I-AA minimum scholarship requirement

[MplsBison]

I-A has an absolute 90% minimum. If you want to be in I-A, you have to have 76.5 (and since you can only give out wholes, you must have 77).

I-AA has no requirement and many teams have less than 90% of the 63 which is 56.7.

I-A has stipulated that in order to count a I-AA win towards the bowl win total, that I-AA must have 56.7.

But there is currently no amount of scholarships that an I-AA team must have to be in the sub division.


How do you feel about the minimums?

Would you rather see I-AA stipulate a minimum or I-A get rid of their minimum?


I think I-AA should have a minimum.

If you have less than the minimum then football would not count as 1 of the 14 sports that is required by the NCAA to be DI. Your team would be independant of the NCAA (which would obviously be fine for the SWAC, Ivy, and Pioneer Leagues). It would basically be like men's volleyball.

I would not support allowing teams with less than the I-AA minimum to go to DII or allowing teams with no scholarships to go to DIII either. If you're DI, then you have to have DI football. But if you won't give the minimum number of scholarships, that's basically the same thing as not having a football team.

[Ruler 79]

Believe it or not I agree. 1AA should have a minimum and teams that want to be considered for the playoffs they should have the minimum. This from a Albany alum.

[DFW HOYA]

How do you feel about the minimums?

Would you rather see I-AA stipulate a minimum or I-A get rid of their minimum?

Neither. There are no NCAA minimums in any other championship (read=non BCS) sport, so why football?

[dbackjon]

Not sure about minimums, but one thing that does bug me is a win over a I-AA non-schollie (or minimum schollie) team counts for at-large playoff eligibility, but a win over a D-II team that gives out 25-36 scholies doesn't count. :twocents:

[aceinthehole]

Neither. There are no NCAA minimums in any other championship (read=non BCS) sport, so why football?

DFW - I agree with you.

Remember D-I already has a minimum for # of teams sponsored and total # of scholarships for a school. If you meet the D-I requirements, you should be allowed to field a team for any sport with any number of scholly you wish.

Why add more restrictions?

[ccd494]

After the Dayton ruling, there isn't anywhere to put teams that want to play football without the minimum scholarships, either. It would be a death sentence to some schools, and I think we can all agree that more teams is better.

[Cap'n Cat]

I think Pancho Villa was framed.

[MplsBison]

After the Dayton ruling, there isn't anywhere to put teams that want to play football without the minimum scholarships, either. It would be a death sentence to some schools, and I think we can all agree that more teams is better.

This is specifically why I put in this paragraph:


If you have less than the minimum then football would not count as 1 of the 14 sports that is required by the NCAA to be DI. Your team would be independant of the NCAA (which would obviously be fine for the SWAC, Ivy, and Pioneer Leagues).


Not having an official NCAA sponsorship for your football team does not mean that you can't still have a football team.

There is no NCAA sponsorship for sailing, but there are still schools that have it.

The SWAC can have their championships, and the Ivy and PFL could still have a championship game. Etc. They simply wouldn't be included in NCAA DI football as they didn't meet the scholarship minimums (and at the same time they couldn't be in DII or DIII since the rest of their athletic teams were in DI).

[UAalum72]

Include a 3-year grace period for schools who choose to ramp up to the new requirement.

I suppose those that leave the NCAA football could play NAIA, if there are any others in their area.

[RabidRabbit]

Include a 3-year grace period for schools who choose to ramp up to the new requirement.

I suppose those that leave the NCAA football could play NAIA, if there are any others in their area.

IF go this way, be consistent with D-II transitionals. 5 years to get eligible. IF is a huge word here though.

[UAalum72]

IF go this way, be consistent with D-II transitionals. 5 years to get eligible. IF is a huge word here though.
Different situation. D-II transitionals knew the rules going in. This is a fully complying member having the rules changed after they're in.

[DFW HOYA]

Not having an official NCAA sponsorship for your football team does not mean that you can't still have a football team.
There is no NCAA sponsorship for sailing, but there are still schools that have it.

The NCAA does not allow Div. I member institutions to play a varsity sport outside the NCAA if the NCAA sponsors that sport. Section 3.2.4.5 of the NCAA manual reads "The constitution, bylaws and other legislation of this Association, unless otherwise specified therein, shall apply to all teams in sports recognized by the member institution as varsity intercollegiate sports and that involve all male teams, mixed teams of males and females, and all-female teams."

If the SEC decided to play football outside the NCAA's jurisdiction, for example, the association would not allow it and could expel the schools outright.

To your example, sailing is not sponsored by the NCAA, so there's no conflict there.

