Non I-AA Playoff Conference Question

[flexbone]

For My own understanding.
Why do Schools/Conferences who elect not to be associated with the Playoff system in D-AA remain in the Association?
I find it odd from both the D-AA and the Schools/Conferences.
There are many ways to look it - And I'm posting because I don't understand!
You would think the Assoc. would MAKE its members ALL participate.
Kind of a slap in the face when as an Assoc. they say they are having a playoff and your members say "I am not Participating".

[89Hen]

For My own understanding.
Why do Schools/Conferences who elect not to be associated with the Playoff system in D-AA remain in the Association?
By association I assume you mean I-AA and not the NCAA?

The main reason is they want to keep the rest of their sports in DI but don't want to spend the money on I-A football. However it is interesting to note...

The Ivy has a ban on post-season season play for football, but not for other sports... hypocritical.

The SWAC makes more money on their Classic games that conflict with the first week of the playoffs, but they won't admit that the other half of the equation is that they are 0-19 all time in the playoffs.

The NEC and PFL would love to play in the playoffs but haven't had a schedule good enough for serious consideration in the past (that's changing for some).

[flexbone]

1-AA correct not NCAA.
Why don't they, IVY, drop down a division for football.
My misunderstanding is if you were the 1-AA why wouldn't you say " Play by our rules, Playoffs, or go somewhere else."
With regard to the SWAC, I too believe they see the writing on the wall. They can't compete, BUT maybe if they jumped on board they could get better. I would have to think that not Competing for a Championship would be and is a deterrant recruiting wise.

[danefan]

Ivy league diploma for free (a lot of times) outweighs the ban on playoffs for most recruits.

[OL FU]

1-AA correct not NCAA.
Why don't they, IVY, drop down a division for football.
My misunderstanding is if you were the 1-AA why wouldn't you say " Play by our rules, Playoffs, or go somewhere else."
With regard to the SWAC, I too believe they see the writing on the wall. They can't compete, BUT maybe if they jumped on board they could get better. I would have to think that not Competing for a Championship would be and is a deterrant recruiting wise.

89 said:

The main reason is they want to keep the rest of their sports in DI but don't want to spend the money on I-A football. However it is interesting to note...

They have to play division I football ( if they are going to play football) to play division one in other sports.

[flexbone]

Ivy league diploma for free (a lot of times) outweighs the ban on playoffs for most recruits.
I was specifically meaning SWAC Conference

[danefan]

I was specifically meaning SWAC Conference

Gotcha.:)

[89Hen]

Why don't they, IVY, drop down a division for football.
My misunderstanding is if you were the 1-AA why wouldn't you say " Play by our rules, Playoffs, or go somewhere else."
There is no I-AA governing body per se, it's all part of the NCAA. The NCAA has a rule that your sports must all compete at the same level (except maybe ice hockey? - help me out NE guys) so the Ivy cannot decide to move football to DII or III. But even if they could, I'd remind you that DII and DIII have playoffs too, which the Ivy would not participate in either, so why should they move?

[flexbone]

89 said:


They have to play division I football ( if they are going to play football) to play division one in other sports.

I misunderstood his post. But I understand now. that still doesn't explain why the 1-AA doesn't make them follow the guidelines adopted by the rest of 1-AA.

[GannonFan]

I think it's an interesting question though - what benefit is it for a team or a conference to be in I-AA and not be in the playoffs? Can they do the same thing as a I-A conference? And just let me preface all of this with the comment that I'm fine with the way things are and I don't really see a need or a desire for I-AA to change at all, just curious about why I-AA is the choice for some schools.

Thinking of the Ivy and SWAC (although technically the SWAC is playoff eligible and would play if invited and if no scheduling conflicts) - say those two conferences decide to go I-A instead. Why wouldn't they? The extra cost for scholarships (or equivalencies for the Ivy) could be easily dealt with by imposing conference restrictions keeping the number of scholarships in line with that they dole out currently. The attendance issues wouldn't be too much of an issue as both conferences get decent to great attendance, and besides, the NCAA does not appear to be serious about denying IA membership to schools that don't meet their minimum anyway. Are there any other things holding them back? Would there be a worry that competitively they wouldn't be able to keep up with most of IA?

As for the pros, they could schedule more IA teams as they themselves would be more marketable as IA schools. They could also then participate in bowl games that they can't do now - hey, you go .500 in IA and you're bowl eligible.

What is the driving force keeping conferences that don't use the I-AA playoff system in I-AA - what other reasons make this classification the better choice for those institutions?

[89Hen]

I was specifically meaning SWAC Conference
Like I said above, even if they could move down (which they can't) there are DII and DIII playoffs so you have the same predicament. However, I've been on record as saying I think the SWAC should move to I-A. With the exception of attendance for some of the programs, they are a better fit with them. Their Classics are more like bowl games than playoffs.

[flexbone]

There is no I-AA governing body per se, it's all part of the NCAA. The NCAA has a rule that your sports must all compete at the same level (except maybe ice hockey? - help me out NE guys) so the Ivy cannot decide to move football to DII or III. But even if they could, I'd remind you that DII and DIII have playoffs too, which the Ivy would not participate in either, so why should they move?

OK, well atleast it isn't like the IVY then is totally thumbing their noses at the rest of us. They are in it because they can't go anywhere else and are to SCARED to be apart of the sytem.

[MplsBison]

Say the Ivy schools all moved up to I-A.

Would they be allowed to have 0 scholarships like they do now?


I could see much more upside for the Ivy's in I-A. They'd probably even allow their teams to go to bowl games, since it wouldn't interfere with class (or whatever the bogus reason is).

[89Hen]

Thinking of the Ivy and SWAC (although technically the SWAC is playoff eligible and would play if invited and if no scheduling conflicts) - say those two conferences decide to go I-A instead. Why wouldn't they? The extra cost for scholarships (or equivalencies for the Ivy) could be easily dealt with by imposing conference restrictions keeping the number of scholarships in line with that they dole out currently. The attendance issues wouldn't be too much of an issue as both conferences get decent to great attendance, and besides, the NCAA does not appear to be serious about denying IA membership to schools that don't meet their minimum anyway.
Great minds again GF. You sure we're not brothers?

[AppGuy04]

What is the driving force keeping conferences that don't use the I-AA playoff system in I-AA - what other reasons make this classification the better choice for those institutions?

b/c they can't compete at the I-A level.

[89Hen]

b/c they can't compete at the I-A level.
The SWAC has enough teams that they could play all conference games and maybe one game against a MEAC team. They Ivy could stick to 11 games and play each other plus teams like Army, Vandy, Duke... and a PL still. That's the beauty of moving an entire conference instead of individual teams.

[flexbone]

Could a 1-A team decline an invitation to play in the CWS or NCAA Basketball Tourney, The NIT??

[89Hen]

Could a 1-A team decline an invitation to play in the CWS or NCAA Basketball Tourney, The NIT??
I'm sure they could, but nobody would. :twocents:

[AppGuy04]

The SWAC has enough teams that they could play all conference games and maybe one game against a MEAC team. They Ivy could stick to 11 games and play each other plus teams like Army, Vandy, Duke... and a PL still. That's the beauty of moving an entire conference instead of individual teams.

but the idea of a bowl game would be out of the question, no bowl would pick them with that schedule

[flexbone]

The SWAC has enough teams that they could play all conference games and maybe one game against a MEAC team. They Ivy could stick to 11 games and play each other plus teams like Army, Vandy, Duke... and a PL still. That's the beauty of moving an entire conference instead of individual teams.

It makes more sense then staying in 1-AA and being the Diseased Ugly Step Child no one asks to the Party, PLAYOFF Party that is.

Actually they don't even have to worry about a bowl bid if they elect to play that type of schedule. I'm not bashing your schedule format, I'm agreeing with it. It makes sense to just play within the conference and minor non-conference foes. The SWAC can still have its CLASSICS and the IVY can get back to the Books. And We get them out of our 1-AA.

[flexbone]

Lets make it happen. GET YOUR PEOPLE ON IT

[flexbone]

It brings me to another point which totally gripes me.
If you don't want to play with us in our little playoff system -
WHY DO WE INCLUDE THEM IN OUR POLLS??????????????????

Are they REALLY 1-AA Football Teams?

[89Hen]

I'm sure they could, but nobody would. :twocents:
Actually I'm absolutely sure now because I just remembered USC and Clemson deciding to punish their teams for a pre-game brawl by not allowing them to participate in bowl games two years ago when they were both eligible. It was a self-imposed penalty.

[danefan]

b/c they can't compete at the I-A level.

Either can Army though.

[AppGuy04]

Either can Army though.

well, there are alot of teams that should drop down, but thats a whole nother thread

[GannonFan]

It brings me to another point which totally gripes me.
If you don't want to play with us in our little playoff system -
WHY DO WE INCLUDE THEM IN OUR POLLS??????????????????

Are they REALLY 1-AA Football Teams?

