU gives our fans games they enjoy and are competitive, most of our folks will be happy. If the Group of Five decides they also need a playoff I'm good with that as long as it is only 8 teams. A 15 game season is long enough.

You, like me, appear to enjoy competitive football games and watching your team play football.

I'm not sure I have enough intelligence to figure out all of this conference posturing. I am quite sure it is all about money, though.

[walliver]

I don't think this 3d subdivision is going anywhere. The NCAA may offer it in a bid to prevent the big boys from leaving. It has several things going against it.

1) Will long-term MAC and MWC members be willing to play in "subdivision 2"? I seriously doubt it.
2) Will the AAC move down? If not, I doubt the SBC or C-USA would be willing to move.
3) If the current gang of 5 members drop down, would they lose all the playoff payoffs? A new subdivision would give the big boys an excuse to keep their money to themselves.
4) If schools really were willing to move down, would there be any real incentive to continue offering 83 scholarships?

The only 3d subdivision I could see taking place would be a low scholarship subdivision with a 30-40 scholarship limit.

[asumike83]

I don't think this 3d subdivision is going anywhere. The NCAA may offer it in a bid to prevent the big boys from leaving. It has several things going against it.

1) Will long-term MAC and MWC members be willing to play in "subdivision 2"? I seriously doubt it.
2) Will the AAC move down? If not, I doubt the SBC or C-USA would be willing to move.
3) If the current gang of 5 members drop down, would they lose all the playoff payoffs? A new subdivision would give the big boys an excuse to keep their money to themselves.
4) If schools really were willing to move down, would there be any real incentive to continue offering 83 scholarships?

The only 3d subdivision I could see taking place would be a low scholarship subdivision with a 30-40 scholarship limit.

I agree. Another thing to consider is that the idea of the BCS conferences breaking off and only playing one another would hardly be a unanimous decision. What about all the programs in the BCS conferences that rarely, if ever compete for conference championships? I doubt they'd be thrilled with the prospect of playing only power conference teams every year and being relegated to a long string of 3-9 seasons. The fact is, a lot of power conference programs count on a soft OOC schedule to make sure they go to bowl games with some consistency.

If it were to happen and the non-AQ FBS conferences merged into one subdivision with the upper echelon FCS programs, that would be just fine with me. The competition would be solid and it would essentially be a beefed up FCS full of programs with a relatively equal commitment to football. In the end, I think the amount of resistance from within the BCS conferences and the lawsuits that would surely come from outside would make this a pretty remote possibility.

[Cocky]

This is coming we better hope they let us play basketball with them. You will see quite a few upper level FCS teams move to the new DII and a select few of the current low FBS schools get to move up.

[JaxSigEp94]

I don't think this 3d subdivision is going anywhere. The NCAA may offer it in a bid to prevent the big boys from leaving. It has several things going against it.

1) Will long-term MAC and MWC members be willing to play in "subdivision 2"? I seriously doubt it.
2) Will the AAC move down? If not, I doubt the SBC or C-USA would be willing to move.
3) If the current gang of 5 members drop down, would they lose all the playoff payoffs? A new subdivision would give the big boys an excuse to keep their money to themselves.
4) If schools really were willing to move down, would there be any real incentive to continue offering 83 scholarships?

The only 3d subdivision I could see taking place would be a low scholarship subdivision with a 30-40 scholarship limit.

Isn't that called Division II ?

[Accelerati Incredibilus]

I don't think this 3d subdivision is going anywhere. The NCAA may offer it in a bid to prevent the big boys from leaving. It has several things going against it.

1) Will long-term MAC and MWC members be willing to play in "subdivision 2"? I seriously doubt it.
2) Will the AAC move down? If not, I doubt the SBC or C-USA would be willing to move.
3) If the current gang of 5 members drop down, would they lose all the playoff payoffs? A new subdivision would give the big boys an excuse to keep their money to themselves.
4) If schools really were willing to move down, would there be any real incentive to continue offering 83 scholarships?

The only 3d subdivision I could see taking place would be a low scholarship subdivision with a 30-40 scholarship limit.

This is strikingly similar to the reasoning prior to I-AA. What recourse will they have? Lawsuits didn't work then and they won't now. The NCAA is a voluntary organization so I suppose they could go NAIA.

[kalm]

I hope we end up in a division where we can be competitive, has an inclusive playoff system, and with regional rivalries. I think that's part of the push behind the Gateway Project and improvements to Roos Field. Right now I think there may be as much disparity if not more between Alabama and Idaho as there is between NDSU and Idaho State so it would seem like it could go either way.

[ASUMountaineer]

Just another reminder to the Sun Belt aspirants that the big conferences still don't want them at their table.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/01/emmert-tells-big-12-officials-hes-open-to-another-subdivision/

Was there ever a doubt? Did you forget to remind the CUSA aspirants?

[Babar]

Not that it's a factor for the important decision makers, but I think chances of the IL eventually playing in a tourney are higher if we're in a division with the current bottom of FCS, or even bottom-FCS + DII.

[BlackNGoldR3v0lut10n]

My suggestion would be to remove the requirements for a DI football program to be an FBS program and for a DI football conference to be a FBS conference. Have a 48-team playoff (23 autobids since there will be 23 DI football conferences) to determine the winner. No other sport in Division I, II or III has this subdivision model setup.

Problem solved.

[AppMan]

My suggestion would be to remove the requirements for a DI football program to be an FBS program and for a DI football conference to be a FBS conference. Have a 48-team playoff (23 autobids since there will be 23 DI football conferences) to determine the winner. No other sport in Division I, II or III has this subdivision model setup.

Problem solved.

The only problem that would solve is how quickly those top 5 conferences would bolt.