The Showdown Regarding Division I Governance

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-showdown-regarding-division-i.html

At the heart of the "Big 5" split talk is an old argument about NCAA governance. I talk briefly about the history of governance in the NCAA, and a potential way around all this sabre-rattling about separating into a new division that gives everyone what they say they want.

[walliver]

A "football federation" would not get around the Title IX issues. If they pay football players, they will need to pay women also. This will require a new division, not a subdivision or federation.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

A "football federation" would not get around the Title IX issues. If they pay football players, they will need to pay women also. This will require a new division, not a subdivision or federation.

The Title IX issues are at an institutional level, not at an NCAA level. It's the school needs to make sure, if certain male students get other benefits, the "other benefits" have to be equaled on the women's side somehow. How that's done is up to the schools, and if they want to, say, have women's golf get stipends, they could lobby the "women's golf federation" to include them.

[DFW HOYA]

A "football federation" would not get around the Title IX issues. If they pay football players, they will need to pay women also.

Not necessarily. If these schools summarily licensed their names to non-profit corporations, i.e.,. "Ohio State Football LLC" it would not be within the university and therfore not subject to any Title IX issues.

[danefan]

Not necessarily. If these schools summarily licensed their names to non-profit corporations, i.e.,. "Ohio State Football LLC" it would not be within the university and therfore not subject to any Title IX issues.

How could the Ohio State Football LLC be a non-profit entity? Plus, I think you'd have an argument that Title IX should look through LLC's like that for purposes of Title IX.

[SUPharmacist]

Not necessarily. If these schools summarily licensed their names to non-profit corporations, i.e.,. "Ohio State Football LLC" it would not be within the university and therfore not subject to any Title IX issues.

Wouldn't that cause issues with the funding they get through the university or state for public schools. What I would like to see is a football minor league for these athletes that aren't interested in college. Obviously, the big time programs aren't willing to give up what they have, but it would make a lot of sense to remove this profit question.

[DFW HOYA]

How could the Ohio State Football LLC be a non-profit entity? Plus, I think you'd have an argument that Title IX should look through LLC's like that for purposes of Title IX.

Title IX does not apply to charities, only educational institutions, that's the law. Title IX is bad law to begin with, but no one wants to be politically incorrect and say so.

"Ohio State Football LLC" could be seen as a non-profit if it reinvests its funds per the rules on charitable organizations, like a lot of nonprofits that bring in a lot of money, from the Red Cross to the NRA. In theory, they could remit any excess revenues as a gift to Ohio State (or presumably wherevever they chose) to maintain that status. Where it gets messier than charitable issues is the concept of wages, benefits and the like.

The idea of a university branded product run by an independent corporation is not new. Many of the leading college newspapers are independent of their schools but benefit from being associated with it. These papers pay its student editors and no one cries Title IX.

[danefan]

Title IX does not apply to charities, only educational institutions, that's the law. Title IX is bad law to begin with, but no one wants to be politically incorrect and say so.

"Ohio State Football LLC" could be seen as a non-profit if it reinvests its funds per the rules on charitable organizations, like a lot of nonprofits that bring in a lot of money, from the Red Cross to the NRA. In theory, they could remit any excess revenues as a gift to Ohio State (or presumably wherevever they chose) to maintain that status. Where it gets messier than charitable issues is the concept of wages, benefits and the like.

The idea of a university branded product run by an independent corporation is not new. Many of the leading college newspapers are independent of their schools but benefit from being associated with it. These papers pay its student editors and no one cries Title IX.

I agree that Title IX applies only to educational institutions.

And that if the organization is operating solely for the benefit of another non-profit, that it will probably qualify as a non-profit. But how does that structure get funds to the players outside of title IX?

[DFW HOYA]

I agree that Title IX applies only to educational institutions. And that if the organization is operating solely for the benefit of another non-profit, that it will probably qualify as a non-profit. But how does that structure get funds to the players outside of title IX?

