CAA's Tom Yeager on FCS to FBS

[ASUMountaineer]

Ok, here is what I have been told, but I have to be quick before "they" catch me on the computer.

Aug 2013 - Lehigh tells then Local planning board they are buildings 55,000 seat stadium on the large plot of land granted to them in 2012
2014 - Lehigh gains national attention, because Lafayette won't come out for the second half of the game at Yankee Stadium. Accuses Lehigh of running up the score
2015 - Lehigh beats a restricted scholarship Penn St in State College
2016 - Lehigh tells Delaware we will play you but only if you come to our place when we tell you to. Visits to UNH and Nova are planned though
2017 - with a full 65 scholarships Lehigh gives Michigan a money game and beats the 2016 National Champ at home
2018 - there is talk of Lehigh moving up to FBS, but Lehigh rejects that thought. Ten in a row over Lafayette is not enough, we have to be leading the series before dropping them
2020 - Lehigh rejects an invitation to the SEC and accepts one to the ACC. They announce that even with a stepped up program, Lehigh just can't live without comments of a weak league schedule.
2021 - number 2 Lehigh is left out of the 8 team BCS playoff jumped over by #9 Alabama, due to Lehigh's weak schedule

I can't reveal my sources, but this is what I have been told. Sorry it is only 8 years, that is all they told me

xlolx

[Sitting Bull]

That's like saying "I don't care if the local public school district wants to build a new high school, I don't have kids in the district, not my problem".

It's going to affect you whether you want to stick your head in the sand or not.


FCS will become Tier III. Surely, the NCAA will continue to operate a postseason tournament for Tier III just like they do for FCS. I also think they should operate a similar tournament for Tier II.

At the same time, I think there should be similar opportunities for bowl games in Tier III as there would undoubtedly be for Tier II teams, if they wanted to participate in that.

No it's not "like" saying anything except what I posted, period.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Ok, here is what I have been told, but I have to be quick before "they" catch me on the computer.

Aug 2013 - Lehigh tells then Local planning board they are buildings 55,000 seat stadium on the large plot of land granted to them in 2012
2014 - Lehigh gains national attention, because Lafayette won't come out for the second half of the game at Yankee Stadium. Accuses Lehigh of running up the score
2015 - Lehigh beats a restricted scholarship Penn St in State College
2016 - Lehigh tells Delaware we will play you but only if you come to our place when we tell you to. Visits to UNH and Nova are planned though
2017 - with a full 65 scholarships Lehigh gives Michigan a money game and beats the 2016 National Champ at home
2018 - there is talk of Lehigh moving up to FBS, but Lehigh rejects that thought. Ten in a row over Lafayette is not enough, we have to be leading the series before dropping them
2020 - Lehigh rejects an invitation to the SEC and accepts one to the ACC. They announce that even with a stepped up program, Lehigh just can't live without comments of a weak league schedule.
2021 - number 2 Lehigh is left out of the 8 team BCS playoff jumped over by #9 Alabama, due to Lehigh's weak schedule

I can't reveal my sources, but this is what I have been told. Sorry it is only 8 years, that is all they told me

Damned funny stuff. All true! xlolx

[MplsBison]

No it's not "like" saying anything except what I posted, period.

I made a perfect analogy and a lucid argument.

You dodged it.

[Sitting Bull]

I made a perfect analogy and a lucid argument.

You dodged it.

No you didn't because there is no argument.

You have an opinion, others have an opinion.

Move on to something else.

[MplsBison]

I made a lucid argument, you stuck your head in the sand and are pretending it won't affect FCS when it clearly will.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Lucid arguments were made by both parties, you make some valid points. By pretending it will affect FCS when it very well may just stay as is I am trying to troll you into a silly argument. Well done on not taking the bait sir, I salute you! End.

Good post MPLS.xthumbsupx

[AppMan]

I must have missed Lehigh boy's prediction.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=crickets&view=detail&mid=A67C3DCD093883F18C8AA67C3DCD093883F18C8A&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR

[Sitting Bull]

I made a lucid argument, you stuck your head in the sand and are pretending it won't affect FCS when it clearly will.

You are arguing to yourself. Having no interest in your scenarios does not constitute an argument - unlike the time you did in fact argue that Philadelphia and New York were not part of the "Northeast".

Brilliant. End.

[MplsBison]

"[FCS] may well just stay as is"

Right. About like how the WAC membership may just stay as is.


A third sub-division in DI football is coming. No two ways about it. Etch it in stone. And that *WILL* have a significant effect on FCS (Tier III) in one way or another. At a minimum, it's going to significantly affect membership. At most, it may radically alter the fabric of the sub-division itself.

[MplsBison]

You are arguing to yourself. Having no interest in your scenarios does not constitute an argument - unlike the time you did in fact argue that Philadelphia and New York were not part of the "Northeast".

Brilliant. End.

I never argued that. I said they're not part of New England. (note that both are abbreviated "NE")

You argued that it isn't FCS's problem. I corrected you.

[Bisonator]

See signature quote below. :D

[ursus arctos horribilis]

"[FCS] may well just stay as is"

Right. About like how the WAC membership may just stay as is.


A third sub-division in DI football is coming. No two ways about it. Etch it in stone. And that *WILL* have a significant effect on FCS (Tier III) in one way or another. At a minimum, it's going to significantly affect membership. At most, it may radically alter the fabric of the sub-division itself.

It doesn't matter if it's called tier 3 or anything else. Just as changing the name from IAA didn't matter as opposed to FCS. It is still the same thing no matter the name or reference phrasing. It could affect this division in the leftover FBS teams wanted to change what they do and drop bowls etc. If not it won't change a thing. There is no new carrot to make teams want to go, in fact their is likely a much smaller carrot in the coming months or year.

[phoenix3]

"[FCS] may well just stay as is"

Right. About like how the WAC membership may just stay as is.


A third sub-division in DI football is coming. No two ways about it. Etch it in stone. And that *WILL* have a significant effect on FCS (Tier III) in one way or another. At a minimum, it's going to significantly affect membership. At most, it may radically alter the fabric of the sub-division itself.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, there are already three tiers in D1 football. However, the upcoming changes with the BCS will cause a much wider chasm between the 5 (6) power conferences and the rest of the FBS. The separation from the lower FBS conferences and the FCS won't change much. It will appear though, that lower FBS is much more like the FCS because of the huge BCS/lower FBS divide.