[BEAR]

IF go this way, be consistent with D-II transitionals. 5 years to get eligible. IF is a huge word here though.

5 years to get eligible? You mean for the school to be able to get up to the scholarship level required if there was one. How about schools that transition to I-AA from DII and are able to get to the required levels their first year? ex. of course UCA was DII last year and now is I-AA this year and have gone from 29 schollies to 63..do they now get to qualify as full members of I-AA and not have to go through 5 years of transition? I mean they meet all the requirements. :rolleyes: :smiley_wi

[colgate13]

My question is: what problem would minimums solve?

[MplsBison]

Include a 3-year grace period for schools who choose to ramp up to the new requirement.

I like that idea.

Another would be that if you can average the minimum number of scholarships over the 1st 3 years, you can be eligible the 4th year if you're a transitional team.

[MplsBison]

The NCAA does not allow Div. I member institutions to play a varsity sport outside the NCAA if the NCAA sponsors that sport. Section 3.2.4.5 of the NCAA manual reads "The constitution, bylaws and other legislation of this Association, unless otherwise specified therein, shall apply to all teams in sports recognized by the member institution as varsity intercollegiate sports and that involve all male teams, mixed teams of males and females, and all-female teams."

If the SEC decided to play football outside the NCAA's jurisdiction, for example, the association would not allow it and could expel the schools outright.

To your example, sailing is not sponsored by the NCAA, so there's no conflict there.


Your post is analogous to posting "speeding is illegal" in a thread titled "should speeding be illegal?".


Obviously if the minimum would be in place there would have to be some way for DI schools who wanted a football team but didn't want to meet the playoff subdivision minimum to play.

[MplsBison]

My question is: what problem would minimums solve?

Gets the schools who aren't serious about funding football out of the subdivision.

[UAalum72]

How about schools that transition to I-AA from DII and are able to get to the required levels their first year? ex. of course UCA was DII last year and now is I-AA this year and have gone from 29 schollies to 63..do they now get to qualify as full members of I-AA and not have to go through 5 years of transition?
There's a lot more to moving up a division than just adding scholarships in football.


My question is: what problem would minimums solve?

Gets the schools who aren't serious about funding football out of the subdivision.
Why is the funding of 21 programs (only 1/6 of the total) that have never been invited to the playoffs anyway such a serious problem?

[colgate13]

Gets the schools who aren't serious about funding football out of the subdivision.

You didn't answer my question.

What problem does 'getting the schools who aren't serious about funding football out of the subdivision' solve? What problem in I-AA exists that the cause of which is underfunded programs? :confused:

[MplsBison]

The problem of which teams "deserve" to go to the playoffs.

[foghorn]

Neither. There are no NCAA minimums in any other championship (read=non BCS) sport, so why football?

Because most schools have up to 105 players on the squad, unlike 15 in basketball, for example. Depth in football is more important since there are so many injuries. In order to maintain a semblance of a level playing field, it is important that schools have like scholarship programs. xcoffeex

[Dane96]

Well, then that is a shortsighted question. Fact is, scholarships, no scholarships, grants, pocket change, whatever: IF A SCHOOL IS KICKING BUTT...they deserve to get in the playoffs, no matter the financial situation.

The true, and only answer to your question is no the elimination of underfunded teams, rather autobids for all leagues. If one league gets crushed...it gets crushed. It solves the access problem because power leagues, in any given year, will get their multiple bids. One league getting crushed in the first round IS NOT going to be the end of the world.

Reducing teams by jettisoning them does not solve the problem posed by your question.

[MplsBison]

Well, then that is a shortsighted question. Fact is, scholarships, no scholarships, grants, pocket change, whatever: IF A SCHOOL IS KICKING BUTT...they deserve to get in the playoffs, no matter the financial situation.

It's not that simple.

Who you play is a big part in determining if your team is actually kicking butt or not.


The true, and only answer to your question is no the elimination of underfunded teams, rather autobids for all leagues.

The teams wouldn't be eliminated. They simply wouldn't be DI-AA teams anymore.

They would play amongst themselves independant of I-AA.


If one league gets crushed...it gets crushed. It solves the access problem because power leagues, in any given year, will get their multiple bids. One league getting crushed in the first round IS NOT going to be the end of the world.


If it were like basketball with 65 bids (soon to be 68 and then who knows maybe 128), you can afford to give everyone 1 bid.

Can't do that with 16.

There are already very good teams who deserve to go that don't get to (Cal Poly in 2004, YSU in 2005, etc.).

[Dane96]

Soon to be 68? Ummm..that proposal was voted down.