Not arguing for it, but here's a scenario:

For example purposes only, an aspiring high school grad, we'll call him "John Manziel", gets a job with "Fightin' Texas Aggie Football LLC". FTAF LLC pays "Manziel" a salary and a supplementary grant which can be applied to tuition at a nearby school if he chooses. If "Manziel" enrolls at A&M, fine--he's a student whose financial aid comes from an outside source like a lot of regular kids get. If he does not enroll, he is still an employee at FTAF because under the new governance of the future, college enrollment is encouraged not required to play on what could be labeled a "premier league" team. It's as if a web developer or a musician is attending school but has a better paying job on the side. Still, no Title IX issue because Texas A&M is not advancing any scholarship funds to "Manziel" as a condition of enrollment.

[danefan]

Not arguing for it, but here's a scenario:

For example purposes only, an aspiring high school grad, we'll call him "John Manziel", gets a job with "Fightin' Texas Aggie Football LLC". FTAF LLC pays "Manziel" a salary and a supplementary grant which can be applied to tuition at a nearby school if he chooses. If "Manziel" enrolls at A&M, fine--he's a student whose financial aid comes from an outside source like a lot of regular kids get. If he does not enroll, he is still an employee at FTAF because under the new governance of the future, college enrollment is encouraged not required to play on what could be labeled a "premier league" team. It's as if a web developer or a musician is attending school but has a better paying job on the side. Still, no Title IX issue because Texas A&M is not advancing any scholarship funds to "Manziel" as a condition of enrollment.

Good example. I think that organization may run into a problem getting 501(c)(3) status though. Tough to say the profits of the organization you described are not inuring to the benefit of the private individual (Manziel in your example).

[NoDak 4 Ever]

How could the Ohio State Football LLC be a non-profit entity? Plus, I think you'd have an argument that Title IX should look through LLC's like that for purposes of Title IX.

If instead of a profit they just had retained earnings in the form of net assets they could be considered a non-profit.

[danefan]

If instead of a profit they just had retained earnings in the form of net assets they could be considered a non-profit.

Depends on how the IRS views that. Inuring for the benefit of a private individual is facts and circumstances test. I'm sure they'll view it fairly though just like they do all 501(c)(3) applications. ;)

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Depends on how the IRS views that. Inuring for the benefit of a private individual is facts and circumstances test. I'm sure they'll view it fairly though just like they do all 501(c)(3) applications. ;)

For an organization such as that, they can just invoke some kind of wholly owned corporation with shareholders that never pays a dividend like the Packers or something.

[MplsBison]

There's a very simple way to give everyone what they want....in football. Because let's face it, football is the only sport that applies here.

They're not going to split up march madness into two tournaments (one for big football schools and the other for the rest of DI) and the rest of the sports aren't worth the effort to split up DI. (there's maybe a few niche, geographically-based benefits to giving players extra money in their scholarships for a few of the other sports, as a means of gaining recruiting advantage - but like I said, not worth the effort for splitting up DI in that sport)

Here it is (three sub-division approach):

- 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.

[MplsBison]

Not arguing for it, but here's a scenario:

For example purposes only, an aspiring high school grad, we'll call him "John Manziel", gets a job with "Fightin' Texas Aggie Football LLC". FTAF LLC pays "Manziel" a salary and a supplementary grant which can be applied to tuition at a nearby school if he chooses. If "Manziel" enrolls at A&M, fine--he's a student whose financial aid comes from an outside source like a lot of regular kids get. If he does not enroll, he is still an employee at FTAF because under the new governance of the future, college enrollment is encouraged not required to play on what could be labeled a "premier league" team. It's as if a web developer or a musician is attending school but has a better paying job on the side. Still, no Title IX issue because Texas A&M is not advancing any scholarship funds to "Manziel" as a condition of enrollment.

In that case, you'd actually want the players NOT enrolled in the 'namesake' school. Because if say, 90% of the team's players were actually attending Ohio State...that seems like reasonable circumstance to legally extend the definition of the university onto this organization, which was formed solely to bypass the law.

Likewise, you wouldn't want the coaches or staff to be employed by or enrolled at the school.

Further likewise, you probably wouldn't want any of the facilities that the organization uses to be owned by the school, even if rent is being paid.

ETC.