[MplsBison]

See signature quote below. :D

Well actually...yeah. If you go back and read that thread, it's pretty scary how right I was back then.

[MplsBison]

It doesn't matter if it's called tier 3 or anything else. Just as changing the name from IAA didn't matter as opposed to FCS. It is still the same thing no matter the name or reference phrasing. It could affect this division in the leftover FBS teams wanted to change what they do and drop bowls etc. If not it won't change a thing. There is no new carrot to make teams want to go, in fact their is likely a much smaller carrot in the coming months or year.

I'm not disagreeing with you in spirit. The easiest thing to do for Tier III would be to port FCS over to this new designation more or less unchanged (as far as rules and administration go).

As you say, just like they ported I-AA over to FCS. Then FCS goes to Tier III.


I'm merely saying, depending on how Tier II is set-up and possibly synchronizing of some rules and administration with Tier III - it could make the distinction between the two tiers feel more or less invisible to the point where all the strong Tier III conferences may as well opt up to Tier II.

[parr90]

Then why did fFIVE SunBelt teams leave for C-USA this year?

Money, exposure, dont really know but Im talking about from a football standpoint, as far as how good the teams are.

[TheDancinMonarch]

Moving to a conference with teams further away, and that we have no history with, just to be FBS, nope.

Wish you had been the President or AD at Old Dominion.

[Tribal]

Wish you had been the President or AD at Old Dominion.

Remarkable how you've survived amongst your fellow Monarchs...you, 78, Cr8n and Smitty never tow the company line and say it how you believe. I respect that.

[Sitting Bull]

I never argued that. I said they're not part of New England. (note that both are abbreviated "NE")

You argued that it isn't FCS's problem. I corrected you.

Wrong, you certainly did. I corrected you. Elon, you're on the clock as I recall was the thread.

It's not FCS problem. I had to correct you there too.

[TheDancinMonarch]

Remarkable how you've survived amongst your fellow Monarchs...you, 78, Cr8n and Smitty never tow the company line and say it how you believe. I respect that.

It's a problem with everything in our society. If it didn't happen in their lifetime people don't know anything about it. Why did Division I break into 1-A and 1-AA? Because there were those who for whatever reason couldn't compete or didn't want to compete with the big dogs. Nothing wrong with that. But now people, some people, look at FCS as a prison from which they must escape. So now ODU with their $35M athletic budget is competing on the same field with Ohio State and their $160+M budget. Completely logical. Just wait until the networks gets a look at who is in C-USA now and renegotiates the TV contracts DOWNWARD. The endless travel and less money. Not good. But you won't hear that from the powers that be. They'll just keep trying to soak alums for more money. It's going to cost a fortune more just to maintain our same relative position. But I guess it's OK because every 7 years or so we'll get to go to the Toilet Bowl.

[Engineer86]

It's a problem with everything in our society. If it didn't happen in their lifetime people don't know anything about it. Why did Division I break into 1-A and 1-AA? Because there were those who for whatever reason couldn't compete or didn't want to compete with the big dogs. Nothing wrong with that. But now people, some people, look at FCS as a prison from which they must escape. So now ODU with their $35M athletic budget is competing on the same field with Ohio State and their $160+M budget. Completely logical. Just wait until the networks gets a look at who is in C-USA now and renegotiates the TV contracts DOWNWARD. The endless travel and less money. Not good. But you won't hear that from the powers that be. They'll just keep trying to soak alums for more money. It's going to cost a fortune more just to maintain our same relative position. But I guess it's OK because every 7 years or so we'll get to go to the Toilet Bowl.

Good points as the big 5 get bigger and teams are pulled from the lower tier conferences to fill holes such as what has gone on in the east, all that is happening is a rearranging of the deck chairs and TV contracts and income will eventually reflect that. Personally I prefer the local games, but at a slightly higher FCS level. I guess I am in the same ***is envy section just a different row. Hopefully scholarships help, but there are only so many good players to go around.

[Herder]

At this point (to me) it is all about scholarship levels as the Top level of FBS tries to separate itself. Now You have . . .

B1G, B1T, P12, SEC, ACC @ 85
USA, AAC, MWC, SBC, MAC @ 85
FCS @63

Everyone is talking about the Top 5 separating themselves, and the Bottom 5 FBS joining with the FCS top conferences. Now tell me, how is that going to happen? Are the FCS schools going to go up in Scholarships to try to join the lower FBS at some level above 63? How does that help college football budgets and cost control? Is the lower level FBS going to be willing to move down at all, can they go up to stay with the top tier if the top tries to goto 90? Will there be a reset of scholarship levels? If that happens, you can bet that the FBS bottom five arent coming down to 63. So what you are looking at is more expensive football for the fCS if some conferences have visions of playing with CUSA, MWC, etc.

I think we will either have one of two scenarios, with small change in Scenario 1, and bigger change in scenario 2 . . .

Scenario 1: Two FBS Level compete for same championship like today
Top FBS = 85 Schollies and Stipends
Low FBS = 85 Schollies and "NO" Stipends
FCS = 63

Scenario 2: 3 Championship Levels
New DI Top Level = 85 (or) 90 Schollies & Stipends Championship 1
New DI 2nd Level = 70 (or) 75 Schollies (some FCS are here) Champ 2
New DI 3rd Level = 0-50 Schollies (some FCS are here) Champ 3

Under Scenario 2, well it doesn't make much sense to have a 50 scholarship championship. I think it doesn't make much sense to have 3 championships in DI, the number of team is right for two. But the greed at the top level could make things bad for everyone else. Will the lower level FBS concede and move to a scholarship level different than the top tier of FBS? IMO, these will go kicking and screaming, and will try to stay with the top tier as far as scholarships, even if they can't afford stipends and other advancements by the top tier that further unlevel the playing field.

The other thing under scenario 2, you'd probably have 60-70 team in the top level, 140-150 in the 2nd Level (still struggling to afford at 70 to 75 scholarships to be attractive to play the top level), and 40-50 in the 3rd level. Ughhhh!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

At this point (to me) it is all about scholarship levels as the Top level of FBS tries to separate itself. Now You have . . .