Ok, just to be clear here, I totally divorce myself from Flexbone's position here - if you're in I-AA (participating in the playoffs or not) then you're fair game to be in the polls - the polls have absolutely nothing to do with the playoffs and they are two separate issues entirely. And I don't want or need to see any conferences (Ivy, SWAC, what have you) leave I-AA - it's fine the way it is. Just posing a question.

But getting back to the other point, yeah, I don't think the SWAC, Ivy, or any I-AA conference really, could move up en masse to I-A and expect to be "competitive", if what you mean by competitve is that they could compete for a national title. That's just silly, and completely disregarding of the stranglehold (both on and off the field) that the BCS conferences have on that title. But they could certainly be viable I-A conferences - really, the MAC, the WAC, and the Sun Belt are not big time conferences and why wouldn't a I-AA conference moving up not be able to compete with those?

Remember, I-A football isn't about playoffs or championships, it's about making money and playing bowl games - both the Ivy and the SWAC could prosper under that setup. Bowl games are about getting people in the stands and making money - the quality on the field is not the most important thing - how else to explain both Army and Navy (although Navy ain't terrible) having bowl deals locked up now? They are locked up because the bowls they'll play in (if they win enough to be eligible) are near military installations and they can guarantee to sell a bunch of tickets. I think both the Ivy and SWAC could draw fairly well to bowl games and would be desirable participants in that kind of a setup. And the competitive thing would get better - the more they are in bowl games, the more they are televised, the better the recruit that would come.

[GannonFan]

Great minds again GF. You sure we're not brothers?

We're just right too darn often - if one of us were wrong more then we wouldn't have this confusion. :)

[89Hen]

If you don't want to play with us in our little playoff system -
WHY DO WE INCLUDE THEM IN OUR POLLS??????????????????
I have no problem with them being in I-AA polls, HOWEVER, you will never see me put a SWAC or Ivy team in the top spots until they play and beat good teams from playoff conferences. Those spots are reserved for participating teams.

[YoUDeeMan]

Later this year, the "1-AA football" label will change to the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision". This change was done because the 1-AA football schools thought the 1-AA lable hurt them when recruiting in other D-1 sports.

For further clarity, shall we expect that the Ivy League schools will then be known as the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Non-Championship Subdivision", the SWAC will call itself the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Classic Championship Subdivision", and the Northeast and Pioneer conferences will be known as the NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Gridiron Classic But One Of Us Might Be Willing To Drop That Classic And Risk A Lawsuit If We Are Invited To The NCAA Football Championship Subdivision's Championship's Playoffs Subdivison?

[flexbone]

If you put them in the polls - their BEST team should be rank no higher than #17 or 1-AA needs to make a strong case to the Conferences that they get on board with the rest of us. If we are not allowing the Top 16 teams to compete for a Championship it discredits OUR Playoff system

[89Hen]

For further clarity, shall we expect that the Ivy League schools will then be known as the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Non-Championship Subdivision", the SWAC will call itself the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Classic Championship Subdivision", and the Northeast and Pioneer conferences will be known as the NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Gridiron Classic But One Of Us Might Be Willing To Drop That Classic And Risk A Lawsuit If We Are Invited To The NCAA Football Championship Subdivision's Championship's Playoffs Subdivison?
xlolx :bow: :thumbsup:

[89Hen]

If you put them in the polls - their BEST team should be rank no higher than #17 or 1-AA needs to make a strong case to the Conferences that they get on board with the rest of us. If we are not allowing the Top 16 teams to compete for a Championship it discredits OUR Playoff system
Not sure I agree there. Thanks to automatic qualifiers, we may not have the top 16 teams in the field anyway. I can see an Ivy or SWAC higher than 17, but not much higher than 10.

[aceinthehole]

There is no I-AA governing body per se, it's all part of the NCAA. The NCAA has a rule that your sports must all compete at the same level (except maybe ice hockey? - help me out NE guys) so the Ivy cannot decide to move football to DII or III. But even if they could, I'd remind you that DII and DIII have playoffs too, which the Ivy would not participate in either, so why should they move?

Actually, the NCAA rule is that a school must play all sports at the same division, however lower division schools (II and III) may play 1 men's and 1 women's sport at the D-I level (except basketball and football).

That is why John Hopskins can play D-I lacrosse. Other examples are SUNY-Oneonta playing D-I soccer, Alaska-Fairbainks playing D-I hockey, etc.

[LacesOut]

Could a 1-A team decline an invitation to play in the CWS or NCAA Basketball Tourney, The NIT??

Could have sworn that when Lou Holtz coached ND and one year when they were 8-3 or 7-4, he said that they don't deserve to go to a bowl game, and they declined the couple of offers they received.

Anyone remember this, or am I off the deep end?

[flexbone]

the polls have absolutely nothing to do with the playoffs and they are two separate issues entirely. And I don't want or need to see any conferences (Ivy, SWAC, what have you) leave I-AA - it's fine the way it is. Just posing a question.

I would disagree. But,First let me state that I don't want anyone leaving 1-AA.I just want them to conform with everyone else. 1-AA would be better if the SWAC and IVY were a part of the system.

My point regarding the polls is that to many they are a barometer for gauging your teams chances of getting into the playoffs.

If you explained our system to an uninformed person that the top 16 teams play in a tournament to decide the Champion, They would look to the Polls. If Harvard is #11.
"Why aren't they in the tournament".
"Oh well you see they want to be recognized as a member and they love to be ranked high, BUT they don't think its in their best interest to PROVE they deserve the ranking. So we let them keep their ranking but don't ask that they do what any other #11 rank team would normally do, Play in the PLAYOFFS."
If we don't rank 'em, maybe we will get them to crap or get off the pot!!

[89Hen]

Actually, the NCAA rule is that a school must play all sports at the same division, however lower division schools (II and III) may play 1 men's and 1 women's sport at the D-I level (except basketball and football).

That is why John Hopskins can play D-I lacrosse. Other examples are SUNY-Oneonta playing D-I soccer, Alaska-Fairbainks playing D-I hockey, etc.
Thank you for the clarification. :bow:

BTW, if they want to have a men's team up, do they have to have a women's team too (Title IX)?

[DetroitFlyer]

The PFL is kind of following the Ivy League. We have never applied for an automatic bid to the playoffs like the NEC. Our "esteemed" commish has said that it is unfair to line our boys up with full scholly teams. Odd how her beloved Gateway, fully funded teams play PFL teams.... Maybe the difference would be, if we ever received an at large bid, I do not think we would turn it down.... GO SAN DIEGO!!!

[UAalum72]

Could have sworn that when Lou Holtz coached ND and one year when they were 8-3 or 7-4, he said that they don't deserve to go to a bowl game, and they declined the couple of offers they received.

Anyone remember this, or am I off the deep end?
Notre Dame didn't play ANY bowl games until about 1970.

Marquette about 1972 was the last team to turn down an NCAA tournament invite to play in the NIT. NCAA has since put in a rule that Division I basketball teams MUST accept tournament bids rather than play anywhere else.

[RabidRabbit]

I misunderstood his post. But I understand now. that still doesn't explain why the 1-AA doesn't make them follow the guidelines adopted by the rest of 1-AA.

All schools within I-AA follow the guidelines of the NCAA. But to be clear, I-AA is the "and all other non-BCS football schools". If your school chooses to fund greater than 63 scholarships for football, you are a BCS school, and as such compete on that level. If you are division I in basketball and you fund 63 or less scholarships for football, you are a I-AA school.

All are eligible for the playoffs. However, conferences have made decisions regarding the playoffs, to not participate. They can, within the guidelines make that decision. SWAC, Ivy have decided to go without for differing reasons. NEC, Pioneer, MAAC have yet to demonstrate that they are competitive with the rest of I-AA, although NEC is raising eyebrows this year. The Gridiron Classic provides an opportunity for these non/low schollie programs to play post season.

[flexbone]

All schools within I-AA follow the guidelines of the NCAA. But to be clear, I-AA is the "and all other non-BCS football schools". If your school chooses to fund greater than 63 scholarships for football, you are a BCS school, and as such compete on that level. If you are division I in basketball and you fund 63 or less scholarships for football, you are a I-AA school.

All are eligible for the playoffs. However, conferences have made decisions regarding the playoffs, to not participate. They can, within the guidelines make that decision. SWAC, Ivy have decided to go without for differing reasons. NEC, Pioneer, MAAC have yet to demonstrate that they are competitive with the rest of I-AA, although NEC is raising eyebrows this year. The Gridiron Classic provides an opportunity for these non/low schollie programs to play post season.

Good post. Thanks for the info.
I guess there is no use in crying over this.
The bottom line is that it is their decision and they DONT want it.
The IVY league and SWAC have to benefit and they don't think they will.

[MplsBison]

but the idea of a bowl game would be out of the question, no bowl would pick them with that schedule

Who ever said bowl games were about picking the 2 most competitive teams available to you?

It's about putting butts in seats and selling advertising.