Otherwise, they could potentially change the law from this:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance..."

to this:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity (OR any private organization substantially affiliated with such a program or activity) receiving federal financial assistance ..."


Pretty easy to come up with some semi-ambiguous language that will give them the freedom to reign in your obvious trick.

[DFW HOYA]

In that case, you'd actually want the players NOT enrolled in the 'namesake' school. Because if say, 90% of the team's players were actually attending Ohio State...that seems like reasonable circumstance to legally extend the definition of the university onto this organization, which was formed solely to bypass the law.

I understand your point, but back to the college newspaper analogy: the "talent" attends the school, the facilities are in many cases leased by the university to the organization, and in some cases the journalism department provides educational support. And yet no one demands Title IX proportionality among editors or staff because the paper is legally separate from the school.

[dbackjon]

I understand your point, but back to the college newspaper analogy: the "talent" attends the school, the facilities are in many cases leased by the university to the organization, and in some cases the journalism department provides educational support. And yet no one demands Title IX proportionality among editors or staff because the paper is legally separate from the school.

Or maybe there is no history of discrimination and lack of opportunity for women there??

There is no "Women's newspaper" or women's editor. Your analogy is flawed.

[DFW HOYA]

Or maybe there is no history of discrimination and lack of opportunity for women there??

There is no "Women's newspaper" or women's editor. Your analogy is flawed.

Title IX applies regardless of past history--it is not a means of redress.

The argument was that it only applies to educational institutions taking federal money, even if many educational institutions (high schools, for-profits, etc.) are ignored by its proponents.

[ElonFirefighter]

Depends on how the IRS views that. Inuring for the benefit of a private individual is facts and circumstances test. I'm sure they'll view it fairly though just like they do all 501(c)(3) applications. ;)

Well as long as they call themselves Democrats the IRS will not care

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Oh good, another thread where people can bitch about politics and Title IX. Not enough of those.

[danefan]

Oh good, another thread where people can bitch about politics and Title IX. Not enough of those.

Sorry. It was a joke. I opened a can of worms.

[dbackjon]

Sorry. It was a joke. I opened a can of worms.

Bad Dog!

Now go sit in the corner

[citdog]

Oh good, another thread where people can bitch about politics and Title IX. Not enough of those.


Don't you have supper to fix and diapers to change before 'the man of the house' gets home?

[MplsBison]

Title IX applies regardless of past history--it is not a means of redress.

The argument was that it only applies to educational institutions taking federal money, even if many educational institutions (high schools, for-profits, etc.) are ignored by its proponents.

But the counter-argument is that the law could very easily be extended to non-educational organizations (private or public) which are "significantly affiliated" with such educational programs/activities receiving federal funding.

And to combat that, you gave an example of a private organization that is unquestionably "significantly affiliated" with the educational program/activity receiving federal funding, yet has no record of title IX infractions (claimed or otherwise).


But dbjon's excellent point is...just because there's no record of infractions doesn't mean there couldn't be. I don't see why there couldn't be. You could then say "well, because title IX doesn't apply per the letter of the law" and in which case I would reply "yes, but the law could very easily be extended to organizations..."


You get the idea. Somewhere the cycle has to break.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Back on topic. Sports federations could be done without Title IX explicitly being invoked against their creation. I also continue to believe the "sports federations" concept will be more palatable to the membership than either a division of FBS teams (which would have problems filling out schedules, and could threaten March Madness, or require a major rethink of what Divisions really are) or a new football superdivision (still would have problems defining the parameters of the subdivision, will have issues finding teams to play, possible lawsuit from Little 5).

It might even keep the MAC and Sun Belt grouped with the other FBS schools.

[DFW HOYA]

Back on topic. Sports federations could be done without Title IX explicitly being invoked against their creation. I also continue to believe the "sports federations" concept will be more palatable to the membership than either a division of FBS teams (which would have problems filling out schedules, and could threaten March Madness, or require a major rethink of what Divisions really are) or a new football superdivision (still would have problems defining the parameters of the subdivision, will have issues finding teams to play, possible lawsuit from Little 5).