B1G, B1T, P12, SEC, ACC @ 85
USA, AAC, MWC, SBC, MAC @ 85
FCS @63

Everyone is talking about the Top 5 separating themselves, and the Bottom 5 FBS joining with the FCS top conferences. Now tell me, how is that going to happen? Are the FCS schools going to go up in Scholarships? How does that help college football budgets and cost control? Will there be a reset of scholarship levels? If that happens, you can bet that the FBS bottom five arent coming down to 63. So what you are looking at is more expensive football for the fCS if some conferences have visions of playing with CUSA, MWC, etc.

I think we will either have . . .

Scenario 1: Two FBS Level compete for same championship like today
Top FBS = 85 Schollies and Stipends
Low FBS = 85 Schollies and "NO" Stipends
FCS = 63

Scenario 2: 3 Championship Levels
New DI Top Level = 85 Schollies & Stipends Championship 1
New DI 2nd Level = 70 (or) 75 Schollies (some FCS are here) Champ 2
New DI 3rd Level = 50 Schollies (some FCS are here)

Scenario 2, well it doesn't make much sense to have a 50 scholarship championship. I think it doesn't make much sense to have 3 championships, the number of team is right for two. But the greet at the top level could make things bad for everyone else.

IMO there are too many moving parts to accurately predict this stuff right now. The Big 5 need to decide if:

* they're going to break from the NCAA (highly unlikely, IMO)
* they're going to push for a brand-new Division (Premier Division, I explore that a bit here (http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fcs-football/708-using-the-english-premier-league-to-divine-the-ncaa-s-future))
* they're going to push for a brand-new Subdivision in football only and leave everything else the same
* they'll keep FCS, FBS, Divisions the same and only push to have disproportionate representation in Division I (a higher probability outcome than people think)

Everything will trickle down from there.

If you believe that the leadership always seeks out the path of least work, Option 4 would seem to be a mortal lock, incidentally. Not saying that's my belief, but it is out there as a solution.

[Herder]

So basically, the top Tier is going to take a Big Dump on the rest of College football at all levels (DI, DII & DIII) so they can feel important and make every last dollar possible. I'm glad that they don't feel any responsibility to the rest of the society and the rest of college football. The arrogance at the top level is sickening. I wish TV revenue would dry up and college football could return to the 1980's.

[Herder]

IMO there are too many moving parts to accurately predict this stuff right now. The Big 5 need to decide if:

* they're going to break from the NCAA (highly unlikely, IMO)
* they're going to push for a brand-new Division (Premier Division, I explore that a bit here (http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fcs-football/708-using-the-english-premier-league-to-divine-the-ncaa-s-future))
* they're going to push for a brand-new Subdivision in football only and leave everything else the same
* they'll keep FCS, FBS, Divisions the same and only push to have disproportionate representation in Division I (a higher probability outcome than people think)

Everything will trickle down from there.

If you believe that the leadership always seeks out the path of least work, Option 4 would seem to be a mortal lock, incidentally. Not saying that's my belief, but it is out there as a solution.

However, the moving parts are critical to this discussion. People that don't understand the moving parts make stupid statements, like . . . "The lower level FBS and FCS will simply merge and live happily ever after". The moving parts are very very complicated, and critical to FBS separation and FBS/FCS merging. The key moving parts are Scollies, Speinding, Attendance, Stipends, etc, etc. Without know and discussing the moving parts, unintelligible statements are made.

[UAalum72]

So basically, the top Tier is going to take a Big Dump on the rest of College football at all levels (DI, DII & DIII) so they can feel important and make every last dollar possible. I'm glad that they don't feel any responsibility to the rest of the society and the rest of college football. The arrogance at the top level is sickening. I wish TV revenue would dry up and college football could return to the 1980's.

It wasn't much different in the 1980s...or 1930s

“And I say to you gentlemen that this college is a failure. The trouble is we're neglecting football for education.”
Groucho Marx as Professor Wagstaff, Horse Feathers, 1932

[TheDancinMonarch]

So basically, the top Tier is going to take a Big Dump on the rest of College football at all levels (DI, DII & DIII) so they can feel important and make every last dollar possible. I'm glad that they don't feel any responsibility to the rest of the society and the rest of college football. The arrogance at the top level is sickening.

Why should they be any different than anyone else in our society?


I wish TV revenue would dry up and college football could return to the 1980's.

As long as they can hide their money in your "cable" TV rates the gravy train will continue. See the NBA.

[SpiritCymbal]

Good article by CBS to try and predict the future and wade through the BS.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22988242/college-football-postseason-formats-evolve-but-catalyst-remains-same


There's a simple answer regarding equality in this Division 4 discussion. A non-BCS playoff. The big boys have taken (almost) all the money for their college football Super Bowl beginning in 2014.

Let the have-nots stage their own four-, eight-, 16-team postseason extravaganza.

You'd watch because ratings and history have shown you can't turn away. (Those 35 bowls aren't going away anytime soon.) You'd watch because any kind of playoff enhances those bowls, rather than diminishes them.

You/we/me would watch a Nevada-Ohio national semifinal because we can't get enough college football.

Could such a playoff happen? Sure. Might make some money, too. I talked to a bunch of conference and TV types who didn't exactly shoot down the concept.

CBSSports.com learned this week that such a playoff was actually a topic of conversation among the non-BCS schools in the early 2000s. The concept went as far as marketing such a playoff as the NFL (BCS) against the AFL (non-BCS).

Just like NBC partnering up with the AFL at the time, one administrator characterized a non-BCS playoff this way: "You only need one network to love you."

I can think of one at the moment -- Fox Sports 1 debuting this month -- that would be drooling all over itself at such a prospect.

Will it happen with the likes of Conference USA, the MAC, Sun Belt, American and the Mountain West? Not anytime soon...

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Good article by CBS to try and predict the future and wade through the BS.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22988242/college-football-postseason-formats-evolve-but-catalyst-remains-same

This is very similar to what some posters here have been saying for a while now. Heck me and dback had a discussion on a thread on CS when the first portions of realignment started saying that there were gonna be 4 or 5 super conferences which were gonna be definitely separated from the rest of FBS and then **** was gonna hit the fan for those other conferences.

I just can't see them not getting what they want.

[AppMan]

This is very similar to what some posters here have been saying for a while now. Heck me and dback had a discussion on a thread on CS when the first portions of realignment started saying that there were gonna be 4 or 5 super conferences which were gonna be definitely separated from the rest of FBS and then **** was gonna hit the fan for those other conferences.

I just can't see them not getting what they want.