You honestly don't think a Harvard vs. Army bowl game at Giants Stadium or some place around NYC/Boston wouldn't sell out?

[LeopardFan04]

Could have sworn that when Lou Holtz coached ND and one year when they were 8-3 or 7-4, he said that they don't deserve to go to a bowl game, and they declined the couple of offers they received.

Anyone remember this, or am I off the deep end?



Sounds familiar, may have been right at the end of his tenure at ND...

[MplsBison]

My question still remains:

if the Ivy League went I-A, is there a minimum number of scholarships they would have to grant or is it just a maximum of 85?


Because if there is no minimum, I don't know what the hell they've been waiting for. They obviously aren't letting their teams go to the I-AA playoffs.

[DFW HOYA]

The playoffs are not mandatory, they are an "invitation", after all.

In basketball, there have been schools that turn down invitations from time to time. Georgetown turned down the NIT a few years ago, and Marquette once turned down the NCAA because of what they felt was a poor seeding.

At the time the Ivies were in I-A, there was no scholarship minimum--in fact, there was no scholarship maximum until the mid-1970's. Yale, Princeton, Penn, and to some degree Harvard were comparable with lower level I-A attendance, but the other four were not.

Division I has never been about playoffs. It is based on number of sports sponsored, and the Ivies sponsor as much or more than anyone else. Harvard has 43 intercollegiate sports, some low level I-A's as few as 14.

[Dane96]

All I-A football schools MUST GIVE OUT 85 RIDES, none of which may be split amongst players.

That is the TOP reason these leagus don't go IA. The SWAC/IVY whomever could not institute a league wide max scholarship # to cost contain a football move to IA. THEY WOULD HAVE TO GIVE 85 RIDES...across the board.

[Dane96]

The playoffs are not mandatory, they are an "invitation", after all.

In basketball, there have been schools that turn down invitations from time to time. Georgetown turned down the NIT a few years ago, and Marquette once turned down the NCAA because of what they felt was a poor seeding.

Division I has never been about playoffs. It is based on number of sports sponsored, and the Ivies sponsor as much or more than anyone else. Harvard has 43 intercollegiate sports, some low level I-A's as few as 14.

Correct; Additionally I belive 14 is the MINIMUM number of sports a school must sponsor to be DI accredited.

[UNHWildCats]

Later this year, the "1-AA football" label will change to the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision". This change was done because the 1-AA football schools thought the 1-AA lable hurt them when recruiting in other D-1 sports.

For further clarity, shall we expect that the Ivy League schools will then be known as the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Non-Championship Subdivision", the SWAC will call itself the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Classic Championship Subdivision", and the Northeast and Pioneer conferences will be known as the NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Gridiron Classic But One Of Us Might Be Willing To Drop That Classic And Risk A Lawsuit If We Are Invited To The NCAA Football Championship Subdivision's Championship's Playoffs Subdivison?

:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

BTW future reference its I-AA not 1-AA

[Dane96]

Could have sworn that when Lou Holtz coached ND and one year when they were 8-3 or 7-4, he said that they don't deserve to go to a bowl game, and they declined the couple of offers they received.

Anyone remember this, or am I off the deep end?

Correct...

[Dane96]

All schools within I-AA follow the guidelines of the NCAA. But to be clear, I-AA is the "and all other non-BCS football schools". If your school chooses to fund greater than 63 scholarships for football, you are a BCS school, and as such compete on that level. If you are division I in basketball and you fund 63 or less scholarships for football, you are a I-AA school.

All are eligible for the playoffs. However, conferences have made decisions regarding the playoffs, to not participate. They can, within the guidelines make that decision. SWAC, Ivy have decided to go without for differing reasons. NEC, Pioneer, MAAC have yet to demonstrate that they are competitive with the rest of I-AA, although NEC is raising eyebrows this year. The Gridiron Classic provides an opportunity for these non/low schollie programs to play post season.

That is not correct. Check my posts. You cannot fund b/w 63-85. It is either 63 or less....OR 85.

[UNHWildCats]

Who ever said bowl games were about picking the 2 most competitive teams available to you?

It's about putting butts in seats and selling advertising.


You honestly don't think a Harvard vs. Army bowl game at Giants Stadium or some place around NYC/Boston wouldn't sell out?


Agreed. If say the IVY and SWAC went I-A they could together form their own bowl games, sign on some corporate sponsors and what not. besides a couple seasons ago they were almost without enough bowl eligible teams (atleast 1 game over .500) to fill the bowls. Wasnt there talk then about inviting a I-AA team to play a bowl if they ran out of eligible teams? Seems to me, a bowl commision might rather invite a IVY league champion team then a 6-5 team.

[flexbone]

Who ever said bowl games were about picking the 2 most competitive teams available to you?

It's about putting butts in seats and selling advertising.


You honestly don't think a Harvard vs. Army bowl game at Giants Stadium or some place around NYC/Boston wouldn't sell out?

I know we're just speculating but if Harvard did go to a Bowl game verse Army wouldn't that contradict why they are currently not playing in our playoffs.

[89Hen]

All I-A football schools MUST GIVE OUT 85 RIDES, none of which may be split amongst players.
I am not sure you are correct on that. I agree they cannot split them, but I don't think there is a rule they MUST give out 85. What happens when a couple players don't qualify? That happens every year. :nod:

[aceinthehole]

Thank you for the clarification. :bow:

BTW, if they want to have a men's team up, do they have to have a women's team too (Title IX)?

As far as I know, they do not. I think if a D-III team plays up, ala JHU in lax or RPI in hockey, they can not give schollys (so the title IX doesn't apply). Since D-II schools aready give some athletic aid, it there is a minimal increased cost to play at at the D-I level.

FYI - Here is a list of lower division teams that play up in the Northeast (that I know of):

Division II schools
Adelphi (NY) - Men's Soccer
American International (MA) - Men's Ice Hockey + D-II FB
Bentley (MA) - Men's Ice Hockey + D-II FB
LeMoyne (NY) - Baseball and Women's Lax
Lock Haven (PA) - Field Hockey
Mercyhurst (PA) - Men's & Women's Ice Hockey
Merrimack (MA) - Men's Ice Hockey + D-II FB
NY Tech (private) - Baseball
Pace (NY) - Baseball + D-II FB
UMass Lowell - Men's Ice Hockey
West Chester (PA) - Field Hockey

Division III schools
Clarkson (NY) - Men's and Women's Ice Hockey
Hartwick (NY) - Men's Soccer
Hobart (NY) - Men's Lacrosse
John Hopkins (MD) - Men's Lacrosse
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (NY) - Men's Ice Hockey
St. Lawrence (NY) - Men's and Women's Ice Hockey
SUNY Oneonta - Men's Soccer
Union (NY) - Men's and Women's Ice Hockey

[Dane96]

I am not sure you are correct on that. I agree they cannot split them, but I don't think there is a rule they MUST give out 85. What happens when a couple players don't qualify? That happens every year. :nod:

Very interesting question. I do not know the answer, however my guess is the APR. When school has a kid leave or transfer, the school can give away or hold onto that scholarship, however they are hurt in the academic progress report for graduation.

However, if I am understanding you correctly, you refer to PRE-ENTRANCE non-qualifiers.

Again, I do not know the answer...but I am almost certain a school MUST give 85. It isn't usually an issue, because there is always a walk-on to scoop up the empty scholarship.

[putter]

I may be way off base here, but I believe the biggest knock is that the playoffs start at Thanksgiving and progress right through finals. Bowl games, for the most part, do not start until most schools are finished with their tests so there is no distruption of school.

[flexbone]

I may be way off base here, but I believe the biggest knock is that the playoffs start at Thanksgiving and progress right through finals. Bowl games, for the most part, do not start until most schools are finished with their tests so there is no distruption of school.

I think you are correct and that has been the IVY leagues reason for not participating, BUT Is this the REAL reason for not participating.
I wish an IVY league guy would shed some light on this.
Somewhere I heard that in their last vote it was close to joining the system.
And anyway, Are you telling me that no other sports overlap with finals?

[UAalum72]

The most recent rule is that I-A FB must maintain a rolling two-year average of 76.5 scholarships (90% of 85). I-A schools must sponsor 16 sports, the minimum is 14 for other Division I schools.

The 90% matches the % of 63 (56.7) needed to consider a I-AA as a qualifying opponent for I-A teams' bowl requirement.

[Dane96]

Damn...you beat my research...it was bugging me trying to find it.

Yep, those rules were adopted in 2004. So, there is a minimum...I was just wrong on the number.

[EKU05]

There are a few sports in which the NCAA allows teams to play up a Division (but not down). Usually this is done in sports where the overall number of schools participating is relatively low. In Ice Hockey there is no Division II if I'm corrent.....so it's either I or III.

Also, you can play up in LaCrosse. I live in Louisville, KY....my Dad's Alma Mater, D-II Bellarmine University plays D-I LaCrosse (They are currently the only LaCrosse program in the state, but I think Louisville might be starting one). I know you can do the same in Wrestling.