The issue of scheduling is a huge threat out there, and one which many I-AA schools have frankly benefited from larger schools' lack of disclipline in the matter.

If the five top conferences committed to a common scheduling bureau that would be tasked with scheduling open non-conference dates within its members, it would effectively close off the need for I-AA participation. Per an earlier example, if TCU played Grambling in week one but the scheduling group arranged a game (and TV rights) with Mississippi State instead, both schools keep the money "in the cluib", so to speak, and the strength of schedule is increased by Miss. State vs Grambling. There are enough open dates out there that if the top schools wanted to coordinate non-conference schedules within a group of 60 schools, they could.

That doesn't mean that schools like Lehigh or Delaware could never play I-A schools, only that access to the top conferences would be much more limited and more opportunities would follow at the AAC, MWC, MAC, and Sun Belt level with schools less able to get upper tier schools in games.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The issue of scheduling is a huge threat out there, and one which many I-AA schools have frankly benefited from larger schools' lack of disclipline in the matter.

If the five top conferences committed to a common scheduling bureau that would be tasked with scheduling open non-conference dates within its members, it would effectively close off the need for I-AA participation. Per an earlier example, if TCU played Grambling in week one but the scheduling group arranged a game (and TV rights) with Mississippi State instead, both schools keep the money "in the cluib", so to speak, and the strength of schedule is increased by Miss. State vs Grambling. There are enough open dates out there that if the top schools wanted to coordinate non-conference schedules within a group of 60 schools, they could.

That doesn't mean that schools like Lehigh or Delaware could never play I-A schools, only that access to the top conferences would be much more limited and more opportunities would follow at the AAC, MWC, MAC, and Sun Belt level with schools less able to get upper tier schools in games.

The idea of "schedule strength" by keeping all the Big 5 schools groups together is a statistical anomaly created by a lack of head-to-head common games. It is impossible to create an RPI-like index of "schedule strength" like there is in basketball because a data set of 11-12 games, with only 3-4 out-of-conference games, does not allow a fair comparison.

Additionally, if the "Big 5" schools only scheduled themselves, someone would have to be home, and someone would have to be away. Alabama would lose the gate from 2 home games a season, and pay more for the privilege of doing so. So would the economy of the surrounding area, too, possible losing seven figures of income. TV money, while significant, does not cover the entire economic advantage to the big schools of having the home games.

Which is why the B1G will willingly overturn their ban, probably in a couple of years, over playing FCS schools. That's after they've moved to the "sports federations" concept of NCAA governance.

[DFW HOYA]

Re: sprots federations, are you concerned with unlevel playing fields as it relates to competition? For example, colleges participate in lacrosse at the NCAA, MCLA, or NCLL and there is a huge difference among the three. Or would it matter where they played?

[walliver]

"Schedule strength" would not be as big an issue if the Big 5 had their own federation/subdivision/division. In fact, about the only time it would come into play would be deciding whether the ACC or Big XII got the 4th playoff spot (and that would probably be fixed by a play-in game or expanding the playoffs to 6-8 teams). Even in that case, they may be committed to the new playoff format for a number of years (it all depends on exactly what is in the contract).

The current talk about "schedule strength" is an effort to effectively reserve all 4 playoff spots for the Big 5 as well as increase the chances of the B1G or SEC getting two bids.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Re: sprots federations, are you concerned with unlevel playing fields as it relates to competition? For example, colleges participate in lacrosse at the NCAA, MCLA, or NCLL and there is a huge difference among the three. Or would it matter where they played?

IMO, the NCAA would only be concerned with the play under its umbrella. The MCLA (no GPA requirements) and the NCLL (club-level lacrosse) still, as they do today, look towards the NCAA in regards to rules and things of that nature. If the MCLA and NCLL want to continue play as they are, fine, but one of the NCAA's missions surely is to have MCLA programs come and play under the NCAA umbrella under their rules.