65 bids out of 324 is about 20%

Giving 20 playoff spots or 24, out of 117 teams. I wont finish the math...for you...because as you can see, the playoff opportunties are LESS for football even with expansion.

As an example, UA's near upset of UCONN...thrilled the nation for two hours this spring. A 16 can play a one close (not the first time it has happened).

So, exactly how does your argument mesh when there is SIGNIFICANTLY less oppty for the number of teams for the FOOTBALL playoff, even with expansion, than there is for hoop?

[MplsBison]

65 out of 324 - 20%

16 out of 122 - 13%

IE, if more playoff spots were given out, there would be more of a case to give one to lower teams.


But the playoffs can't go more than 16 because there isn't enough time.


Basketball can play a game every day, football can only play once a week.



And, as should be obvious, it's much harder to upset in football than it is in bball.

In bball you really only need 1 really good guy. In football you need at least 22.

[Dane96]

65 out of 324 - 20%

16 out of 122 - 13%

IE, if more playoff spots were given out, there would be more of a case to give one to lower teams.


But the playoffs can't go more than 16 because there isn't enough time.


Basketball can play a game every day, football can only play once a week.



And, as should be obvious, it's much harder to upset in football than it is in bball.

In bball you really only need 1 really good guy. In football you need at least 22.

Give me a break. Now you are going to run the not enough time argument.:bang:

Many, including Gate13 and Aceinthehole, have laid out how such a time frame could work (first round byes etc.)

And, my friend, as someone who played DIII hoops on an ELITE 8 team, I can tell you this: YOU NEED MORE THAN ONE GOOD GUY to make ANY sort of run. :nono: xidiotx

The old saying went like this when I played: AT DIII (lots of DI transfers) you need to stop 3 guys. At DII, 4-6 guys. DI...most teams are solid 8 deep, that is the ones making the playoffs. HECK at mid-major UA, we had a rotation that went 9-10 deep.


Bottom line: According to math and commonsense, adding autobids to eligible conferences who apply and some at-large bids (20-24 total teams in the playoffs) IS THE SOLUTION TO YOUR QUESTION.

Your solution, eliminating teams, IMHO is not.

[DFW HOYA]

The teams wouldn't be eliminated. They simply wouldn't be DI-AA teams anymore.They would play amongst themselves independant of I-AA.

Again, here's where you're losing me. The NCAA won't allow for schools to play independent of its auspices. So where would they play? The short answer is they wouldn't.

If you're trying to frame this in terms of the so called "I-AAA" football subdivision, which was defeated in 1992, that's one thing, but it reads like you're trying to muster 35 or 40 schools out of NCAA football altogether, and that's not going to garner much interest.

[colgate13]

The problem of which teams "deserve" to go to the playoffs.

If that is your opinion of a problem, your proposed solution isn't addressing it.

YSU in 2005? Lafayette got in instead. They're spending at least 55 equivalents. Using your 90% number, they are 1.7 scholarships away (maybe) from a minimum. That's a wash. (BTW, managed to play the national champs very well)

Cal Poly in 2004? Lehigh got in instead. Same deal as Lafayette. Basically at your proposed minimum. (BTW, managed to play the national champs within 1 point)

Frankly, for a team to be competitive enough to win games that would warrant consideration of a playoff bid, there is no need for a minimum. The reality of football, the season and the limited OOC cross-over opportunites basically insures that you have to be a good team to make the playoffs.

[colgate13]

But the playoffs can't go more than 16 because there isn't enough time.

The 2005 Division III football playoffs:

First round, Nov. 20
at UW-La Crosse 37, St. Norbert 23
at Occidental 28, Willamette 14
at Concordia-Moorhead 28, Wartburg 14
at Hobart 35, Curry 16
at St. John Fisher 31, Muhlenberg 3
at Delaware Valley 21, Shenandoah 17
Mary Hardin-Baylor 32, at Trinity (Texas) 13
Christopher Newport 35, at Salisbury 23
at Washington and Jefferson 55, Bridgewater (Va.) 48 (2 OT)
at Wheaton 31, Mt. St. Joseph 7
Carthage 31, at Alma 28
at Wooster 41, Aurora 34
Second round, Nov. 27
at Linfield 52, UW-La Crosse 14
Occidental 42, Concordia-Moorhead 40, at Fargo, N.D.
at Rowan 45, Hobart 14
at Delaware Valley 26, St. John Fisher 20
Mary Hardin-Baylor 42, at Hardin-Simmons 28
at Washington and Jefferson 24, Christopher Newport 14
at Mount Union 23, Wheaton 6
Carthage 14, at Wooster 7
Quarterfinals, Dec. 4
at Linfield 56, Occidental 27
at Rowan 56, Delaware Valley 7
Mary Hardin-Baylor 52, at Washington and Jefferson 16
at Mount Union 38, Carthage 20
Semifinals, Dec. 11
at Linfield 52, Rowan 0
Mary Hardin-Baylor 38, at Mount Union 35
Semifinals, Dec. 18
Linfield 28, Mary Hardin-Baylor 21, at Salem, Va.
Seems to me they started with 24 teams, and got done before the bowl season. xcoffeex