However, in football you must play in the Division that you normally belong to...there are plenty of teams that play football so there is no need to move them around.

[Dane96]

There are a few sports in which the NCAA allows teams to play up a Division (but not down). Usually this is done in sports where the overall number of schools participating is relatively low. In Ice Hockey there is no Division II if I'm corrent.....so it's either I or III.

Also, you can play up in LaCrosse. I live in Louisville, KY....my Dad's Alma Mater, D-II Bellarmine University plays D-I LaCrosse (They are currently the only LaCrosse program in the state, but I think Louisville might be starting one). I know you can do the same in Wrestling.

However, in football you must play in the Division that you normally belong to...there are plenty of teams that play football so there is no need to move them around.

There is DII, and believe it or not, one of the better teams is in Alabama (Huntsville). Mankato State is DII. It is like DII lacrosse: small, but teams that COULD make the jump to DI almost immediately.

As for Bellarmine, they are looking to move up in all sports to DI, following the Oakland (MI) model. Bellarmine had a pretty good year in DI going, I think, near .500.

[GannonFan]

I may be way off base here, but I believe the biggest knock is that the playoffs start at Thanksgiving and progress right through finals. Bowl games, for the most part, do not start until most schools are finished with their tests so there is no distruption of school.

I always think this excuse for not having playoffs in IA is one of the weakest ones they roll out there. A good number of football players already take the least amount of credits they can in the season that they play in order to still be considered full-time students and eligible (note, this isn't just isolated in football - many participants on sports teams do the same thing so they can spend more time on their sport in the season that it plays). Next, some schools don't have finals until January anyway, so there are some schools that aren't affected at all. Then, it's not like IA football teams shut it down after their last regular season game and then just pick up practice again a week before their bowl game - they are in practice and film study and the whole nine yards from the time of the last game up to the bowl game. Just because they don't have a game every Saturday doesn't mean they aren't doing everything else (heck, they probably practice on Saturday since that's opened up). If they were so worried about academics and the impact post-season play would have on them, they would shorten the season and play all the bowl games before finals come up. But bowl games are about money and fact is more people can travel to bowl games and buy tickets when they are on vacation, as may people are right around Christmas and New Year's - that's why the games are where they are and academics are the least of the considerations.

[kouka]

I believe there are Stadium sizes and attendance minimums in Div. 1A.

[AppGuy04]

I believe there are Stadium sizes and attendance minimums in Div. 1A.

not really enforced

[UNHWildCats]

I believe there are Stadium sizes and attendance minimums in Div. 1A.


A few teams were given warnings this year about the attendance and possibly being demoted to I-AA should the numbers not pick up.

[Dane96]

I believe there are Stadium sizes and attendance minimums in Div. 1A.

Attendance is 15k...ACTUAL and not just paid. Don't hold your breath for that one. The NCAA huffs and puffs on this issue...but never blows the house down!

[DFW HOYA]

Declining the post season also has precedent in I-A. Notre Dame did not participate in the post-season until 1970 and still won national championships. Then again, few schools can turn down bowl money these days.

No such windfall in I-AA, of course. And yes, Ivy schools CAN turn down a bid and not worry a bit about it.

Theoretical question--is there anything from stopping a lower level bowl without ties to a conference (e.g., Poinsettia) from inviting a I-AA team as an at-large bid? And if your school were invited, do you turn it down to be in the I-AA playoffs? Probably not.

[EKU05]

I believe there are Stadium sizes and attendance minimums in Div. 1A.

There used to be a stadium size thing, but not any more. Of course it has to be big enough to get that 15K average, but nothing specifically about Stadims. There are I-A stadiums not that far over 20K.

[Dane96]

There used to be a stadium size thing, but not any more. Of course it has to be big enough to get that 15K average, but nothing specifically about Stadims. There are I-A stadiums not that far over 20K.

Heck, there are IA teams that dont even make it to 20k (FIU seats a shade over 15k).

[jstate83]

By association I assume you mean I-AA and not the NCAA?

The main reason is they want to keep the rest of their sports in DI but don't want to spend the money on I-A football. However it is interesting to note...

The Ivy has a ban on post-season season play for football, but not for other sports... hypocritical.

The SWAC makes more money on their Classic games that conflict with the first week of the playoffs, but they won't admit that the other half of the equation is that they are 0-19 all time in the playoffs.

The NEC and PFL would love to play in the playoffs but haven't had a schedule good enough for serious consideration in the past (that's changing for some).

Since when has this been denied....................Give me a date.:eyebrow:
The only people that keep that lie going and keep whinning about it is NON-SWAC SCHOOLS.xlolx

[jstate83]

I was specifically meaning SWAC Conference

So the Ivy can ban it's schools from competing and that's ok.:nod:

The SWAC see the can't compete writing on the wall and that's not ok.xlolx

Man....................some of ya'll post so fast you can't even see the doule standard.xlolx

[jstate83]

It makes more sense then staying in 1-AA and being the Diseased Ugly Step Child no one asks to the Party, PLAYOFF Party that is.



Dude....................You need to worry bout all that uglyness and disease that is around your program right now.
Nobody gives a damm about YA'LL not inviting US to YOUR party.
Seems like the only people worried bout it is people like you.

Some of ya'll are so crazy your funny.xlolx

[UMass922]

Who ever said bowl games were about picking the 2 most competitive teams available to you?

It's about putting butts in seats and selling advertising.


You honestly don't think a Harvard vs. Army bowl game at Giants Stadium or some place around NYC/Boston wouldn't sell out?

Agreed. I have to imagine that your average bottom-tier bowl would much rather have a Harvard or a Grambling than a New Mexico St. or a North Texas.

[TheBisonator]

Later this year, the "1-AA football" label will change to the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision". This change was done because the 1-AA football schools thought the 1-AA lable hurt them when recruiting in other D-1 sports.

For further clarity, shall we expect that the Ivy League schools will then be known as the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Non-Championship Subdivision", the SWAC will call itself the "NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Classic Championship Subdivision", and the Northeast and Pioneer conferences will be known as the NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Gridiron Classic But One Of Us Might Be Willing To Drop That Classic And Risk A Lawsuit If We Are Invited To The NCAA Football Championship Subdivision's Championship's Playoffs Subdivison?

Ah, the ol' FCSGCBOOUMBWTDTCARALIWAITTNFCSCPS...:rotateh: :rotateh: :rotateh:

[89Hen]

However, if I am understanding you correctly, you refer to PRE-ENTRANCE non-qualifiers.

Again, I do not know the answer...but I am almost certain a school MUST give 85. It isn't usually an issue, because there is always a walk-on to scoop up the empty scholarship.
I was using that as an example, but I'm having a hard time finding the NCAA bylaw that covers football scholarships. But everything I've found so far indicates that 85 is a maximum, not an absolute. The things that I've read say that most of the I-A's give out the maximum, but not that it's required.

[89Hen]

Since when has this been denied....................Give me a date.:eyebrow:
The only people that keep that lie going and keep whinning about it is NON-SWAC SCHOOLS.xlolx
Bull. Every SWAC poster I've ever seen that talks about why the SWAC won't participate in the playoff either says it's because the Bayou and other classics make too much money or because it's the NCAA's fault for starting the playoffs Thanksgiving weekend. I've NEVER seen a SWAC poster or official acknowledge the 0-19 record. :nod: :nod: :nod:

[Mr. Tiger]

Bull. Every SWAC poster I've ever seen that talks about why the SWAC won't participate in the playoff either says it's because the Bayou and other classics make too much money or because it's the NCAA's fault for starting the playoffs Thanksgiving weekend. I've NEVER seen a SWAC poster or official acknowledge the 0-19 record. :nod: :nod: :nod:

OK THEN :read: READ THIS: THE SWAC IS 0-19 IN THE PLAYOFFS WITH 12 OF THOSE LOSSES BY JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY. OUR LAST PLAYOFF APPEARANCE WAS A 7-POINT LOSS TO WESTERN ILLINOIS IN ILLINOIS IN THE LATE 90s. SOME JSU FANS, INCLUDING MYSELF, WOULD LOVE TO RETURN TO THE PLAYOFFS ONE DAY, HOWEVER, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE BAYOU CLASSIC IS AN EVENT THAT DRAWS OVER 60,000 FANS AND IS ON NBC AND THE SWAC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME HAS BETTER ATTENDANCE THAN THE I-AA CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE GAME. I HAVE STATED THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE IN PAST POSTS. I WOULD GO DEEPER INTO THE REASONS FOR THE 0-19 RECORD AND THEY ARE VERY VALID, BUT WHY WASTE MY TIME BECAUSE MANY ON AGS WILL CHOOSE TO IGNORE THEM AND ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. xlolx xlolx

[youwouldno]

0-19 is 0-19. There is one explanation and it's obvious: the SWAC is an inferior conference.

[Mr. Tiger]

0-19 is 0-19. There is one explanation and it's obvious: the SWAC is an inferior conference.

:rolleyes: And it is obvious you have no clue. That's why I save the explanation. :nonono2:

[UAalum72]

I was using that as an example, but I'm having a hard time finding the NCAA bylaw that covers football scholarships. But everything I've found so far indicates that 85 is a maximum, not an absolute. The things that I've read say that most of the I-A's give out the maximum, but not that it's required.
http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2006-07/2006-07_d1_manual.pdf

Chart on page 368 (383 of 476 in your Adobe reader)

On page 365:



20.9.7.4 Additional Financial Aid Requirements. [I-A]



The institution shall satisfy the following additional financial aid requirements: (Adopted: 4/25/02 effective 8/1/04)(a) Provide an average of at least 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of overall football grants-in-aid per year over a rolling two-year period; and
(b) Annually offer a minimum of 200 athletics grants-in-aids or expend at least four million dollars on grants-in-aid to student-athletes in athletics programs.







20.9.7.4.1 Type of Financial Aid Counted.



The institution shall count only athletically related financial aid awarded to counters (as defined in Bylaw 15.02.3). (Adopted: 3/10/04 effective 8/1/04)





20.9.7.4.2 Exception — National Service Academies. [I-A]



The national service academies are exempt from all financial aid requirements set forth in Bylaw 20.9.7. (Adopted: 4/25/02 effective 8/1/04)

[youwouldno]

:rolleyes: And it is obvious you have no clue. That's why I save the explanation. :nonono2:

Let me guess, the refs were paid off every time? :rolleyes:

[MplsBison]

The most recent rule is that I-A FB must maintain a rolling two-year average of 76.5 scholarships (90% of 85). I-A schools must sponsor 16 sports, the minimum is 14 for other Division I schools.

The 90% matches the % of 63 (56.7) needed to consider a I-AA as a qualifying opponent for I-A teams' bowl requirement.


Well, so much for the Ivy League to I-A idea.

[89Hen]

I WOULD GO DEEPER INTO THE REASONS FOR THE 0-19 RECORD AND THEY ARE VERY VALID, BUT WHY WASTE MY TIME BECAUSE MANY ON AGS WILL CHOOSE TO IGNORE THEM AND ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. xlolx xlolx
There is no deeper and no, they're not valid. I've seen the arguements about "we always have to play on the road" and "we didn't even send our best team" and neither hold water. Most of the 19 were the #1 team in the SWAC that year and you didn't win any home games and many teams win on the road in the playoffs. Please tell me you have something more than that. :nono:

BTW, hit the caps lock please.

[89Hen]

http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2006-07/2006-07_d1_manual.pdf

Chart on page 368 (383 of 476 in your Adobe reader)
Thanks 72. So they must give out 77-85 with no partials. That would make it tough for the SWAC and Ivy.

[flexbone]

So the Ivy can ban it's schools from competing and that's ok.:nod:

The SWAC see the can't compete writing on the wall and that's not ok.xlolx

Man....................some of ya'll post so fast you can't even see the doule standard.xlolx
You are taking what I said out of context. Take a look at what was said prior.
We were discussing that if the 2 non-playoff conferences would join in the system that it would increase a high school athletes desire to go that school instead of another school.
Someone indicated that an IVY LEAGUE diploma was worth more than a playoff system to potential recruits. At which point I responded - That I was specifically talking about the SWAC.
I do beleive that if you, the SWAC, were in a playoff system you would get more interest from Athletes.

[dbackjon]

As far as I know, they do not. I think if a D-III team plays up, ala JHU in lax or RPI in hockey, they can not give schollys (so the title IX doesn't apply). Since D-II schools aready give some athletic aid, it there is a minimal increased cost to play at at the D-I level.

FYI - Here is a list of lower division teams that play up in the Northeast (that I know of):



Division III schools
Clarkson (NY) - Men's and Women's Ice Hockey
Hartwick (NY) - Men's Soccer
Hobart (NY) - Men's Lacrosse
John Hopkins (MD) - Men's Lacrosse
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (NY) - Men's Ice Hockey
St. Lawrence (NY) - Men's and Women's Ice Hockey
SUNY Oneonta - Men's Soccer
Union (NY) - Men's and Women's Ice Hockey

Note - the D-III schools that play up (to D-I) do give scholarships, and each has a scholarship men's and women's team (not necesarily the same sport) to comply with Title IX. D-III passed rules last summer preventing any further schools from having any D-I teams, but grandfathered existing programs.

D-II no longer sponsers a hockey Championship - that is why Alabama-Huntsville now competes in Hockey at D-I

[flexbone]

You are taking what I said out of context. Take a look at what was said prior.
We were discussing that if the 2 non-playoff conferences would join in the system that it would increase a high school athletes desire to go that school instead of another school.
Someone indicated that an IVY LEAGUE diploma was worth more than a playoff system to potential recruits. At which point I responded - That I was specifically talking about the SWAC.
I do beleive that if you, the SWAC, were in a playoff system you would get more interest from Athletes.
If you are referring to a Double Standard about DEGREES. No, I'm with you on that one. You are right there is a Double Standard when it comes to the perseption of an IVY LEAGUE degree verse that of a SWAC degree. But don't take that personal - It's a Double Standard with almost every conference in I-AA. Your conference was brought up, ONLY, because this thread pertains only to the IVY and SWAC conference and their choice not to participate in the PLAYOFFS.

[AppGuy04]

You quoting yourself now flex?

[jstate83]

Bull. Every SWAC poster I've ever seen that talks about why the SWAC won't participate in the playoff either says it's because the Bayou and other classics make too much money or because it's the NCAA's fault for starting the playoffs Thanksgiving weekend. I've NEVER seen a SWAC poster or official acknowledge the 0-19 record. :nod: :nod: :nod:


Man you full of it.

Every JSU poster that has come on here talks about our playoff record.

Heck................I posted every game and score from them.
It's ya'll that are so set on getting Gram and Southern to participate, ya'll focus on THEM saying that the Bayou classic keeps the SWAC from going........................again BULLSHAT.

Guess the Bayou Classic kept JSU from going 11 times...............Go Ahead.......post sarcasim here x_______________.xlolx

In fact, when you get past all the lie's and smoke screens from NON-SWAC Conference posters, the ONLY 3 TEAMS that can't compete in the playoff's from the SWAC are GRAM, SOUTHERN and ALABAMA ST.

That leaves 7 teams that can.:nod:

So all this bullshat I been reading about the SWAC running from the playoffs is just that ......................BULLSHAT.

[GannonFan]

You quoting yourself now flex?

I've got to agree - that's the funniest citation I've ever seen, even better that he seemed to be in disagreement with himself - I wonder how that argument will play out! xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[jstate83]

0-19 is 0-19. There is one explanation and it's obvious: the SWAC is an inferior conference.

So why in the HE!! are ya'll so dang mad about us not participating?xlolx
It's ya'll that can't let it go...................xlolx xlolx

As for inferior.......................How much do you think we care about your opinion?
Man.........All those people on those pictures below really seem depressed about your opinion of the SWAC.xlolx

[flexbone]

Yeah I guess so!
My original post was not a Double Standard, BUT my Response, unfortunately, was and I wanted to clarify that.

[Dane96]

Note - the D-III schools that play up (to D-I) do give scholarships, and each has a scholarship men's and women's team (not necesarily the same sport) to comply with Title IX. D-III passed rules last summer preventing any further schools from having any D-I teams, but grandfathered existing programs.

D-II no longer sponsers a hockey Championship - that is why Alabama-Huntsville now competes in Hockey at D-I

Didnt realize DII was eliminated this year.

Not all the schools you mention give out scholarships and the ones that do do not balance them with Title IX. UNION, RPI, and Oneonta, do not give out scholarships to women. Some of them don't even have a DI women's counterpart to the DI men's squad. Heck, Hobart does not give scholarships for men's lax (same with Union for Hockey).

The lower division playing ball at DI level for a sport DOES NOT REQUIRE equal scholarship expenditures.

[dbackjon]

Didnt realize DII was eliminated this year.

Not all the schools you mention give out scholarships and the ones that do do not balance them with Title IX. UNION, RPI, and Oneonta, do not give out scholarships to women. Some of them don't even have a DI women's counterpart to the DI men's squad. Heck, Hobart does not give scholarships for men's lax (same with Union for Hockey).

The lower division playing ball at DI level for a sport DOES NOT REQUIRE equal scholarship expenditures.


DII hockey was eliminated 2 or 3 years ago. Not enough sponsoring teams to have a tournament.

As for the list, that is not mine - just quoted it to make my observation.

And if any D-III schools give ANY SCHOLARSHIPS, they have to follow TITLE IX - so if they give men's schollies in one sport, they have follow Title IX

[dbackjon]

These are the D-III schools permitted to give scholarships for their one D-I men's and women's sports:

Those Division III institutions that will be permitted to continue offering athletics scholarships in their Division I sport programs are: Clarkson University; Colorado College; Hartwick College; Johns Hopkins University; State University College at Oneonta; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark; and St. Lawrence University.

[89Hen]

Man you full of it.

Every JSU poster that has come on here talks about our playoff record.

Heck................I posted every game and score from them.
It's ya'll that are so set on getting Gram and Southern to participate, ya'll focus on THEM saying that the Bayou classic keeps the SWAC from going........................again BULLSHAT.

Guess the Bayou Classic kept JSU from going 11 times...............Go Ahead.......post sarcasim here x_______________.xlolx

In fact, when you get past all the lie's and smoke screens from NON-SWAC Conference posters, the ONLY 3 TEAMS that can't compete in the playoff's from the SWAC are GRAM, SOUTHERN and ALABAMA ST.

That leaves 7 teams that can.:nod:

So all this bullshat I been reading about the SWAC running from the playoffs is just that ......................BULLSHAT.

:nono: You're ignoring the SWAC Championship Game. I don't care if the SWAC champ is JSU, GSU, SU, AAMU.... but it must be the champion going to the playoffs. Are you proposing that the SWAC possibly send their number five team because #1 and #2 are busy with the CG during the second round and that GSU and SU are busy week one?

You missed the original point about the 0-19 record. I said no SWAC poster will acknowledge that a big part of the reason to not play in the playoffs is the 0-19 record. The Classics and CG may be a slightly bigger part of the equation, but I have to believe that if the SWAC had success in the playoffs when they did participate, it would be a lot more attractive to the SWAC schools to want to participate now.

[Dane96]

DII hockey was eliminated 2 or 3 years ago. Not enough sponsoring teams to have a tournament.

As for the list, that is not mine - just quoted it to make my observation.

And if any D-III schools give ANY SCHOLARSHIPS, they have to follow TITLE IX - so if they give men's schollies in one sport, they have follow Title IX


Dback...I am telling you this for a fact, Oneonta does not give out women's scholarships (they give $$ to the men and NONE to the women.) Furthermore...they do not have a DI woman's sport.

Your list of grandfathered schools is inaccurate. I beleive there are others as well...but I cant think of them off the bat (12 sounds about right, 8 offering scholarships -- these schools being the most affected by the vote).

The grandfather clause was a very hot topic up in the Northeast and we are very versed on it.

Again, Title IX is not a simple scholarship issue...it can be fulfilled IN NUMEROUS WAYS!

Listing:

Oneonta- Men's Soccer DI- SCHOLARSHIP

Clarkson- Men's and Women's Ice Hockey- SCHOLARSHIP

Colorado College- Men's Hockey, Women's Hockey, Women's Soccer- SCHOLARSHIP

Hartwick- Men's Soccer, Women's Water Polo (GRANT-IN-Aid and Scholarship...men out pace the women nearly 2-1 in expenditures...which would fail your argument of Title IX compliance).

RPI- Men's Hockey, Women's Hockey- SCHOLARSHIP FOR MEN's ONLY. 8x the money given to Men's (women receive no athletic aid)

SUNJ-NEWARK- Men's Volleyball- SCHOLARSHIP. No DI women's and NO AID!

St. Lawrence- Men's Hockey, Women's Hocke- SCHOLARSHIP

UNION- Men's and Women's Hockey- MEN GRANT-In-AID. Women- No funding.

Additionally, this was a DIII ruling, not a DI ruling. The DIII schools did not want the DI playing schools (in a sport) to have advantages. DIII schools grandfathered the above schools in...and waivers are all but killed for future schools. This is now known as "PROPOSAL 65."

Union is interesting because they use grant-in-aid. Thing is, even when Albany played at DIII, we saw schools out-recruit us with "creative" grant-in-aid monetary packages. Union skirts alot with their aid; calling it "Grant-in-aid" compare to a scholarship was a joke when Prop 65 was discussed, hence the exclusion from the vote.

And for the record, ALL SCHOOLS MUST COMPLY WITH TITLE IX...DIII to DI. Again, it is not just a monetary ($ for $) compliance. IT CAN BE DONE IN MANY WAYS!

[flexbone]

:nono: You're ignoring the SWAC Championship Game. I don't care if the SWAC champ is JSU, GSU, SU, AAMU.... but it must be the champion going to the playoffs. Are you proposing that the SWAC possibly send their number five team because #1 and #2 are busy with the CG during the second round and that GSU and SU are busy week one?

You missed the original point about the 0-19 record. I said no SWAC poster will acknowledge that a big part of the reason to not play in the playoffs is the 0-19 record. The Classics and CG may be a slightly bigger part of the equation, but I have to believe that if the SWAC had success in the playoffs when they did participate, it would be a lot more attractive to the SWAC schools to want to participate now.
GOOD POST !!!!!!!!!!!

[jstate83]

:nono: You're ignoring the SWAC Championship Game. I don't care if the SWAC champ is JSU, GSU, SU, AAMU.... but it must be the champion going to the playoffs. Are you proposing that the SWAC possibly send their number five team because #1 and #2 are busy with the CG during the second round and that GSU and SU are busy week one?

You missed the original point about the 0-19 record. I said no SWAC poster will acknowledge that a big part of the reason to not play in the playoffs is the 0-19 record. The Classics and CG may be a slightly bigger part of the equation, but I have to believe that if the SWAC had success in the playoffs when they did participate, it would be a lot more attractive to the SWAC schools to want to participate now.

Man......................No matter what we say YOUR explaination will be what you go with.
Why should we waste our time explaining the same crap over and over.

But ......................You know the SWAC better than people that actually are involved with the SWAC or have followed the SWAC since birth.

OK....................We will go with your explaination.:thumbsup:
This is why I said 4 pages ago to leave the SWAC out of this playoff pi$$in' match.

BTW: The SWAC has already sent their #2 team a couple of times.................JSU.
Those years either SU or GRAM was the SWAC Champion and played in the Heritage Bowl.

Anything else?

[dbackjon]

Dback...I am telling you this for a fact, Oneonta does not give out women's scholarships (they give $$ to the men and NONE to the women.) Furthermore...they do not have a DI woman's sport.

Your list of grandfathered schools is inaccurate. I beleive there are others as well...but I cant think of them off the bat (12 sounds about right, 8 offering scholarships -- these schools being the most affected by the vote).

The grandfather clause was a very hot topic up in the Northeast and we are very versed on it.

Again, Title IX is not a simple scholarship issue...it can be fulfilled IN NUMEROUS WAYS!

Listing:

Oneonta- Men's Soccer DI- SCHOLARSHIP

Clarkson- Men's and Women's Ice Hockey- SCHOLARSHIP

Colorado College- Men's Hockey, Women's Hockey, Women's Soccer- SCHOLARSHIP

Hartwick- Men's Soccer, Women's Water Polo (GRANT-IN-Aid and Scholarship...men out pace the women nearly 2-1 in expenditures...which would fail your argument of Title IX compliance).

RPI- Men's Hockey, Women's Hockey- SCHOLARSHIP FOR MEN's ONLY. 8x the money given to Men's (women receive no athletic aid)

SUNJ-NEWARK- Men's Volleyball- SCHOLARSHIP. No DI women's and NO AID!

St. Lawrence- Men's Hockey, Women's Hocke- SCHOLARSHIP

UNION- Men's and Women's Hockey- MEN GRANT-In-AID. Women- No funding.

Additionally, this was a DIII ruling, not a DI ruling. The DIII schools did not want the DI playing schools (in a sport) to have advantages. DIII schools grandfathered the above schools in...and waivers are all but killed for future schools. This is now known as "PROPOSAL 65."

Union is interesting because they use grant-in-aid. Thing is, even when Albany played at DIII, we saw schools out-recruit us with "creative" grant-in-aid monetary packages. Union skirts alot with their aid; calling it "Grant-in-aid" compare to a scholarship was a joke when Prop 65 was discussed, hence the exclusion from the vote.

And for the record, ALL SCHOOLS MUST COMPLY WITH TITLE IX...DIII to DI. Again, it is not just a monetary ($ for $) compliance. IT CAN BE DONE IN MANY WAYS!

Dane96 - there are more than 8 Div III teams that play one or two sports up - but only 8 are allowed schollarships. Union is one of those playing up, but can not give schollies - and grants-in-aid do not count as schollies.

Oneota, according to their own athletics web page, is in the process of moving their program BACK to D-III - had they chosen to remain D-I, they would have had to add a women's scholarship sport - REQUIRED.

And the grandfathered list is straight from the NCAA website, so it is accurate.

RPI is adding scholarships to women's hockey to comply with Title IX

[89Hen]

Man......................No matter what we say YOUR explaination will be what you go with.
Why should we waste our time explaining the same crap over and over.

But ......................You know the SWAC better than people that actually are involved with the SWAC or have followed the SWAC since birth.

OK....................We will go with your explaination.:thumbsup:
This is why I said 4 pages ago to leave the SWAC out of this playoff pi$$in' match.

BTW: The SWAC has already sent their #2 team a couple of times.................JSU.
Those years either SU or GRAM was the SWAC Champion and played in the Heritage Bowl.

Anything else?


The SWAC makes more money on their Classic games that conflict with the first week of the playoffs, but they won't admit that the other half of the equation is that they are 0-19 all time in the playoffs.

My position hasn't changed. I'm not a great SWAC historian, but it doesn't take one to know the SWAC is 0-19 and the SWAC no longer participates in the playoffs. I also know that many posters tried to justify that 0-19 record by claiming they didn't send their number one team and as you said, that only happened a couple of times. They also try to justify it by saying they had to go on the road too many times, but fail to explain how they lost the games they did host and how other teams go on the road and win in the playoffs all the time.

[jstate83]

My position hasn't changed. I'm not a great SWAC historian, but it doesn't take one to know the SWAC is 0-19 and the SWAC no longer participates in the playoffs. I also know that many posters tried to justify that 0-19 record by claiming they didn't send their number one team and as you said, that only happened a couple of times. They also try to justify it by saying they had to go on the road too many times, but fail to explain how they lost the games they did host and how other teams go on the road and win in the playoffs all the time.

And my answer has not changed either.......................NO MATTER HOW MANY THREADS ARE WASTED ON THIS, no matter how many times it's explained to you, you still will accept YOUR explaination of OUR situation.

Frankly.................People around here really don't care what ya'll think.
And not being crazy, but the truth is, if I mentioned half the schools represented on this board, most SWAC followers would not even know you exist unless they lived in your state.

Was trying to be nice but that is the truth.
Why do you think the turnout is so sparse when a HBCU play's one of ya'll but at the same time a 1A school can't allocate enough ticket's for us when we play them.
No travel and really no hype at home either.

[aceinthehole]

Dback...I am telling you this for a fact, Oneonta does not give out women's scholarships (they give $$ to the men and NONE to the women.) Furthermore...they do not have a DI woman's sport.

Your list of grandfathered schools is inaccurate. I beleive there are others as well...but I cant think of them off the bat (12 sounds about right, 8 offering scholarships -- these schools being the most affected by the vote).

The grandfather clause was a very hot topic up in the Northeast and we are very versed on it.

Again, Title IX is not a simple scholarship issue...it can be fulfilled IN NUMEROUS WAYS!

Listing:

Oneonta- Men's Soccer DI- SCHOLARSHIP

Clarkson- Men's and Women's Ice Hockey- SCHOLARSHIP

Colorado College- Men's Hockey, Women's Hockey, Women's Soccer- SCHOLARSHIP

Hartwick- Men's Soccer, Women's Water Polo (GRANT-IN-Aid and Scholarship...men out pace the women nearly 2-1 in expenditures...which would fail your argument of Title IX compliance).

RPI- Men's Hockey, Women's Hockey- SCHOLARSHIP FOR MEN's ONLY. 8x the money given to Men's (women receive no athletic aid)

SUNJ-NEWARK- Men's Volleyball- SCHOLARSHIP. No DI women's and NO AID!

St. Lawrence- Men's Hockey, Women's Hocke- SCHOLARSHIP

UNION- Men's and Women's Hockey- MEN GRANT-In-AID. Women- No funding.

Additionally, this was a DIII ruling, not a DI ruling. The DIII schools did not want the DI playing schools (in a sport) to have advantages. DIII schools grandfathered the above schools in...and waivers are all but killed for future schools. This is now known as "PROPOSAL 65."

Union is interesting because they use grant-in-aid. Thing is, even when Albany played at DIII, we saw schools out-recruit us with "creative" grant-in-aid monetary packages. Union skirts alot with their aid; calling it "Grant-in-aid" compare to a scholarship was a joke when Prop 65 was discussed, hence the exclusion from the vote.

And for the record, ALL SCHOOLS MUST COMPLY WITH TITLE IX...DIII to DI. Again, it is not just a monetary ($ for $) compliance. IT CAN BE DONE IN MANY WAYS!

Exactly Dane!

The lower division schools that choose to offer men's schollys in one D-I sport can easily be offset by school expenditures at all the women's programs at the lower division (for example they may sponor more womens teams to begin with).

Title IX address EQUALITY in OPPORTUNITIES in edudaction (and athletics). It is not a stautuary formula for scholarships or spending. It is a federal law, that can be enforced by the courts, but it is not as cut and dry as any of us on this board can explain.

Dbackjon - I read your post and that information leds me to think that any requirements on schollys for DII teams playing D-I soports is a NCAA by-law or rule, not federal law.

[Dane96]

Dane96 - there are more than 8 Div III teams that play one or two sports up - but only 8 are allowed schollarships. Union is one of those playing up, but can not give schollies - and grants-in-aid do not count as schollies.

Oneota, according to their own athletics web page, is in the process of moving their program BACK to D-III - had they chosen to remain D-I, they would have had to add a women's scholarship sport - REQUIRED.

And the grandfathered list is straight from the NCAA website, so it is accurate.

RPI is adding scholarships to women's hockey to comply with Title IX


Good Lord...Jon, my family's farmhouse is located in Stamford, NY, about 24 miles from Oneonta's campus. They are moving back NOT because of scholarships but a variety of reasons. THEY HAVE THE $$$ to support a DI woman's team.

RPI is adding scholarships not just to comply with TITLE IX, but because they are exploring an entire MOVE TO DI. They added women's hockey AFTER THE VOTE...not before the vote. Here is a link:

http://www.uscho.com/news/id,7694/RPIToMoveWomensHockeyToDivisionI

That is straight from our local paper. No mention of compliance issues...and trust me, the TROY PAPER WOULD BE ALL OVER IT! (that USCHO article was from the Troy Gazette). Now the school newspaper (about as trustworthy as most school papers has this article: http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=4669&part=1

They discuss compliance but not a $ to $ issue. Fact is, RPI's men teams have a ridiculous amount of facilties and equipment. RPI, by giving $ to the women, chose scholarships as the vehicle. They could have built them their own rink to comply.

As for Title IX, I think you should do some more research...it is not a SCHOLARSHIP SPECIFIC RULE (my "LAW REVIEW" paper was on this subject and I am pretty versed).

An excerpt from the Dept. of Ed:

"In its 1979 Policy Interpretation, the Department established a three-prong test for compliance with Title IX, which it later amplified and clarified in its 1996 Clarification. The test provides that an institution is in compliance if 1) the intercollegiate- level participation opportunities for male and female students at the institution are "substantially proportionate" to their respective full- time undergraduate enrollments, 2) the institution has a "history and continuing practice of program expansion" for the underrepresented sex, or 3) the institution is "fully and effectively" accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex."

Additionally:

"First, with respect to the three-prong test, which has worked well, OCR encourages schools to take advantage of its flexibility, and to consider which of the three prongs best suits their individual situations. All three prongs have been used successfully by schools to comply with Title IX, and the test offers three separate ways of assessing whether schools are providing equal opportunities to their male and female students to participate in athletics. If a school does not satisfy the "substantial proportionality" prong, it would still satisfy the three-prong test if it maintains a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented sex, or if "the interests and abilities of the members of [the underrepresented] sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program." Each of the three prongs is thus a valid, alternative way for schools to comply with Title IX."

Finally:

"In fact, each of the three prongs of the test is an equally sufficient means of complying with Title IX, and no one prong is favored."

How do you explain the SUNJ-NEWARK? How do you explain the 2-1 discrepency in aid at Hartwick?

The answer is, creative compliance offices. Schools with ONE or TWO DI sponsored sports can creatively get around this (offering more sports to women, offering better facilities, seperating departments, better equipment, etc). Here is how creative you can get:

"private sponsorship of athletic teams will continue to be allowed. Of course, private sponsorship does not in any way change or diminish a school's obligations under Title IX."

This mean's Papa John's can build the most advanced Equestrian Center and those dollars can be balanced against men's scholarship money to comply with Title IX. See, it is NOT A SCHOLARSHIP FOR SCHOLARSHIP ISSUE. Why? Because, for example it would be near IMPOSSIBLE TO MATCH SCHOLARSHIP FOOTBALL WITH the # of WOMAN'S SCHOLARSHIPS.

The reality is, the funding issue (whether it be scholarship, facility, etc.) is buffered by a "reasonable variance." Basically, it wont be a straight proportion compliance. The real kicker: "full accommodation for the underrepresented sex" option should be able to be satisfied by comparing the ratio of male/female participation at the institution with "demonstrated interests and abilities" shown by regional, state, national youth or high school participation rates or results of interest surveys."

Schools find ways to comply...and those that don't (SHOCKINGLY 80% of SCHOOLS) are allowed to skate through via loopholes similar to the ones mentioned above (complying to 1 of the three prongs, example "hey, we have 6 female sports, 100 scholarships to 100 girls, but we have 250 male athletes with 250 scholarships. We tried to offer 8 more female sports but we couldnt get women to participate...so we DID TRY TO ADVANCE WOMEN'S OPPORTUNITIES...hence we comply.)

Dropping programs (the chic thing to do a few years ago) was, is, and never will be the answer. IN fact, it is not even in the rules.

Additionally, if you read my post, I noted the difference between scholarships and grant-in-aid at UNION....and noted it was a farce. Trust me, we lost a ton of recruits in DIII football to UNION, ITHACA, and Cortland (all powerhouses) because of "creative" grant-in-aid policies.


It comes down to a few things:

1. Scholarships are not the only way to comply with Title IX (in fact, at last report, Men received close to 32% more in scholarship money than females);
2. Scholarships are grand-fathered in for 8 schools;
3. Grant-in-aid can be used in creative manners at the DIII schools that have DI teams;
4. Scholarship money does not have to be matched $ for $; and
6. If a school has a DI team they do not have to have a DI woman's team.


Title IX is a victim of its own design. In the haste to get a a good thing passed, they failed to truly define WHAT ACTUALLY WOULD BE COMPLIANCE. It can be many ways...and it allows for loopholes. Heck, it is what TITLE IX lawyers do everyday. The recommend changes in 1995-6 were viewed as a step to clear up the confusion. In fact, they have created more challenging times for compliance departments across the nation.

There is NO CUT AND DRY TO TITLE IX.

[Mr. Tiger]

:nono: You're ignoring the SWAC Championship Game. I don't care if the SWAC champ is JSU, GSU, SU, AAMU.... but it must be the champion going to the playoffs. Are you proposing that the SWAC possibly send their number five team because #1 and #2 are busy with the CG during the second round and that GSU and SU are busy week one?

You missed the original point about the 0-19 record. I said no SWAC poster will acknowledge that a big part of the reason to not play in the playoffs is the 0-19 record. The Classics and CG may be a slightly bigger part of the equation, but I have to believe that if the SWAC had success in the playoffs when they did participate, it would be a lot more attractive to the SWAC schools to want to participate now.

Why should anyone do that when it's a bunch of BULL? I WILL POST THIS AGAIN: Jackson State has 12 of those losses. Many of the teams in our conference have never even been to the playoffs. Southern University, Alabama State, Alabama A&M, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Texas Southern, and Prairie View have ZERO playoff appearances. That's 6 of our 10 teams. Grambling only had a few during the last years of Eddie Robinson's reign. Valley has one and Alcorn State had the rest. Fans and school officials at some of these schools just don't see what the big deal is since they have never been and experienced the playoffs. They would rather have a SWAC Championship game and Classics during the first round of the playoffs. Some of these schools were in Division II and NAIA when Jackson State lost in the playoffs. Nobody is running from the playoffs. These schools simply choose not to be considered because they have never been in the first place so what are they missing out on. As for Jackson State, some of our fans would love to return but JSU doesn't run the conference and we understand that it's a financial decision. Things have changed since that record was compiled with many of those games being played 10, 15 and 20 years ago.

[89Hen]

And my answer has not changed either.......................NO MATTER HOW MANY THREADS ARE WASTED ON THIS, no matter how many times it's explained to you, you still will accept YOUR explaination of OUR situation.

Frankly.................People around here really don't care what ya'll think.
And not being crazy, but the truth is, if I mentioned half the schools represented on this board, most SWAC followers would not even know you exist unless they lived in your state.

Was trying to be nice but that is the truth.
Why do you think the turnout is so sparse when a HBCU play's one of ya'll but at the same time a 1A school can't allocate enough ticket's for us when we play them.
No travel and really no hype at home either.
:nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2:
Too much "you" and "us" in your posts for my liking.

[89Hen]

Things have changed since that record was compiled with many of those games being played 10, 15 and 20 years ago.
Like?...

[Cap'n Cat]

Like?...

The grammatically correct response would be, "Such as?"

Thanks,

Cap'n Cat

[jstate83]

:nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2:
Too much "you" and "us" in your posts for my liking.

Then YOU need to stop asking US questions and then turn around and tell US how it is. xlolx

Told you I didn't want to get in this useless pi$$ing match.
Ain't a dang thang gonna be changed when I walk into Memorial tomorrow night.

[89Hen]

Us, and them
And after all we're only ordinary men.
Me, and you.
God only knows it's noz what we would choose to do.
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end it's only round and round.
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside.

[Mr. Tiger]

Like?...

Jackson State University was severely underfunded by the state of Mississippi in the 1980s and 90s. Our athletic facilities were worse than many high schools. The weight room was pathetic. A desegregation lawsuit filed in the 1960s was finally settled in about 2001 to give Jackson State, Alcorn State, and Mississippi Valley State millions of dollars in funding for improvements to their campuses and facilities. Now, our head football coaches' salary has seen a dramatic increase. We have a first-year coach who has a well-paid staff, much better weight room and practice facility. The entire campus looks better.

[89Hen]

millions of dollars in funding for improvements to their campuses and facilities. Now, our head football coaches' salary has seen a dramatic increase. We have a first-year coach who has a well-paid staff, much better weight room and practice facility. The entire campus looks better.
:thumbsup: That's great news. Let's hope that turns into an improved program for you.

[*****]

... BTW: The SWAC has already sent their #2 team a couple of times.................JSU.
Those years either SU or GRAM was the SWAC Champion and played in the Heritage Bowl. ...Actually
1978 and 1997 show as years that the conference champ did not go the playoffs. Why?

1978 - JSU had a better overall record. Conference champ Grambling State had conference record of 5-0-1 and a overall record of 9-1-1. Grambling's last game was a 31-7 regular season loss to FAMU. Jackson State, while 5-1-0 in conference play had an overall record of 10-1-0 and was awarded an at-large bid to the playoffs.

1997 - The conference champ was Southern and they played in the Bayou Classic and Heritage Bowl. Jackson State was awarded an at-large bid to the playoffs.

http://anygivensaturday.com/ralphblog/article.php?story=20060115132359621I don't think Grambling played in the Heritage Bowl in 1978.

[Mike Johnson]

The attendance issues wouldn't be too much of an issue as both conferences get decent to great attendance, and besides, the NCAA does not appear to be serious about denying IA membership to schools that don't meet their minimum anyway.

Actually, only eight IAA teams (Montana, Delaware, Yale, Southern, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Florida A&M, and Tennessee State) had an average of 15,000 fans last year and that included only one Ivy League and one SWAC team.

BTW, the NCAA is getting very serious about the attendance requirement and thus the warning letters this past year. The main issue was the removal the many outs that previously existed. Previously, the requirement was an average of 17,000 fans, but that was in the best five games against IA opponents (play six or seven at home and the lowest attendance don't count). Also, a school only needed to qualify every four years if they had a 30,000-seat stadium. A school was given the option of counting all their games (road, neutral, and home) instead of five home games. And finally, if a conference had six schools that met the requirement, all others were deemed to meet the requirement. These four exceptions were pretty big and protected many schools.

But, all four of these exceptions went away as of last year. Under the new rules in effect from last year, a team must now average 15,000 fans in all home games (minimum of five). The first violation results in a warning letter (about a dozen colleges got warning letters earlier this year). The second violation in a ten year period means sanctions, primarily no post-season play. A third violation in a ten year period mean automatic reclassification to IAA.

It is my theory that the lower tier IA schools were needed to ensure that a large number of the upper tier IA schools would have winning records and thus be bowl eligible. How can the SEC get 8 out 12 teams bowl eligible if they only played each other and teams on their level? The same argument goes for the other elite conferences getting a majority of their teams into bowl games each year, when each bowl eligible team needed to win a majority of their games.

There were other changes to the rules that went into effect last year as well, including the ability to count IAA teams (one per year toward bowl eligibility and the home scheduling requirement as long as they had 57 scholarships or equivalent). This change led to an explosion of IA-IAA games (55 last year, more than 80 this year) and not just by the lower tier of the IA, but many of the elite programs play a IAA team. I see the combined package as a means by which the elite conferences are breaking a dependency they have had on the lower tier IA patsies. I think they were scared to death by the MAC starting to win a number of games against the Big Ten a few years ago. The MAC, with 14 schools, benefitted from the six team conference rule and typically half the conference wouldn't meet the IA requirements but were protected by this rule. Another change that went into affect last year was that a team now needs to win 6 games in a 12 game schedule, instead of 7. The whole package of rule changes last year suggest that the elite teams would like to have a much larger pool of patsies each year to guarantee 8 bowl eligible teams in such conferences as the Big Ten, SEC, and Big Twelve and at least 6 in the other BCS conferences. The lower tier IA schools were demanding more and more money to be patsies and by allowing IAA schools in the mix, it increases the supply of patsies and reduced the upward pressure to pay for a patsy.

Of course, it hasn't completely gone as planned and some IA teams have been beated by IAA teams this year. But, with 80+ such games, it would be really surprising if IA (or even the elite in IA) won all of them.