This also shows the value of sports federations outside football and men's basketball. It makes the NCAA more the standard-setters in each individual sport rather than operating as a monolithic organization that tries to legislate all their rules to hit every single sport.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

"Schedule strength" would not be as big an issue if the Big 5 had their own federation/subdivision/division. In fact, about the only time it would come into play would be deciding whether the ACC or Big XII got the 4th playoff spot (and that would probably be fixed by a play-in game or expanding the playoffs to 6-8 teams). Even in that case, they may be committed to the new playoff format for a number of years (it all depends on exactly what is in the contract).

The current talk about "schedule strength" is an effort to effectively reserve all 4 playoff spots for the Big 5 as well as increase the chances of the B1G or SEC getting two bids.

At a conference level, yes. But at an individual school level, it's very different.

What does Alabama or LSU care about "schedule strength"? They'll get it anyway in SEC play. They care more about home games and revenue. FCS games provide home games with the best profit margin.

What does Indiana or Illinois care about "schedule strength"? They maybe qualify for the playoffs once in twenty years, if that, and in the meantime they need home games, and Indiana State and Southern Illinois are the cheapest home games around.

What does USC or North Carolina care about "schedule strength"? They have Notre Dame on the schedule, and that's all the "schedule strength" they need - why open yourself up to multiple OOC losses by also scheduling, say, a home-and-home Iowa, that also cost more than FCS games and denies you a home game?

I am not at all convinced that the Big 5 would do away with Little 5 and FCS home games even if they went to their own superdivision. Their individual membership is much more divided on this than people currently believe.

[MplsBison]

I gave the correct answer in post 14. Three subdivisions, but unlimited number of games allowed between Big Five and Little Five and Little Five and FCS sub-divisions, but disallowing games between Big Five and FCS sub-divisions.

Everyone wins, with the minor exception of those very few FCS teams who legitimately are surviving on $300k/game payments or who legitimately have a chance at beating some Big Five teams and look forward to that challenge. But for the latter, suck it up and schedule tough games against other FCS teams. For the former, tough break...maybe you shouldn't have football if you can't afford it or get the students to pay more for it?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I gave the correct answer in post 14. Three subdivisions, but unlimited number of games allowed between Big Five and Little Five and Little Five and FCS sub-divisions, but disallowing games between Big Five and FCS sub-divisions.

Wow, this sounds less complex than sport-specific federations... xrolleyesx

[MplsBison]

Wow, this sounds less complex than sport-specific federations... xrolleyesx

There are two sub-divisions now and zero "federations", whatever that even means. It's probably a term you made up, but I wouldn't know because I didn't read your blog post. If you have something to say, just say it in an AGS post. More people would read it anyway.

Going from two sub-divisions to three is nothing. And it gives the new tenants of the top sub-division exactly what they want, control of how football rules are made and enforced and affecting just that group of schools. Meanwhile they lose nothing by being able to play sub-division II teams as many times during the season as they want while prohibiting games against sub-division III teams. And they already signed the TV deal with the Little Five anyway.

Yet to see how that's not exactly the correct solution. Just give them some time to figure it out for themselves, they will.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

There are two sub-divisions now and zero "federations", whatever that even means. It's probably a term you made up, but I wouldn't know because I didn't read your blog post. If you have something to say, just say it in an AGS post. More people would read it anyway.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130722/big-12-bob-bowlsby-ncaa/


Bowlsby also suggested the creation of federations within the NCAA to make unique rules to govern each individual sport. This is intriguing but complex.


Going from two sub-divisions to three is nothing. And it gives the new tenants of the top sub-division exactly what they want, control of how football rules are made and enforced and affecting just that group of schools. Meanwhile they lose nothing by being able to play sub-division II teams as many times during the season as they want while prohibiting games against sub-division III teams. And they already signed the TV deal with the Little Five anyway.

Yet to see how that's not exactly the correct solution. Just give them some time to figure it out for themselves, they will.

But doing what you say will not allow them to pass the stipend legislation, which is what the Big 5 ultimately want. They can't do that without the federation concept, because even with their own subdivision they'll be an extreme minority in "Division I".

[MplsBison]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130722/big-12-bob-bowlsby-ncaa/





But doing what you say will not allow them to pass the stipend legislation, which is what the Big 5 ultimately want. They can't do that without the federation concept, because even with their own subdivision they'll be an extreme minority in "Division I".