The Super Division talk has been going on since the late 80's. I'm surprised its taken this long to come to a head. I'm all for it. Any school in a Group of 5 conferences that says they have a lot in common with those 5 elite leagues is nuts. Although they might hang with them on the field from time to time and bag a few W's, when it comes to budgets, facilities and fan support it isn't close. The gap is likely to get wider.

Regardless of what Patty Viverito says only 4-5 FCS schools have much in common with the lower level FBS programs. It has taken 30+ years for this thing to wind its way around to where we are today. Had the NCAA separated D-1 into 3 divisions there would not have been nearly the push back and some of those conferences may have remained intact. The landscape would probably not looked much different than what it is going to, but there wouldn't have been nearly as much angst the past 30 years and the conferences would have been far more regional.

[dbackjon]

The Super Division talk has been going on since the late 80's. I'm surprised its taken this long to come to a head. I'm all for it. Any school in a Group of 5 conferences that says they have a lot in common with those 5 elite leagues is nuts. Although they might hang with them on the field from time to time and bag a few W's, when it comes to budgets, facilities and fan support it isn't close. The gap is likely to get wider.

Regardless of what Patty Viverito says only 4-5 FCS schools have much in common with the lower level FBS programs. It has taken 30+ years for this thing to wind its way around to where we are today. Had the NCAA separated D-1 into 3 divisions there would not have been nearly the push back and some of those conferences may have remained intact. The landscape would probably not looked much different than what it is going to, but there wouldn't have been nearly as much angst the past 30 years and the conferences would have been far more regional.

You are saying that only 4 or 5 FCS schools have anything in common with App State, GSU, or Ga State?

[SpiritCymbal]

This is very similar to what some posters here have been saying for a while now. Heck me and dback had a discussion on a thread on CS when the first portions of realignment started saying that there were gonna be 4 or 5 super conferences which were gonna be definitely separated from the rest of FBS and then **** was gonna hit the fan for those other conferences.

I just can't see them not getting what they want.

Also consider that the G5 schools will not voluntarily put up with it either. It was alluded to a little when talking about the 1-aa split and how it didn't do as promised when the Southland, MVC, Ivy, etc... were basically forced into the new division. It suffocated those programs rather than enhanced them and the G5 will be very wary of that before this whole thing is settled and won't let it go down without some kicking and screaming, and court battles.

The G5 school's desire to not be separated from the P5 vastly outweighs their desire to not be included with 1-aa schools.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Also consider that the G5 schools will not voluntarily put up with it either. It was alluded to a little when talking about the 1-aa split and how it didn't do as promised when the Southland, MVC, Ivy, etc... were basically forced into the new division. It suffocated those programs rather than enhanced them and the G5 will be very wary of that before this whole thing is settled and won't let it go down without some kicking and screaming, and court battles.

The G5 school's desire to not be separated from the P5 vastly outweighs their desire to not be included with 1-aa schools.

It won't matter. There will be some concessions and they will separate. The smaller FBS schools do not have the pull and the votes it would take to keep them on the string when you consider the current system of governance and even if they did get their way then the big boys will form their own. There is only mitigation of damage at this point in my mind. Heck, most of the FCS schools will only be affected in terms of bball so those votes aren't likely to be on the smaller FBS schools side either...which incidentally is the catalyst for this current situation anyway...being voted down on their stipend by schools that can't carry the water they can.

[seantaylor]

Again, will never happen. All of those schools have 15 or more other sports to support.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Again, will never happen. All of those schools have 15 or more other sports to support.

It's really unlikely there is no doubt. If it did happen then the NCAA bball tourney and all other sports suffer. That means more to the little guys than it does the big boys. That's why everyone else will fold their cards when the bigs raise.

They are gonna get what they want one way or another that's just a fact of life and they feel the lower level FBS and the FCS are holding them back from getting that. They don't want to be associated with FCS or the lower FBS conferences as far as football goes.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Again, will never happen. All of those schools have 15 or more other sports to support.

Only 15? Some schools are talking 20 or more. Will App, GSU, Boise make that cut?

[MplsBison]

Wrong, you certainly did. I corrected you. Elon, you're on the clock as I recall was the thread.

It's not FCS problem. I had to correct you there too.

As I said, I correctly noted those two cities are not part of New England, which is of course true (although NYC barely).

It absolutely is FCS's problem. It's the entirety of Division I's problem too (non-football schools). I don't care if you can't or refuse to comprehend that. Your inability is of no consequence to the fact that a change of that magnitude will inexorably have at least some effect on the sub-division.

[MplsBison]

IMO there are too many moving parts to accurately predict this stuff right now. The Big 5 need to decide if:

* they're going to break from the NCAA (highly unlikely, IMO)
* they're going to push for a brand-new Division (Premier Division, I explore that a bit here (http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fcs-football/708-using-the-english-premier-league-to-divine-the-ncaa-s-future))
* they're going to push for a brand-new Subdivision in football only and leave everything else the same
* they'll keep FCS, FBS, Divisions the same and only push to have disproportionate representation in Division I (a higher probability outcome than people think)

Everything will trickle down from there.

If you believe that the leadership always seeks out the path of least work, Option 4 would seem to be a mortal lock, incidentally. Not saying that's my belief, but it is out there as a solution.

They already have a disproportionate vote within Division I. That's something new I learned from the CBS article:


In any division-wide issue, the BCS leagues could be outvoted. The controversial stipend proposal was essentially overridden by FCS schools (Division I-AA) and basketball-only schools within Division I. The five BCS leagues as well as the American (former Big East) and Conference USA all have the same weighted votes (three points each). The Mountain West, MAC, Sun Belt, WAC (still alive in basketball) are weighted half as much (1.5). The remaining 20 Division I conferences (about 200 schools) get 1.14 points.

So to me it would be too obvious and too absurd to give just five conferences so much weight so as to be able to out trump 26 other conferences combined in any issue.

And as I've said - March Madness being split into two separate tournaments is off the table.

Therefore, it points to a new sub-division DI football in order to enable the big five conferences to grant stipends (as the CBS article calls them). I still like my term better: "super scholarships"

[Eagle22]

You are saying that only 4 or 5 FCS schools have anything in common with App State, GSU, or Ga State?

While I think AppMan's numbers are low, I don't think it is a significant number of schools. More importantly, I think it varies by league.

A lot of what has been posted in this thread the last few pages were some of the comments I had hoped to stimulate when I posted my thread the other day about how folks view their school in committing to their program.

Remaining FCS schools who want to see the lower FBS teams fall back IMO are going to be waiting another 30 years, if not longer. These programs have invested (wisely or not), in creating or maintaining at a minimum, a perception of separation. In most cases, it isn't just a perception ... it is reality. The pro-FCS crowd always latches on to the slumlords of lower FBS, but never want to look at the facility gaps present at a lot of the other competing G5 teams.

What ASU and GSU faced was a serious conundrum. The remaining teams in the conference have shown no interest in moving beyond 63 scholarships. In 2001, Alfred White tried to solicit support to move the entire league forward but with teams like VMI in the league, he likely knew the outcome before he left the office. Can't blame him for trying. The moves to replace GSU and ASU with VMI and Mercer have cemented the SoCon into an untenable position. IMO, if a tier merging the top FCS teams with the FBS lower echelon comes to fruition, teams like Furman, UTC, Citadel will continue to be on the outside looking in. Maybe they are fine with that, but it will leave them only with the option of relegating them to a lower level or leaving a league they have been associated with for a very long time, sans UTC.

[AppMan]

You are saying that only 4 or 5 FCS schools have anything in common with App State, GSU, or Ga State?

Yes. The quality of a program is not based simply on W's & L's. When you factor in attendance, private financial support, facilities - not just the stadium - and name recognition the four that come to mind are James Madison, Liberty, Montana, & North Dakota St. I'm sure there are a few more who compare quite nicely.

[dgtw]

When the NCAA created IA and IAA, did the DI schools get to pick where they wanted to go or did the NCAA decide for them?

[seantaylor]

I don't think some understand how class action lawsuits work. Also, antitruist laws. If this split even goes above beta testing, there will be hailstorm of litigation laid down like never seen before in sport.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I don't think some understand how class action lawsuits work. Also, antitruist laws. If this split even goes above beta testing, there will be hailstorm of litigation laid down like never seen before in sport.

Ok then, enlighten me how it's gonna work? On what basis will the bigs be held if they want to separate themselves and have more say in how they run things?

Were there a lot of class action suits in 1978 and how did that work out for the class?

[UAalum72]

When the NCAA created IA and IAA, did the DI schools get to pick where they wanted to go or did the NCAA decide for them?The requirements were listed for I-A, and you couldn't be I-A unless you met them. But (at least by 1981) it looked obvious to me that the rules were written to make sure that some marginal schools could stay I-A - there must have been politicking by the committee when creating the rules.

OTOH for example Yale and Harvard could have stayed I-A but chose to drop to I-AA to keep the Ivy League together - Brown and Columbia could never have made it. I don't think the scholarship minimum was specified at that time.

[AppMan]

When the NCAA created IA and IAA, did the DI schools get to pick where they wanted to go or did the NCAA decide for them?


Yes, and no. 1-A / 1-AA sub classifications were introduced in 1978. The NCAA thought conferences and schools would voluntarily move down but only the Big Sky, IVY, MEAC, OVC, SWAC, Yankee and 20 independents made the move. The Missouri Valley was a split conference while the MAC, Southern and Southland resisted. In 1983 the MAC had their connections in the Big Ten convince the NCAA to grant them a waiver and allow them to remain 1-A while they got their attendance figures up. The Southern & Southland were reclassified 1-AA. The MVC disbanded after NMSU joined the PCAA while Tulsa and became an 1-A independents. Wichita State never fully recovered from the 1970 plane crash and dropped football in 1986.

[MplsBison]

When the NCAA created IA and IAA, did the DI schools get to pick where they wanted to go or did the NCAA decide for them?

Read the CBS article. It's a good one. It talks about this question specifically.

I-A was created to appease the CFA. That should answer your question about which schools were in then allowed in I-A.


Why is this happening now?

For those of us old enough to remember the College Football Association, it's the CFA in reverse. Frustrated that smaller schools were sharing in TV money, the CFA was formed in 1978 by 61 major-conference schools. With the threat of those schools signing their own TV contract, the NCAA established Division I-A at the '78 convention.

That cut out the likes of Ivy League, Missouri Valley and Southland Conference and relegated them to Division I-AA. While that sounds inconsequential today, those schools were denied what would be a financial windfall in the future.

Critics would argue that there would have been no windfall if those schools were allowed into the club.

As they do today, market forces applied. The biggest, best, most traditional football programs survived at the top level. That level was essentially established by their worth to TV networks.

In the decades that followed, the resulting Division I-AA (now FCS) was neither transformative nor financially rewarding. The division's playoff is run by the NCAA and any profit from the rights is negligible.

A new subdivision (I-A) for those 61 schools didn't keep the CFA from wanting more. The NCAA called a special convention in 1981 and threatened to sanction any school that accepted a national package from NBC. The CFA eventually led a legal challenge that produced the landmark Supreme Court decision in 1984.

Since then, those power schools were free to make their own TV deals. That's why we're here today. That's why conference realignment has torn at the foundation of the sport. The Bowl Coalition led to the Bowl Alliance which led to the BCS which got us to an FBS playoff.

While the playoff has maximized the Big 5's revenues, this time they feel more frustrated with governance. They want the option to pay players -- OK, a stipend.

They want to fix enforcement. They want to, perhaps, change the fundamental model of recruiting.

That's why it was ominous to hear Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby say last week, "We've made it too easy to get into Division I and too easy to stay there."

Those words could easily have been used in 1978.

[MplsBison]

Ok then, enlighten me how it's gonna work? On what basis will the bigs be held if they want to separate themselves and have more say in how they run things?

Were there a lot of class action suits in 1978 and how did that work out for the class?

I don't know if this would amount to much, but it is at least one thing to consider: the group of five conferences do still have several state public flagship universities in their membership. Those schools, if they felt threatened of being cut out of the top division, could run screaming to their state senators who in turn could get the federal government to turn up the heat on the big college football businessmen.

Sort've the way that Utah senator worked his magic - then low and behold: one non-major conference team has made it into a major bowls every year since Utah defeated Pitt.

Public flagships:
MWC - Hawaii, Nevada, Utah St, Colorado St, Wyoming, New Mexico (also, Air Force is a federal school, Boise St probably commands the most attention in Idaho, UNLV has significant attention in NV and the three CSU schools may be able to get some attention in CA)
American - UConn (also, Navy is a federal school, and the rest of the schools may be able to get some attention in their respective states)
MAC - UMass, Buffalo (the rest of the schools may be able to get some attention in their respective states, particularly with six schools in Ohio)
CUSA - probably the school that can get the most direct attention in its state is Marshall, but many of the schools could pair up with similar schools in the state in other conferences
Sun Belt - New Mexico St, Idaho (the rest, same situation as the CUSA: team up with the other group of five schools)


Will it prevent the big five from getting their own sub-division in football? Probably not. But it's something to consider.

[AppMan]

Read the CBS article. It's a good one. It talks about this question specifically.

I-A was created to appease the CFA. That should answer your question about which schools were in then allowed in I-A.

Can you give me a link to the article? It is a fair representation of what was happening in the late 70's and 80's and I'd like to keep it in my archives.

Appalachian played a major role ending the NCAA controlling TV rights. In September of 1983 nationally ranked Georgia was playing South Carolina but the NCAA TV contract mandated a Southern Conference exposure and the App and The Citadel was televised in the Southeast US. The next week Georgia joined Oklahoma in filing suit against the NCAA to sell their own TV rights.

[Sandlapper Spike]

Can you give me a link to the article? It is a fair representation of what was happening in the late 70's and 80's and I'd like to keep it in my archives.

Appalachian played a major role ending the NCAA controlling TV rights. In September of 1983 nationally ranked Georgia was playing South Carolina but the NCAA TV contract mandated a Southern Conference exposure and the App and The Citadel was televised in the Southeast US. The next week Georgia joined Oklahoma in filing suit against the NCAA to sell their own TV rights.

The game between App and The Citadel was played on the same day as Georgia-South Carolina in 1983, but I thought the catalyst was actually the 1981 game between the Mountaineers and Bulldogs, which was broadcast on 4 stations, while a big game between Southern Cal and Oklahoma was featured on over 200.

Despite that, the four schools received the same amount of TV money. That was referenced in the original district court decision in NCAA vs. Oklahoma Board of Regents, by Judge Burciaga.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

In the decades that followed, the resulting Division I-AA (now FCS) was neither transformative nor financially rewarding. The division's playoff is run by the NCAA and any profit from the rights is negligible.

This statement is idiotic, and untrue. I would bet there would be no plus-one playoff in FBS had the FCS not had a playoff system. As for the second half, the author falls into the trap that says that the FCS playoffs' main sins are the fact that it's run by the NCAA and that it's not profitable - which would then disqualify nearly all of the NCAA championships as being a waste of time, in the author's eyes.

So it was transformative, period, and the fact that it wasn't "financially rewarding" isn't the main purpose of the championship, nor should it be.

[Saint3333]

So when I say the our move to the FBS will not be financially rewarded yet it is worth it you'll back off right.

This is like playing cards with my brother's kids.

[Tribal]

This is like playing cards with my brother's kids.

Nice Tombstone reference!

[AppMan]

The game between App and The Citadel was played on the same day as Georgia-South Carolina in 1983, but I thought the catalyst was actually the 1981 game between the Mountaineers and Bulldogs, which was broadcast on 4 stations, while a big game between Southern Cal and Oklahoma was featured on over 200.

Despite that, the four schools received the same amount of TV money. That was referenced in the original district court decision in NCAA vs. Oklahoma Board of Regents, by Judge Burciaga.

The equal payout for that '81 game (televised on ABC) is what got the ball rolling with Oklahoma and did initiate the lawsuit. The NCAA had threatened all sorts of retribution against the 60 schools who formed the CFA in 1977. The court ruled in favor of the CFA, but the NCAA quickly appealed. Although the decision went in favor of the CFA the group was unable to get enough schools to commitment to the NBC deal, and it was canceled. The CFA won again in the Circuit Court of Appeals and the NCAA promptly appealed to the Supreme Court. While all this was going on along comes the '83 App / Citadel game which the NCAA shows on CBS - which they have negotiated additional rights deals with - over a highly publicized Georgia / South Carolina game. Many felt it was an intentional slap in the face to Georgia by the NCAA and it basically tossed gas on the already raging fire. Many think the resulting outcry from Georgia and USC was icing on the cake and influenced the 1984 Supreme Court's decision which ruled 7 to 2 in favor of the CFA.

Here is an interesting article from the August 17, 1981 Sports Illustrated about what was going on

SHOWDOWN

The NCAA, the ranking authority in college sports, may be coming apart at the seams. It has been openly challenged by the 4-year-old College Football Association, a splinter group of 61 major football schools that includes all the top teams in the country except those in the Pac-10 and the Big Ten.

The CFA has long expressed discontent with the NCAA's football TV policy, feeling that a disproportionate share of revenues has been spread among all NCAA schools (even those without football programs), that all schools shouldn't have equal votes in football TV matters, and that the big football schools should be allowed to negotiate their own television deals (which will be increasingly valuable with cable TV growing so rapidly).

So last week the CFA defied the NCAA and signed a four-year, $180-million TV deal with NBC, one that will pay the NCAA 8% off the top for administrative costs and so on, but which gives control of televised football to the CFA member schools, promises more TV appearances and guarantees each team at least $1 million in revenue. The CFA action could cause the cancellation of a four-year, $263.5 million contract the NCAA had agreed to two weeks earlier with ABC and CBS, which promises those networks exclusivity.

CFA members seem certain to ratify their new contract when they vote on it Aug. 21, even though the NCAA has warned that it may suspend, or even expel, any college that appears on football telecasts other than those it approved. The suspension or expulsion would cover all sports at the schools being penalized, not just football. If that happens, the NCAA championships would be watered down, and the NCAA would no longer be the dominant force in college athletics.

In short, the NCAA seems to be facing one of the greatest crises of its 75-year existence.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So when I say the our move to the FBS will not be financially rewarded yet it is worth it you'll back off right.

This is like playing cards with my brother's kids.

So you believe.

And as a result, you'll stop trashing the FCS about being some sort of money pit, right? xthumbsupx

[Engineer86]

This is some very interesting stuff and helpful in understanding both the past and present. xthumbsupx

[walliver]

The Big Boys will get what they want.
The NCAA needs the SEC, ACC, B1G, B12, and PAC12. THE NCAA's primary revenue source is March Madness (more specifically Men's March Madness), and without the 5 conferences listed, March Madness would be of little interest to fans outside the northeast. I can't think of a single big-time basketball school in the deep South that isn't in the SEC or ACC (Winthrop, Davidson, CofC and FGCU are all mid-majors).
Non-football sports for the most part could be played in a new league. Travel expenses might be higher, and scheduling for less common sports such as hockey and lacrosse could be problematic.
The bottom line is that a break-up would be inconvenient for the Big Boys, but devastating to the NCAA.

The new playoff system will pay every mid-major school $1,000,000 every year. Money they have in no way earned. It is a payoff plain and simple. Add in 1, frequently 2, money games a year, and mid-majors are getting $3,000,000 a year from the Big Boys.

The bottom line is that FCS and non-football conferences for the most part need the March Madness money. The Gang of 5 need the payout and the money games. The Big Boys will get whatever they want. They may throw a few pennies at FCS and offer the Gang of 5 a face-saving deal. They won't leave the NCAA and there will not be a plethora of lawsuits.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The Big Boys will get what they want.
The NCAA needs the SEC, ACC, B1G, B12, and PAC12. THE NCAA's primary revenue source is March Madness (more specifically Men's March Madness), and without the 5 conferences listed, March Madness would be of little interest to fans outside the northeast. I can't think of a single big-time basketball school in the deep South that isn't in the SEC or ACC (Winthrop, Davidson, CofC and FGCU are all mid-majors).
Non-football sports for the most part could be played in a new league. Travel expenses might be higher, and scheduling for less common sports such as hockey and lacrosse could be problematic.
The bottom line is that a break-up would be inconvenient for the Big Boys, but devastating to the NCAA.

The new playoff system will pay every mid-major school $1,000,000 every year. Money they have in no way earned. It is a payoff plain and simple. Add in 1, frequently 2, money games a year, and mid-majors are getting $3,000,000 a year from the Big Boys.

The bottom line is that FCS and non-football conferences for the most part need the March Madness money. The Gang of 5 need the payout and the money games. The Big Boys will get whatever they want. They may throw a few pennies at FCS and offer the Gang of 5 a face-saving deal. They won't leave the NCAA and there will not be a plethora of lawsuits.

To get what they want will require not just rule-bending of the NCAA but potentially changing thirty years of definition of what an NCAA division means, if they go in the direction of saying they require their very own division. Even if they merely lobby for their own football subdivision the nature of everything (# of scholarships, requirements for membership) will have to change.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/sports/ncaafootball/playoff-contract-is-standing-in-way-of-commissioners-considering-a-split.html?_r=1&


In recent weeks, the commissioners of three of the most prominent conferences in college sports have publicly mused about how the five most powerful leagues might soon be forced to create their own division in order to govern themselves.

The commissioners — Mike Slive of the Southeastern Conference, John Swofford of the Atlantic Coast Conference and Bob Bowlsby of the Big 12 Conference — say the needs of those leagues, along with the Big Ten and the Pac-12, are so different from the rest of Division I that they may need their own set of rules.

When it comes to football, however, the commissioners of the other five conferences in the Football Bowl Subdivision — the Mid-American, the American Athletic, the Mountain West, the Sun Belt and Conference USA — do not seem eager to see a split.

“We are business partners; that C.F.P. contract will be honored, or there will be tremendous legal implications,” Craig Thompson, the commissioner of the Mountain West, said, referring to the new college football playoff. “We’re not going anywhere.”

Interesting development.

[MplsBison]

Can you give me a link to the article? It is a fair representation of what was happening in the late 70's and 80's and I'd like to keep it in my archives.

Appalachian played a major role ending the NCAA controlling TV rights. In September of 1983 nationally ranked Georgia was playing South Carolina but the NCAA TV contract mandated a Southern Conference exposure and the App and The Citadel was televised in the Southeast US. The next week Georgia joined Oklahoma in filing suit against the NCAA to sell their own TV rights.

It was post #279.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22988242/college-football-postseason-formats-evolve-but-catalyst-remains-same

[MplsBison]

This statement is idiotic, and untrue. I would bet there would be no plus-one playoff in FBS had the FCS not had a playoff system. As for the second half, the author falls into the trap that says that the FCS playoffs' main sins are the fact that it's run by the NCAA and that it's not profitable - which would then disqualify nearly all of the NCAA championships as being a waste of time, in the author's eyes.

So it was transformative, period, and the fact that it wasn't "financially rewarding" isn't the main purpose of the championship, nor should it be.

The motivation and inspiration for the FBS playoff was half the NFL playoffs and half March Madness.

Most people making decisions at that level probably don't even realize that FCS, like DII and DIII, have a playoff.

[MplsBison]

The Big Boys will get what they want.
The NCAA needs the SEC, ACC, B1G, B12, and PAC12. THE NCAA's primary revenue source is March Madness (more specifically Men's March Madness), and without the 5 conferences listed, March Madness would be of little interest to fans outside the northeast. I can't think of a single big-time basketball school in the deep South that isn't in the SEC or ACC (Winthrop, Davidson, CofC and FGCU are all mid-majors).
Non-football sports for the most part could be played in a new league. Travel expenses might be higher, and scheduling for less common sports such as hockey and lacrosse could be problematic.
The bottom line is that a break-up would be inconvenient for the Big Boys, but devastating to the NCAA.

The new playoff system will pay every mid-major school $1,000,000 every year. Money they have in no way earned. It is a payoff plain and simple. Add in 1, frequently 2, money games a year, and mid-majors are getting $3,000,000 a year from the Big Boys.

The bottom line is that FCS and non-football conferences for the most part need the March Madness money. The Gang of 5 need the payout and the money games. The Big Boys will get whatever they want. They may throw a few pennies at FCS and offer the Gang of 5 a face-saving deal. They won't leave the NCAA and there will not be a plethora of lawsuits.

On the contrary, it's because of the intrinsic characteristic of March Madness (ie, David vs. Goliath) that will keep the big five from leaving the NCAA altogether.

True, they don't "need" March Madness in the sense of the money they get from tournament credits pales in comparison with football money. But they won't kill the single most important event in college athletics just to get their way in football.

That you can etch in stone.

[MplsBison]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/sports/ncaafootball/playoff-contract-is-standing-in-way-of-commissioners-considering-a-split.html?_r=1&



Interesting development.

Thompson is not someone they want to be messing around with. Not when his member schools can so easily unleash their respective state senators.

For example, why couldn't Wyoming's delegation go to Washington and do exactly what Utah's did previously? (which in turn was the impetus that cracked the BCS bowls open for the MWC, WAC and MAC teams participating) Or Nevada's. Or Hawaii's. Or New Mexico's. etc.


On the other hand, I don't see why the big five being in the Tier I sub-division and the group of five being in the Tier II sub-division necessarily, automatically nullifies the agreement signed between the 10 conferences nor prohibits games between Tier I and Tier II schools

In fact, that could well be the be the solution they're looking for all along. It then provides the means to end "FCS money games" by disallowing games between Tier I sub-division teams and Tier III sub-division teams, while not completely shutting FCS out by still allowing Tier II vs. Tier III games.

And any FCS conference that wants to opt up from Tier III to Tier II can do so...but won't be involved in the 10 conference TV deal, perhaps until the next round of negotiations if at all.

[AppMan]

It was post #279.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22988242/college-football-postseason-formats-evolve-but-catalyst-remains-same

Thanks!

[AppMan]

Thompson is not someone they want to be messing around with. Not when his member schools can so easily unleash their respective state senators.

For example, why couldn't Wyoming's delegation go to Washington and do exactly what Utah's did previously? (which in turn was the impetus that cracked the BCS bowls open for the MWC, WAC and MAC teams participating) Or Nevada's. Or Hawaii's. Or New Mexico's. etc.


On the other hand, I don't see why the big five being in the Tier I sub-division and the group of five being in the Tier II sub-division necessarily, automatically nullifies the agreement signed between the 10 conferences nor prohibits games between Tier I and Tier II schools

In fact, that could well be the be the solution they're looking for all along. It then provides the means to end "FCS money games" by disallowing games between Tier I sub-division teams and Tier III sub-division teams, while not completely shutting FCS out by still allowing Tier II vs. Tier III games.

And any FCS conference that wants to opt up from Tier III to Tier II can do so...but won't be involved in the 10 conference TV deal, perhaps until the next round of negotiations if at all.

This is just as much about the money for the G5 guys as it is the P5 conferences. I think the solution is a simple as the P5 signing a contract with the G5 giving them a hefty cut out of the playoff the next 12 years, securing a network to telecast a G5 playoff and guarantee continued games between the two divisions. If I were a G5 commissioner I'd agree to letting the big boys make decisions on stipends and other governance issues, but require the entire FBS vote on things like scholarship numbers. The FCS should also be allowed to vote on their own issues without interference from the FBS.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This is just as much about the money for the G5 guys as it is the P5 conferences. I think the solution is a simple as the P5 signing a contract with the G5 giving them a hefty cut out of the playoff the next 12 years, securing a network to telecast a G5 playoff and guarantee continued games between the two divisions. If I were a G5 commissioner I'd agree to letting the big boys make decisions on stipends and other governance issues, but require the entire FBS vote on things like scholarship numbers. The FCS should also be allowed to vote on their own issues without interference from the FBS.

Gee, that sounds nothing at all like the deal the FBS schools gave the FCS schools back in 1977.

[walliver]

This is just as much about the money for the G5 guys as it is the P5 conferences. I think the solution is a simple as the P5 signing a contract with the G5 giving them a hefty cut out of the playoff the next 12 years, securing a network to telecast a G5 playoff and guarantee continued games between the two divisions. If I were a G5 commissioner I'd agree to letting the big boys make decisions on stipends and other governance issues, but require the entire FBS vote on things like scholarship numbers. The FCS should also be allowed to vote on their own issues without interference from the FBS.

The whole purpose of this talk is for the Big 5 to keep as much of their money as possible. Why would they want to give all this money away for 12 years?

You may want the SEC to give millions of dollars annually to App State, but the SEC doesn't want to do that.

I haven't seen the actual Football Playoff contract, I doubt anyone here has seen that document. The Big 5 will fulfill the letter of the contract. However, once the Big Boys offer cash, the divide between the Big Boys and wannabees will widen. The Big Boys in many cases are not happy being limited to 85 scholarships, and gray-shirts are common, they may not want the wannabees limiting their scholarships.

And, for what it's worth, ratings of a G5 playoff would only marginally be higher than FCS playoffs. Even then, I suspect a lot of schools would chose a lesser bowl over playoffs (especially C-USA, MWC, and AAC teams).

I wish App success in FBS, and I think App fans will be happy as long as they keep realistic expectations such as occasional SunBelt Championships and Bowl Games.

[MplsBison]

I think it's a lot easier than you guys are making it out to be, AppMan and walliver:

- there already is an agreement between the Big Five and the Group of Five: the new 12 year contract that the 10 conferences just signed. It gives the G5 something like $86M per year, split up three different ways. Don't think the exact details have been released, but the dollar figure has been.

- even though the B5 and G5 could be in different sub-divisions, there could still be an unlimited number of games between those two sub-divisions allowed as well as allowing both sub-division teams to participate in bowl games vs. each other

- that means the playoff selection committee could still rank the best 2nd sub-division teams in with the first sub-division teams and per the agreement the major bowls would still have to provide the highest ranked champion from the G5 conferences an automatic slot in one of the bowls (even though they'd be from the 2nd sub-division)

- each sub-division could then make their own rules. Just keep title IX in mind when you talk about the first sub-division (or the second, for that matter) increasing scholarships willy-nilly.

- the FCS could simply be ported over to the third sub-division, maintaining the same playoff

- however, I'd like to think that the top FCS conferences could apply to opt up to the second sub-division. they would simply be exempt from the deal that the B5 and G5 conferences already agreed to.

- finally, it would be up to the NCAA to determine how many Division I playoff tournaments they'd like to administer and which sub-division teams can participate. I could potentially see separate tournaments for the 2nd and 3rd sub-divisions or perhaps one big playoff that teams from both sub-divisions could participate in.

[AppMan]

Your scenarios border on absurd.

Earth to App Man. The CAA is alive and kicking with stronger cohesion than the Sun Belt and has additional schools who would come aboard if asked.

Yes sir! Alive and kicking! Kicking and screaming to stay relevant!

http://shadesof48.com/?p=365

[SUPharmacist]

The motivation and inspiration for the FBS playoff was half the NFL playoffs and half March Madness.

Most people making decisions at that level probably don't even realize that FCS, like DII and DIII, have a playoff.

While I don't think FCS was a driving force for an FBS playoff, I find it highly unlikely they would not do there research on other college playoffs, and be aware of how FCS works.