[Go...gate]

Let all the champions in. It is like the Masters golf tournament; if you win a PGA tournament, you get invited, and nobody turns it down. The champions of our brother conferences the NEC, PFL and Great West should be invited.

[MplsBison]

Again, here's where you're losing me. The NCAA won't allow for schools to play independent of its auspices. So where would they play? The short answer is they wouldn't.


Your post is analogous to posting "speeding is illegal" in a thread titled "should speeding be illegal?".


Obviously if the minimum would be in place there would have to be some way for DI schools who wanted a football team but didn't want to meet the playoff subdivision minimum to play.

Stop saying "this is how it is" in a hypothetical thread.

[DFW HOYA]

Stop saying "this is how it is" in a hypothetical thread.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Whether or not you can or can't right now, it is certainly not in the NCAA's future interests to allow member schools to play sports outside its auspices. This would (hypothetically, of course) open up a door for I-A schools to essentially avoid NCAA jurisdiction and start their own semi-pro leagues.

[MplsBison]

It would have to be in their interests if they were going to put a minimum on the division and, at the same time, force all schools in that division for bball be in it for fball.

[McTailGator]

I-A has an absolute 90% minimum. If you want to be in I-A, you have to have 76.5 (and since you can only give out wholes, you must have 77).

I-AA has no requirement and many teams have less than 90% of the 63 which is 56.7.

I-A has stipulated that in order to count a I-AA win towards the bowl win total, that I-AA must have 56.7.

But there is currently no amount of scholarships that an I-AA team must have to be in the sub division.


How do you feel about the minimums?

Would you rather see I-AA stipulate a minimum or I-A get rid of their minimum?


I think I-AA should have a minimum.

If you have less than the minimum then football would not count as 1 of the 14 sports that is required by the NCAA to be DI. Your team would be independant of the NCAA (which would obviously be fine for the SWAC, Ivy, and Pioneer Leagues). It would basically be like men's volleyball.

I would not support allowing teams with less than the I-AA minimum to go to DII or allowing teams with no scholarships to go to DIII either. If you're DI, then you have to have DI football. But if you won't give the minimum number of scholarships, that's basically the same thing as not having a football team.


I also believe we should maintain the 5.7 number as mentioned to be eligable for the PCS.

[AppMan]

The lack of a minimum number of scholarships is one of the major problems with 1-aa. I can see no arguement that can be made for schools who only give a handful of scholarships to be classified in the same division. It is about as ridiculous and the non-scholarship schools stats being included with the power conferences. There are actually no requirements to play 1-aa except being a D-I program. No stadium size (heck you don't even need seats), no attendance requirements, no coaching staff size, no scholarships, no tickets, no nothing. Simply line off a field and play. No wonder 1-aa is such a hodge-podge of mis-matched schools. In 1-A schools like Duke, Wake, Vandy, SMU, Tulane, and others have a hard time matching the Ohio State's & LSU's. But at least they are required to show a minimal committment to the division by awarding a certain number of scholarships.

[MplsBison]

Agreed.

Maybe there can be something like I-AAA football?

[MR. CHICKEN]

I-A has an absolute 90% minimum. If you want to be in I-A, you have to have 76.5 (and since you can only give out wholes, you must have 77).

I-AA has no requirement and many teams have less than 90% of the 63 which is 56.7.

I-A has stipulated that in order to count a I-AA win towards the bowl win total, that I-AA must have 56.7.

But there is currently no amount of scholarships that an I-AA team must have to be in the sub division.


How do you feel about the minimums?

IFIN' YA WANNA SEND OUT.....8 SCHOLLIES...OVERAH 22 PLAYERS....TA BATTLE...........UH I-AA.....NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED....TRADITION ENHANCED....POWER-HOUSE...............SO BE IT............BY...DUH...BY........DEY WERE.......VICTORIOUS!.......WHAT MINIMUM??....................:confused:......AWK!

Would you rather see I-AA stipulate a minimum or I-A get rid of their minimum?


I think I-AA should have a minimum.