Not only from your own link...but here is the full paragraph from which you quoted two sentences!!!


At issue is Division IV, or, probably more realistically, a new subdivision within Division I containing the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC and possibly the American Athletic Conference. Currently, Division I is subdivided into the FBS and FCS in football. Let's call the proposed new subdivision the F$S. Bowlsby also suggested the creation of federations within the NCAA to make unique rules to govern each individual sport. This is intriguing but complex. The simpler solution is a new subdivision for football, which is where the greatest differences between haves and have-nots exist.


Giving the Big Five their own sub-division, but then basically keeping the relationship between the top two sub-divisions the same as it exists now in the single FBS subdivision, is the crux of why my plan works so well -- it precisely because it gives them exactly what they want: the ability to hold a vote only among sub-division I members on super scholarships for football while at the same time keeping the Little Five in the loop, to the extent that they are now.


As I correctly explained, football is the only sport that needs super scholarships. Only men's basketball has an argument for it, but never at the expense of March Madness. So that's that

No more voting by the whole Division I membership to hamstring the big football schools in that sport.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Giving the Big Five their own sub-division, but then basically keeping the relationship between the top two sub-divisions the same as it exists now in the single FBS subdivision, is the crux of why my plan works so well -- it precisely because it gives them exactly what they want: the ability to hold a vote only among sub-division I members on super scholarships for football while at the same time keeping the Little Five in the loop, to the extent that they are now.

Making a brand-new subdivision cuts the "Little 5" out of everything, most notably but not limited to playoff access and revenue.

[MplsBison]

Making a brand-new subdivision cuts the "Little 5" out of everything, most notably but not limited to playoff access and revenue.

Exactly wrong.

As I correctly explained, the deal is signed between 10 conferences. End


The deal has nothing to do with sub-divisions. So long as the NCAA allowed sub-division I and II teams to compete against each other in the postseason, it does nothing to the deal. Therefore, the sub-division II conferences that signed up for the deal get all the money that's coming to them and would have one automatic slot in the five major bowls for one of their champions.

You don't have a single leg to stand on if you can't prove otherwise.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The deal has nothing to do with sub-divisions. So long as the NCAA allowed sub-division I and II teams to compete against each other in the postseason, it does nothing to the deal. Therefore, the sub-division II conferences that signed up for the deal get all the money that's coming to them and would have one automatic slot in the five major bowls for one of their champions.

So if Augustana signed a deal that they wanted to play Ohio State in a postseason bowl, this would be OK with everyone...

[DFW HOYA]

Sadly, a lot of college football fans thought the same about Northern Ilinois last season.

[walliver]

So if Augustana signed a deal that they wanted to play Ohio State in a postseason bowl, this would be OK with everyone...

It wouldn't bother me a bit.

I believe that any school should be allowed to participate at any level of college athletics.

If the Sisters of the Poor choose to sponsor 85 scholarships and play in a 200 seat stadium, how does that hurt Lehigh or Alabama?

The number and type of athletic scholarships should be the only real factor. The game is played on the field, not in the stands, and attendance should not be an issue.

In my example above, it would be incredibly stupid for the Sisters of the Poor to play FBS football in a 200 seat venue, so it isn't going to happen.

[walliver]

Sadly, a lot of college football fans thought the same about Northern Ilinois last season.

The new rules starting in 2014 effectively would have kept NIU out of the playoffs if applied last year.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It wouldn't bother me a bit.

I believe that any school should be allowed to participate at any level of college athletics.

If the Sisters of the Poor choose to sponsor 85 scholarships and play in a 200 seat stadium, how does that hurt Lehigh or Alabama?

The number and type of athletic scholarships should be the only real factor. The game is played on the field, not in the stands, and attendance should not be an issue.

In my example above, it would be incredibly stupid for the Sisters of the Poor to play FBS football in a 200 seat venue, so it isn't going to happen.

The problem with your proposal is that overnight they'd be 500-600+ D-I hoops programs and everyone else would drop their non-revenue sports to D-III.