If you have less than the minimum then football would not count as 1 of the 14 sports that is required by the NCAA to be DI. Your team would be independant of the NCAA (which would obviously be fine for the SWAC, Ivy, and Pioneer Leagues). It would basically be like men's volleyball.

I would not support allowing teams with less than the I-AA minimum to go to DII or allowing teams with no scholarships to go to DIII either. If you're DI, then you have to have DI football. But if you won't give the minimum number of scholarships, that's basically the same thing as not having a football team.

:confused:

[UAalum72]

But if you won't give the minimum number of scholarships, that's basically the same thing as not having a football team.
So Georgia Southern, Colgate, Lehigh, and Delaware have lost games this year to basically mirages of football teams? Maybe their program donors should ask for their money back.

[colgate13]

So Georgia Southern, Colgate, Lehigh, and Delaware have lost games this year to basically mirages of football teams? Maybe their program donors should ask for their money back.

xsmileyclapxxsmileyclapxxsmileyclapxxsmileyclapxxs mileyclapx:hurray::hurray::hurray::hurray::hurray:

Since when did off the field issues trump on the field results?

[colgate13]

The lack of a minimum number of scholarships is one of the major problems with 1-aa. I can see no arguement that can be made for schools who only give a handful of scholarships to be classified in the same division.

There is more to committment than the number of scholarships.

Look at Division I hoops. A hodge-podge of 300+ teams with little in common except games on the court. There are so many different ways of doing things and being successful at it that there should not be a group of schools trying to legislate their ideals to the rest of the NCAA.

[aceinthehole]

There is more to committment than the number of scholarships.

Look at Division I hoops. A hodge-podge of 300+ teams with little in common except games on the court. There are so many different ways of doing things and being successful at it that there should not be a group of schools trying to legislate their ideals to the rest of the NCAA.

Exactly, this minimum scholarship is silly. It doesn't apply to any other sport. What Bison is proposing is not clear and would add more confusion to the sport.

The concept of conferences is what is supposed to organize schools by peer group. That is why on the whole you can't compare the Big East to the Big South in any sport. Its apples and oranges.

The last thing college sports need are more reglations by the NCAA! Its a conference issue to be decied by the member schools.

[AppMan]

There is more to committment than the number of scholarships.

Exactly! And it could be argued a large number of D-I basketball teams do not have that committment. Schools with 1100 seat gyms and budgets less than some high schools.


Look at Division I hoops. A hodge-podge of 300+ teams with little in common except games on the court. There are so many different ways of doing things and being successful at it that there should not be a group of schools trying to legislate their ideals to the rest of the NCAA.

In other words, schools that either can't or won't step up to the plate should still be allowed to enjoy the same benefits of those who do?

[MplsBison]

I'm sick of this BS of trying to compare the basketball situation to the football situation.


It's not comparable in any sense. Never has been and never will be.

[Dane96]

Maybe if you gave a good explanation...we would understand. You see, I played both sports in school, and personally, I dont see the difference.

So....fire away...show us, other than what you have already (percentages were proven in favor of expanding the playoffs after we finished) why you think the situation is different.

Dont give me depth, dont give me not enough weeks...we have covered them ad nauseum.

State your case!

[turfdoc]

Let all the champions in. It is like the Masters golf tournament; if you win a PGA tournament, you get invited, and nobody turns it down. The champions of our brother conferences the NEC, PFL and Great West should be invited.


Unfortunately the masters does not work this way anymore. They changed the rules to allow more international players into the tournament.

When I first went to school my late father (not a huge football fan) referred to the Daytons and Drakes as I-AAA. I always liked that>

[colgate13]

Exactly! And it could be argued a large number of D-I basketball teams do not have that committment. Schools with 1100 seat gyms and budgets less than some high schools.
Could be... but I don't see the tide of Division I hoops ending.


In other words, schools that either can't or won't step up to the plate should still be allowed to enjoy the same benefits of those who do?

This is at the core of one of my pet peeves. Schools that won't step up? Step up to what? The NCAA is an association of schools - it is not a professional league where everyone has to do things the same way. Different schools have different priorities, but that should not prevent them from participating at the level that a school thinks is right for them. If they want to get smacked week in and week out, so be it.

Bottom line: The expenditures of ASU on I-AA football vs. the expenditures of say, Princeton, on I-AA football are apples and oranges. Why does ASU get to define what 'stepping up' is? How about we turn the arguement on it's head and say that in order to be a Division I school, a school must offer certain academic requirements? Or acceptance minimums? Why does a school that offers less academic substance get to enjoy the same benefits as one that emphasizes athletics more? I bet you think the arguement is silly - huh?

Oh, and what benefits are there to I-AA? It's not a money maker.:confused: