Renewed Interest in FCS Non-Scholarship Football!

[DetroitFlyer]

Recently, there has been a bit of a renewed interest in FCS, non-scholarship football. As we all know, Campbell is starting up a program and hoping to join the PFL. The latest information is that they have not been accepted yet. Also, the University of Detroit Mercy is reported to be seriously considering a non-scholarship program, and is reported to have interest in the PFL.... Most recently, Lipscomb University is reported to be studying FCS non-scholarship football again, with an eye towards the PFL.... Those of you are are giddy, just waiting for Saint Peters or Iona to fold, just might be sorely disappointed! I do not know if UDM or LU will come on board, but it sure looks like there just might still be enough room for two, FCS, non-scholarship, football conferences in the land.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702120380

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070124/SPORTS02/701240344/1019

[andy7171]

Who doesn't have interest in seeing undersized mediocre high school players get another four years to play? Wait. Isn't that what D.III is for?

[DFW HOYA]

Who doesn't have interest in seeing undersized mediocre high school players get another four years to play? Wait. Isn't that what D.III is for?

That's an awfully short-sighted comment. I-AA, er, FCS is all about opportunity and competition.

No one should throw stones in this house. There's about 100 other I-A schools who would make the exact same comments about your team or any number represented here.

[Fordham]

cheap shot andy.

[andy7171]

There's about 100 other I-A schools who would make the exact same comments about your team or any number represented here.
I know, that's why I can say it. Trickle Down Condescension.
Renewed Interest in Non-Scholarship FCS football, as if. There is barely any interest in scholarship FCS footbal, outside a handful of forums and team followings.

[89Hen]

How does Title IX work for non-schollie football? Obviously there aren't schollies to match, but do schools have to spend the equivalent on women's sports: coaches salaries, playing fields, facilities, etc...?

[andy7171]

How does Title IX work for non-schollie football? Obviously there aren't schollies to match, but do schools have to spend the equivalent on women's sports: coaches salaries, playing fields, facilities, etc...?
Schoalrships still have to be equal. Not having a football team makes the job a bit easier. Most other sports have men/women equivalents. Soccer, lacrosse, basketball, golf, swimming, baseball/softball

I used to think making schools make up for football scholarships is completely unfair. But now that I have 3 girls, my opinion is swaying 180 degrees.

[DetroitFlyer]

http://utahutes.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/dunn_kevin00.html

It is always fun exploiting the ignorance of posters like Andy7171.... Mr. Dunn above has transferred from FBS program Utah to USD! Yeah, he is certainly an "undersized" "mediocre high school player". Wow, a kid giving up a full scholarship at an FBS school to play at an FCS, non-scholarship school, and an expensive one at that! The established non-scholarship FCS programs are getting better and absoultely attracting kids that could be playing at your precious FCS school. Oh yeah, some kids even decide to play at non-scholarship FCS schools rather than FBS schools! This is now pretty much true at all "non-scholarship" FCS schools. The fact is that MANY FCS schools do not give out full schollys to every kid on the team. A partial scholly at FCS State U, may not be that attractive to a kid that can obtain decent aid at a non-scholarship school. Believe it or not, schools like USD, Drake, Dayton, and many others are not recruiting "Division III" type players. Combined with great coaching, ( aka Jim Harbaugh, Mike Kelly, Rob Ash, etc. ), the "non-scholly" schools are getting more competitive every season. MANY are ranked by various methods as better than a boat load of your "superior" ( LOL ), "full scholly" programs!

[DetroitFlyer]

As for title IX at Dayton, the "non-scholarship" football program is "offset" primarily by the "non-scholarship" womens rowing program. One of our boats was nationally ranked last season as a "non-scholarship" program. Oh wait, "non-scholarship" programs cannot possibly be any good because they are using "undersized and mediocre" high school kids. :bang:

[Fordham]

How does Title IX work for non-schollie football? Obviously there aren't schollies to match, but do schools have to spend the equivalent on women's sports: coaches salaries, playing fields, facilities, etc...?
There was always a healthy debate about this question, primarily between 13 and some well informed HC posters that led me to believe that there was enough 'grey area' here for schools to interpret/apply it as they saw fit.

The one thing that I'm certain of, though, is that the "one for one" match is only one of the three ways to acheive compliance, so while it may be the one that upholds the spirit of Title IX the best, it's not the one that has to be used.

About Title IX (http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/aboutRE.html). Just did a quick google to get the attached quote but I have looked up the actual Title IX document in the past and this is in synch with it:


1. Whether the intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.

2. Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of that sex.

3. Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.

I believe #1 is the idea not only of one-for-one but also that it has to be proportionate to the male-female ratio of the student body. That's why my guess is that The Citadel will likely have a much easier time hitting #1 than someone like us or HC, who I believe both have much higher ratios of Females to Males in the general population.

2 and 3 imo are pretty vague. I know that 3 can be acheived through a student survey basically gauging the satisfaction of the student body with the current set up. As long as the survey results do not indicate dissatisfaction or an unmet need from either the male, or more likely, the female population, you meet compliance. Again, not sure if that is in line with the spirit of the act or not but it is what it is.

[andy7171]

http://utahutes.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/dunn_kevin00.html

It is always fun exploiting the ignorance of posters like Andy7171.... Mr. Dunn above has transferred from FBS program Utah to USD! Yeah, he is certainly an "undersized" "mediocre high school player". Wow, a kid giving up a full scholarship at an FBS school to play at an FCS, non-scholarship school, and an expensive one at that! The established non-scholarship FCS programs are getting better and absoultely attracting kids that could be playing at your precious FCS school. Oh yeah, some kids even decide to play at non-scholarship FCS schools rather than FBS schools! This is now pretty much true at all "non-scholarship" FCS schools. The fact is that MANY FCS schools do not give out full schollys to every kid on the team. A partial scholly at FCS State U, may not be that attractive to a kid that can obtain decent aid at a non-scholarship school. Believe it or not, schools like USD, Drake, Dayton, and many others are not recruiting "Division III" type players. Combined with great coaching, ( aka Jim Harbaugh, Mike Kelly, Rob Ash, etc. ), the "non-scholly" schools are getting more competitive every season. MANY are ranked by various methods as better than a boat load of your "superior" ( LOL ), "full scholly" programs!
Is Kevin Dunn supposed to scare me? A freshman with 2 JRs and a SR ahead of him is a great place to become a 2 year starter, if he were any good. Is a player who can't cut the mustard and comes back home to play for a local college a sign of good things to come?
Please.
The only thing I will appologise for is making my post in this area and not the smack page. For that I am sorry.

But saying there is renewed interest in non-scholarship football based on a handful of small schools I never heard of is comical when its hard to even drum up interest in scholarship programs starting up in Georgia State, ODU, UTSA and ETSU. That was my point. Which wasn't smack. The shot at D.III I took, because I can. And that was the smacky part.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

R.... Those of you are are giddy, just waiting for Saint Peters or Iona to fold, just might be sorely disappointed...

I'm certainly not waiting for St. Peter's or Iona to fold, but there's nothing in your article that leads me to believe that there are going to be two non-scholarship conferences anytime soon. (The Lipscomb person obviously didn't put much research in the article, talking about the "Pioneer Football CONFERENCE" and I-AA). The main problem with the non-scholarship map is the fact that the non-scholly teams are too spread out. I don't think Iona and/or St. Peter's could afford two league road games that require flights.

Personally, I hope that there are two non-scholly conferences, but the MAAC is in serious trouble. I hope the MAAC commissioner and the MAAC schools fight to keep football. But Siena, Fairfield and Canisius all dropped football fairly recently in the MAAC and there was no fight from the MAAC leadership. If you're a fan of non-scholly football out east, what do you hope for? Campbell or Lipscomb to ride into the MAAC as an affiliate on a silver horse? The NEC to implode, go back to non- or limited-scholly and scoop up the MAAC teams? Do you root for the PFL to get so big that they almost have to divide in "east" and "west"?

There is a big difference between schools in which basketball can support football (Dayton, Duquesne, possibly DM, Lipscomb) and the MAAC schools which have seen a rapid slide into irrelevance in basketball - and the football teams are victims of this slide.

[andy7171]

As for title IX at Dayton, the "non-scholarship" football program is "offset" primarily by the "non-scholarship" womens rowing program. One of our boats was nationally ranked last season as a "non-scholarship" program. Oh wait, "non-scholarship" programs cannot possibly be any good because they are using "undersized and mediocre" high school kids. :bang:
This is the wrong place to do this, but do you want to compare the Dayton roster to a local HS team? I saw on lineman at 300lbs, he was also 6'1" and hadn't played a down in 3 years. Yikes!

[jstate83]

A school would have to have an awful lot of PRIVATE MONEY to do this.
If you think a school can survive 1AA without scholorships while the rest are giving out 63, then ya'll better talk to P. View.

In the early '90's, they let their football team go for 1 year.
They brought it back without schollies.

Teams in the SWAC was posting 70, 80, and yes 90 point scores on them.
That shat was not fun to watch..................EVEN FOR THE WINNING FANS.

A few scores from a non-schollie 1-AA.
P. View 91 season( 1st year back playing football)

Tx. Southern 6-23
Angelo St 0-55
Missouri St. 0-61
Tx. A&M Kingsville 3-41
Grambling 7-77
Cameron(OK) 6-51
Alcorn 0-61
Alabama St 0-92
Valley 0-41
Texas St 6-59
SU 20-6

JSU
1989 0-66
1992 0-46
1993 7-37
1994 7-52
1995 0-68
1996 20-76

A team would get killed without some major private funding and facilities at the 1-AA level.

[Fordham]

But saying there is renewed interest in non-scholarship football based on a handful of small schools I never heard of is comical ...
how is not accurate to say that there is renewed interest if there are new articles stating that two schools are considering adding it? Whether or not larger, scholarship schools struggle with maintaining or increasing interest or not is irrelevant.

you responded to the post about these articles as though flyer wrote something akin to non-scholly football interest going through the roof or challenging scholly football for supremacy or if he had used some other hyperbole to describe it. As put, it's just saying that schools are looking at joining the non-scholly group, nothing more. Perhaps 'new' or 'increased' would have been more accurate than 'renewed' but 'wow' would that be splitting hairs imo (and I don't think the substitution of those words would have changed your criticism based upon its content).

Further, when put in the context of what has been repeatedly thrown in Flyer's face about the possible demise of the PFL and other non-scholly schools and conferences it seems entirely fitting for him to post these articles since they seem to show that while some schools may be moving to scholarship ball there may be other schools ready to take their place.

[Fordham]

A school would have to have an awful lot of PRIVATE MONEY to do this.
If you think a school can survive 1AA without scholorships while the rest are giving out 63, then ya'll better talk to P. View.

In the early '90's, they let their football team go for 1 year.
They brought it back without schollies.

Teams in the SWAC was posting 70, 80, and yes 90 point scores on them.
That shat was not fun to watch...

A team would get killed without some major private funding and facilities at the 1-AA level.

JState, no one is saying that these schools would be non-scholly while competing in a scholly-based conference, though.

[andy7171]

I am completely flabbergasted looking at your signature picture every time you post jstate83! Simply amazing!

Prarie View did something that the PFL doesn't though. They played a full SWAC schedule. And although most people on this message board disrespect the SWACs strength, it certainly ain't the PFL or schools like Wittenburg or Dixie State.

[danefan]

Who cares if teams want to try and keep non-scholly FCS alive? How does it effect any other conferences. If anything it helps scheduling for some teams. Non-scholly's are generally an easy win for FCS scholly teams, but that win still counts as a DI win. I say if they want to go ahead and keep the MAAC and the PFL at non-scholly let them....I'm just glad Albany is scholly now.

[andy7171]

how is not accurate to say that there is renewed interest if there are new articles stating that two schools are considering adding it? Whether or not larger, scholarship schools struggle with maintaining or increasing interest or not is irrelevant.

you responded to the post about these articles as though flyer wrote something akin to non-scholly football interest going through the roof or challenging scholly football for supremacy or if he had used some other hyperbole to describe it. As put, it's just saying that schools are looking at joining the non-scholly group, nothing more. Perhaps 'new' or 'increased' would have been more accurate than 'renewed' but 'wow' would that be splitting hairs imo (and I don't think the substitution of those words would have changed your criticism based upon its content).

Further, when put in the context of what has been repeatedly thrown in Flyer's face about the possible demise of the PFL and other non-scholly schools and conferences it seems entirely fitting for him to post these articles since they seem to show that while some schools may be moving to scholarship ball there may be other schools ready to take their place.
You're right. I read deeper into it becasue of past run ins with DetriotFlyer. Damn the intellect of a Fordham education! :)

[jstate83]

I am completely flabbergasted looking at your signature picture every time you post jstate83! Simply amazing!

Prarie View did something that the PFL doesn't though. They played a full SWAC schedule. And although most people on this message board disrespect the SWACs strength, it certainly ain't the PFL or schools like Wittenburg or Dixie State.


Yep....................P. View jumped back into the fire full bore.
That Alabama State game, 92-0, was shocking at how easy it was for Bamma St to score.:eek:
Bamma St went 11-0-1 that year with wins over Troy St, Samford, and North Carolina A@T in the Heritage bowl.


I thought ya'll were saying that there was going to be a conference or teams of NON-schollies playing against teams that give out the full 63.

OK...............I see what's being discussed now.

[DetroitFlyer]

63 McCormick, Patrick 6' 3" 272 OL SO
53 Studt, Eric 6' 1" 270 OL FR
51 Jewell, John 6' 1" 230 OG FR
52 Lay, Jake 5' 11" 246 OG SR
69 Overman, Marcus 6' 1" 255 OG SO
70 Robinson, Luke 6' 3" 260 OG JR
77 Sapp, Ryan 6' 3" 240 OG FR
54 Vermillion, Chris 6' 275 OG JR
75 Croghan, Jim 6' 5" 280 OT JR
68 Fornek, Dan 6' 4" 251 OT FR
56 Friedrich, Tyler 6' 5" 240 OT FR
79 Hartke, Alan 6' 6" 246 OT SO
76 Hawkins, Adam 6' 4" 281 OT SR
73 Kucia, Brian 6' 4" 267 OT JR
71 Merriam, Chase 6' 3" 300 OT JR
62 Pollock, Ryan 6' 3" 281 OT SO
74 Ress, Dan 6' 2" 290 OT SR
57 Bikowski, Blake 6' 234 C SR
59 Clements, W.C 6' 2" 235 C SO
66 Grimes, John 6' 1" 255 C JR
58 Scheidler, Adam 6' 1" 270 C FR

Started the last game of 2006:

52 Lay, Jake 5' 11" 246 OG SR
54 Vermillion, Chris 6' 275 OG JR
76 Hawkins, Adam 6' 4" 281 OT SR
74 Ress, Dan 6' 2" 290 OT SR
57 Bikowski, Blake 6' 234 C SR

Of this group, certainly Jake and Blake could be considered significantly undersized for their positions. Dayton struggled on the O-Line last year as our star, Ryan Winner, 6' 6", 300 graduated after the 2005 season. We are working to correct our O-Line problems. Typically, for our future O-Line "stars" we find kids that are about 240 to 270 coming out of high school. Height wise, they are usually about 6' to 6'3". By the time they are juniors and seniors, they can be pushing the 280 - 300 range, and some may even grow a bit taller. All are more experienced and stronger from the excellent strength training we have. So, we may not land the 6'6" 320 monster coming out of HS, but we usually get there by the time our kids are upperclassmen. In fact, that has been Dayton's MO for many years. We rarely start a freshman or sophomore. It does happen, but not often. We develop players. Maybe not as easy as bringing in monsters to start, but it can be done. Last season's lack of size showed a bit, and we should be better off over the next few seasons. As for our sole 300 pounder, he did play last season, and I expect to see more of him in 2007! One last note, MANY of these kids "redshirt" as freshman, so many seniors are 5th year kids. Once again, this allows us to build these kids strength, skill and overall size, so as juniors, seniors and 5th year seniors, they can line up against anyone!

[dbackjon]

Lipscomb would be a good place for FCS football.

[MplsBison]

Is there any interest in having a separate playoff and champion for non scholarship schools?

Maybe only an 8 team tournament?


Perhaps even a separate DI subdivision? FNS? Football Nonscholarship Subdivision?

[MplsBison]

How does Title IX work for non-schollie football? Obviously there aren't schollies to match, but do schools have to spend the equivalent on women's sports: coaches salaries, playing fields, facilities, etc...?

IMO, football should not be considered when calculating title IX parameters.

[DetroitFlyer]

From MplsBison:

"IMO, football should not be considered when calculating title IX parameters."

Could not agree more!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DetroitFlyer]

There is interest, at least among a few, and I think VERY few folks. One would be the commish of the PFL. As you might recall, there is a move afoot to limit access to the playoffs to teams that provide "X" number of scholarships or spend "Y" amount of dollars in funding their programs. Part of this effort was to also revisit the posibility of an FCS, non-scholarship playoff. Without having any insider information, whatsoever, I think both proposals are dead on arrival. Personally, at the very least, I think there is room in the playoffs for one, non-scholarship team. Maybe that is the PFL Champ or the winner of a PFL / MAAC bowl game. But, that is a topic for a whole new discussion.

[89Hen]

One of our boats was nationally ranked last season as a "non-scholarship" program. Oh wait, "non-scholarship" programs cannot possibly be any good because they are using "undersized and mediocre" high school kids.
:rolleyes:
AGS Poll
22. San Diego

CSN Poll
18. San Diego

SN Poll
20. San Diego

[*****]

Is there any interest in having a separate playoff and champion for non scholarship schools?
Maybe only an 8 team tournament?
Perhaps even a separate DI subdivision? FNS? Football Nonscholarship Subdivision?1. Interest, yes.
2. Tournament, yes.
3. Separate subdivision, no.
Check out CSN WAVES (http://iaawaves.libsyn.com/) any time the PFL commish Patty Viverito is on and you'll hear about NCAA legislation in the works to have a four team playoff for non-schollies. You'll also hear a lot about where non-schollie football is at and may be heading in general.

andy7171, most of your comments in this thread are inappropriate for this discussion board. Take them to the smack board please. The comments are what members are complaining about here, the inability to have a discussion without someone coming in and smacking. Please help out.

[MplsBison]

If there were a separate subdivision and if football was taken out of the title IX loop, I don't see why every DI school with a soccer team couldn't have at least a non scholarship program.


Play on the soccer field.

[*****]

I care about non-scholarship football at the D-I level very much. It keeps FOOTBALL at schools at a level they can manage and it brings much joy to the student-athletes and general community. The play is very good. I respect D-III football too. :twocents:

[MplsBison]

Do you agree with taking football out of title IX?

Is there any way we can get this done?

[andy7171]

If there were a separate subdivision and if football was taken out of the title IX loop, I don't see why every DI school with a soccer team couldn't have at least a non scholarship program.


Play on the soccer field.
First of all, there are many more expenses for a team of 80-100 player football team other than scholarships for a school to cover.
Soccer fields are wider and sometimes longer or shorter than a football field. Not to mention scheduling conflicts and field wear.

I agree football should be removed from Title IX equalization. But just because it was removed, if it were, doesn't mean every school is going to jump in with their own football team. Nor should any school have to do so.

[89Hen]

Do you agree with taking football out of title IX?
I don't think I do. :twocents:

[BDKJMU]

Sorry can correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't back in 92' the NCAA instituted a new rule that if you were DI in other sports you had to be DIA or IAA in football? So 20 some schools that were DI in all other sports but had DIII football started calling their football programs DIAA. They still didn't give schlorships, for the most part remained DIII in caliber, but were no longer eligible for the DIII playoffs, couldn't compete on the same playing playing filed as schlorship IAAs, and had no chance of going to the IAA playoffs even if they went 10-1 or 11-0.

Non schlorship IAA leagues like the Patriot and Ivy can at least compete on the same playing field as the schlorship leagues (usually its the A-10 they're scheduled against), and occasionally post a victory. And now that the NEC has gone partial schlorship they're competitive with the schlorship leagues, too. But obviouly the MAAC and Pioneer league aren't. Aren't all those schools basically DII or DIII in caliber? Did any from those 2 leagues play any of the schlorship teams from one of the top IAA leagues (A-10, Big Sky, Gateway, Great West, etc) in the last couple of years

I don't like the rule that if a school is DI in other sports it has to be at least IAA in football. IF the Patriot and Ivy didn't have some success and were able to compete with the schlorships teams and were more like the MAAC and the Pioneer I would say that a requirement should be made that you had to be at least partial schlorships to be IAA. But since the Patriot and Ivy have proven that you can be non schlorship and somewhat competitive with the schlorship leagues, and the Pioneer and MAAC if they want to have football it has to be IAA, not DII or III, I would like to see the MAAC and Pioneer make the same committment to get to where the Patriot and Ivy are competiviely. To where most of the MAAC and Pioneer teams could at least schedule a couple of schlorship teams per year, and if one of them went 11-0 or 10-1, would maybe be deserving of a playoff spot. Sure, you could take one of the top team from the Pioneer or MAAC and pair them up with one of the worse schlorship teams and the MAAC or Pioneer might win, (mediocre 6-5 UC Davis beat what was maybe the best Pioneer team ever, San Diego by 10), but a top 10 schlorship team and one of the worst MAAC or Pioneer teams pared up and things could get very very ugly. I'm talking about on average where wouldn't have scores, that despite the new clock rules which are having about one possession less per game, would probably usually be 60-70 something to nothing. :twocents:

[BDKJMU]

Do you agree with taking football out of title IX?

Is there any way we can get this done?

Absolutely. My biggest problem with Title IX is that it includes football when there's no comparable women's sport that has roster sizes in the 100 ballpark, or even half that (maybe except crew) and has even 1/2 the amount of (63 (IAA) to 85 (IA)) schlorships. That creates a huge discrepancy & compliance problem right there even for universities that have more men than women, and now there's probably more colleges & universities out there that have more women than men as opposed to the other way around. So usually due to $, instead of adding several womens' sports, colleges ended up cutting several mens'. If football wasn't included, it would be EASY to have Title IX compliance, and you's hear alot less about men's sports and/or schlorships being cut, which it seems like has been going on alot around the country for the last 15-20 years. I know there have been lots of folks in the past that have stated the same. I imagine it was tried by some to get football excluded, but the courts must have ruled it couldn't be. Thats the only reason I have a big problem with Title IX. If it didn't include football in the equation, I wouldn't have a problem with it.:twocents:

[lizrdgizrd]

If you are a DI school for all athletics other than football can you not field an NAIA football team?

[89Hen]

If you are a DI school for all athletics other than football can you not field an NAIA football team?
Not AFAIK. You can only have a club team. George Mason and Georgia State both have club teams but if they start varsity football they have to be DI.

[DFW HOYA]

If you are a DI school for all athletics other than football can you not field an NAIA football team?

In theory, you would have to also be an NAIA school, which may require a certain number of NAIA sports for membership. Some Division II schools have dual membership, but it's a declining number.

This scenario was brouight up recently by fans of Texas-Arlington and their nascent club team--could a club team play in the NAIA? I doubt it, but then again small schools like Bacone, Texas College and Southwest Assemblies of God started as club teams when transitioning into NAIA football.

Then again, there's nothing (aside from embarassment, of course) preventing a I-AA school from playing club teams if they still met the minumum 50% of their schedule coming from Div. I.

[*****]

Sorry can correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't back in 92' the NCAA instituted a new rule that if you were DI in other sports you had to be DIA or IAA in football?... had no chance of going to the IAA playoffs even if they went 10-1 or 11-0... Non schlorship IAA leagues like the Patriot and Ivy... Aren't all those schools basically DII or DIII in caliber? Did any from those 2 leagues play any of the schlorship teams from one of the top IAA leagues (A-10, Big Sky, Gateway, Great West, etc) in the last couple of years?... 1. Yes, the so-called Dayton rule that said if you sponsored a major sport you had to have all your teams in that Division.
2. San Diego from the PFL certainly had a chance to make the D-I playoffs last year.
3. The PL and Ivy provide need-based grants in aid whereas the non-schollie teams cannot receive anything except what is offered to every student.
4. No and yes regarding caliber, same as scholarship teams. Can't generalize.
5. Well, Drake played UNI last year. You already noted that USD played UCD. Remember that USD beat limited schollie Monmouth in the Gridiron Classic.

[89Hen]

Absolutely. My biggest problem with Title IX is that it includes football when there's no comparable women's sport
Maybe they could do equal number of varsity sports men/women. :eyebrow:

[DFW HOYA]

Maybe they could do equal number of varsity sports men/women. :eyebrow:

Or, more likely, a school adds more women's sports with the idea that a football roster = 2 or more women's teams.

Title IX is not going away, and football gets no free ride. Of course, Title IX was not specific to sports. Could it be said a school has to be proportional in its band, in its cheerleaders, even in its faculty? Talk about a slippery slope!

[89Hen]

Or, more likely, a school adds more women's sports with the idea that a football roster = 2 or more women's teams.
I was saying that instead of changing IX to exclude football, they could change it to have equal number of sports. :twocents:

[UAalum72]

Then again, there's nothing (aside from embarassment, of course) preventing a I-AA school from playing club teams if they still met the minumum 50% of their schedule coming from Div. I.
A game against a club team would not count against the 9 game per season minimum - it's only an exhibition

[DetroitFlyer]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/scores103/103263/20030920NCAAFAPPALCHAN-0nr.htm

To say that PFL teams cannot "compete" with scholarship, FCS schools is just not true. USD has defeated Yale the past two years, and the Ivy League can at least compete.... And of course, who can forget the game that Morehead State gave the current defending FCS champion back in 2003?

The PFL has not won many of the games against scholarship FCS programs, but we have won a few over the years, and played very, very close games in many others. My point is that the PFL, especially the traditionally top teams are getting better players each year, and every once in a while, those teams can put together a special season, ( USD the last two year, Dayton in 1996, etc. ).

To say that schools like Dayton, USD, Drake, Morehead State, anong others play "Divison III or Divison II" level football in 2007 is just plain silly....

Scholarships cannot guarantee success. Look at the final GPI from last season and count the number of full scholarship, FCS schools ranked below USD and Drake.

[youwouldno]

2006
Butler 10
Albion 31

Butler 20
Missouri-Rolla 35

Davidson 16
Wingate 22

Jacksonville 6
North Greenville 41

Morehead St 7
Newberry 23

Morehead St 37
Missouri-Rolla 49

Valparaiso 20
Trinity Int'l 39

Valparaiso 14
St. Josephs (Ind.) 43

Conference wins over FCS teams with any playoff appearances: 0

2005
Austin Peay 19
Charleston (WV) 27

Austin Peay 3
Missouri-Rolla 45

Austin Peay 14
St. Joseph's (Ind.) 42

Butler 23
Albion 28

Butler 7
Tiffin 30

Butler 7
St. Joseph's (Ind.) 23

Butler 28
Missouri-Rolla 45

Davidson 9
Lenoir-Rhyne 16

Jacksonville 36
Webber 42

Morehead St 14
Tiffin 17

Valparaiso 21
St. Joseph's (Ind.) 34

Conference wins against teams with any playoff appearances: 0

[*****]

...Uh, you do know that the PFL and MAAC play predominantly FCS teams, right?

You do know that scholarship teams also lose to D-I/II/III/NAIA teams, right?

How can the PFL and MAAC have "conference wins against teams with any playoff appearances" when a team from their conference has never made the playoffs?

[BDKJMU]

2. San Diego from the PFL certainly had a chance to make the D-I playoffs last year.
3. The PL and Ivy provide need-based grants in aid whereas the non-schollie teams cannot receive anything except what is offered to every student.
4. No and yes regarding caliber, same as scholarship teams. Can't generalize.
5. Well, Drake played UNI last year. You already noted that USD played UCD. Remember that USD beat limited schollie Monmouth in the Gridiron Classic.

-No way San Diego deserved a playoff bid at 10-0 (at the time the playoff bids went out)

-Aren't need based grants in aid available to Patriot and Ivy non student athletes also if they can't afford the tuition? Don't the Pioneer and MAAC offer need based tuition assistance, grants in aid, whatever you want to call it, to all students who can't afford the full tuition, athletes or not?

-Sure you can generalize. You can generalize that acroos the board, the MAAC and Pioneer don't field the same caliber of teams as the Patriot and Ivy, aren't even remotely close to the top schlorship conferences, and are probably closer to DII or DIII in caliber than the top schlorship IAA conferences.

-Drake was 9-1 vs other non schlorship opponents, including a DII and DIII opponent, 2nd best team in the PFL, losing only to San Diego. UNI was a decent/above avg Gateway, 6-4 vs other opponents and UNI beat Drake 48-7. Now if you had PFL & MAAC schools regularly scheduling OOC schlorship teams instead of DII and DIII, and had playoff teams up against a lesser PFL & MAAC teams things could get incredibly ugly with basketball like scores.

[youwouldno]

Uh, you do know that the PFL and MAAC play predominantly FCS teams, right?

You do know that scholarship teams also lose to D-I/II/III/NAIA teams, right?

Not so much. In 2006, all the autobid conferences combined lost 4 that I see... and North Dakota is a good team that's going FCS. The PFL lost 8 all on its own, and to much weaker non D-I teams.

In 2005, I count 4 autobid-conference losses, 3 of them by MEAC teams to HBCU rivals in D-II. The PFL lost 11 by itself.

The reality is that the PFL has a mix of teams, most of whom are D-II or borderline D-III caliber, and also a couple solid programs in San Diego and Drake, with Dayton a step below that. It's only an FCS conference for technical reasons, i.e. programs have to play in the same division across sports.

[*****]

-No way San Diego deserved a playoff bid at 10-0 (at the time the playoff bids went out)

-Aren't need based grants in aid available to Patriot and Ivy non student athletes also if they can't afford the tuition? Don't the Pioneer and MAAC offer need based tuition assistance, grants in aid, whatever you want to call it, to all students who can't afford the full tuition, athletes or not?

-Sure you can generalize. You can generalize that acroos the board, the MAAC and Pioneer don't field the same caliber of teams as the Patriot and Ivy, aren't even remotely close to the top schlorship conferences, and are probably closer to DII or DIII in caliber than the top schlorship IAA conferences.

-Drake was 9-1 vs other non schlorship opponents, including a DII and DIII opponent, 2nd best team in the PFL, losing only to San Diego. UNI was a decent/above avg Gateway, 6-4 vs other opponents and UNI beat Drake 48-7. Now if you had PFL & MAAC schools regularly scheduling OOC schlorship teams instead of DII and DIII, and had playoff teams up against a lesser PFL & MAAC teams things could get incredibly ugly with basketball like scores.1. I said they certainly had a chance, so did the playoff selection committee.
2. Specific football need based grants in aid are available to Patriot and Ivy student-athletes, not the PFL or MAAC football student-athletes.
3. Generalize all you want but it is not correct. But non-schollies beat schollies and schollies lose to lower Division teams as well. Many exceptions have already been posted including those that directly contradict what you posted.
4. Was the D-II team non-schollie?

[BDKJMU]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/scores103/103263/20030920NCAAFAPPALCHAN-0nr.htm

To say that PFL teams cannot "compete" with scholarship, FCS schools is just not true. USD has defeated Yale the past two years, and the Ivy League can at least compete.... And of course, who can forget the game that Morehead State gave the current defending FCS champion back in 2003?

The PFL has not won many of the games against scholarship FCS programs, but we have won a few over the years, and played very, very close games in many others. My point is that the PFL, especially the traditionally top teams are getting better players each year, and every once in a while, those teams can put together a special season, ( USD the last two year, Dayton in 1996, etc. ).

To say that schools like Dayton, USD, Drake, Morehead State, anong others play "Divison III or Divison II" level football in 2007 is just plain silly....

Scholarships cannot guarantee success. Look at the final GPI from last season and count the number of full scholarship, FCS schools ranked below USD and Drake.

Of course schlorships don't guarantee success. My point is looking at leagues across the board rather than just individual teams. My point is if you had had in the past and currently all PFL & MAAC teams regularly scheduling 1-2 Patriot & Ivy OOC & 1-2 full schlorship from top IAA leagues PFL and MAAC would lose overwhelming majority of Patriot & IVY games and maybe once in a Blue Moon a top PFL/MAAC would beat a weaker schlorship team, but 90+% of those would be PFL/MAAC losses, with lots of very ugly scores. :twocents:

[DetroitFlyer]

Lopsided scores occur every week in ALL levels of football. For example, as previously mentioned:

2003: Morehead State 21 APSU: 24

2005: Morehead State 17 GSU:63

So, which Morehead State team cannot be competitive in FCS football? It ALWAYS depends on the players. Deleware and GSU both lost to NEC teams last season. Oddly enough, both programs were in a down year.... It certainly does not mean that NEC teams are going to win those games every year.... USD soundly defeated the NEC Champion at the NEC Champions home field last season as well. Does that mean that USD could stomp A10 or Southern Conference teams? Most teams will have up and down years. Maybe the PFL swings a bit more that other FCS leagues, but our teams can be competetive with any FCS school, bar none. We can also get spanked by any FCS school bar none! Making general statements about how a PFL school or even a MAAC school can "never" be competitive and would always get spanked by "FCS State U", is a sign that you know very little about FCS football!

[*****]

Not so much. In 2006, all the autobid conferences combined lost 4 that I see... and North Dakota is a good team that's going FCS. The PFL lost 8 all on its own, and to much weaker non D-I teams.
In 2005, I count 4 autobid-conference losses, 3 of them by MEAC teams to HBCU rivals in D-II. The PFL lost 11 by itself.
The reality is that the PFL has a mix of teams, most of whom are D-II or borderline D-III caliber, and also a couple solid programs in San Diego and Drake, with Dayton a step below that. It's only an FCS conference for technical reasons, i.e. programs have to play in the same division across sports.Okay, your tune is changing a bit and you admit that the PFL and MAAC play predominantly FCS teams and that scholarship teams also lose to D-I/II/III/NAIA teams. Good. You also pointed out North Dakota as being a good D-II. So how many other D-I conferences have teams that are of the same caliber as NoDAK? Is it only the PFL?

[*****]

... maybe once in a Blue Moon...Wasn't last year a banner one for blue moons? xlolx

[youwouldno]

Lopsided scores occur every week in ALL levels of football. For example, as previously mentioned:

2003: Morehead State 21 APSU: 24

2005: Morehead State 17 GSU:63

So, which Morehead State team cannot be competitive in FCS football? It ALWAYS depends on the players. Deleware and GSU both lost to NEC teams last season. Oddly enough, both programs were in a down year.... It certainly does not mean that NEC teams are going to win those games every year.... USD soundly defeated the NEC Champion at the NEC Champions home field last season as well. Does that mean that USD could stomp A10 or Southern Conference teams? Most teams will have up and down years. Maybe the PFL swings a bit more that other FCS leagues, but our teams can be competetive with any FCS school, bar none. We can also get spanked by any FCS school bar none! Making general statements about how a PFL school or even a MAAC school can "never" be competitive and would always get spanked by "FCS State U", is a sign that you know very little about FCS football!

I know a lot more about FCS football than you do. First of all, I don't even know what you mean by "APSU," I think that's actually the short form for Austin Peay and I don't know what relevance that would have.

Second of all, when is the last time a PFL team beat an FCS team that had ever been in the playoffs (at the time of the game vs. PFL team)? It's a legitimate question, I don't know the answer. If Holy Cross has been in the playoffs that would be the answer but I'm not sure on that.

[lizrdgizrd]

Those who say non-scholarship football is D-II are just ignorant. The PFL and MAAC as conferences are not as good as most full or partial scholarship conferences. That is not to say that there aren't very good teams in those leagues. Most of us here thought that USD would certainly have had a chance to make the playoffs if they had played UCD prior to the beginning of the playoffs and won. I think playing the top two or three teams in either the PFL or MAAC is not a gimme win. The cream will rise to the top and one of these years we'll see a non-scholarship team make the playoffs when their record and their opponents warrant it.

[youwouldno]

Okay, your tune is changing a bit and you admit that the PFL and MAAC play predominantly FCS teams and that scholarship teams also lose to D-I/II/III/NAIA teams. Good. You also pointed out North Dakota as being a good D-II. So how many other D-I conferences have teams that are of the same caliber as NoDAK? Is it only the PFL?

Distorting my comments doesn't change the facts. Last two years:

PFL losses to non D-I teams: 19

ALL AUTOBID CONFERENCE LOSSES TO NON D-I COMBINED: 8

Anyone who thus concludes the PFL is a normal FCS conference is not rational.

[*****]

I know a lot more about FCS football than you do...No need for that. :nono:

[BDKJMU]

2. Specific football need based grants in aid are available to Patriot and Ivy student-athletes, not the PFL or MAAC football student-athletes.
3. Generalize all you want but it is not correct. But non-schollies beat schollies and schollies lose to lower Division teams as well. Many exceptions have already been posted including those that directly contradict what you posted.
4. Was the D-II team non-schollie?

-Then IMHO the PFL and MAAC should provide those same football need based grants in aid. That would improve the caliber of football in their leagues across the board.

-Sure, Patriot and Ivy non schlllies occasionally beat IAA schlollies, and IAA schollies occasionally lose to DII. A few exceptions have been posted, not many. How many PFL/MAAC wins are there against IAA full schlorship autobid leagues? Any? IVY & Patriot? A couple. I sure hope you don't believe that across the entire conferences that the PFL and MAAC play the same caliber of football that you see in the Patriot & Ivy and to a greater extent the full schlorship conferences.

-That DII was probably schollie, but it was still DII.

[*****]

Distorting my comments doesn't change the facts. Last two years:
PFL losses to non D-I teams: 19
ALL AUTOBID CONFERENCE LOSSES TO NON D-I COMBINED: 8
Anyone who thus concludes the PFL is a normal FCS conference is not rational.Distorting your comments? I don't believe I did. BTW, AQ conferences are not the only ones playing in the FCS and losing to D-II/III/NAIA teams. Why you are railing against non-schollie football in D-I is unclear. xcoffeex

[Appstate29]

well i'll chime in with an opinion I know detroit flyer won't like, but I think there should be strict requirements for FCS football. I think a lot of schools moved up and want to move up because they see FCS as a joke, I can get a few friends together and we can make an FCS football team. There are no requirements. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate Non-Scholly football or what USD did last year. I just don't think they belong in the same division. You make requirements a priority, and police the requirements, we will see a better product.

[youwouldno]

The PFL is not a competitive FCS league. I am providing empirical evidence to show that because of all the PFL posters who talk about how they can beat top FCS teams on any given day. Not really.

[*****]

-Then INHO the PFL and MAAC should provide those same football need based grants in aid. That would improve the caliber of football in their leagues across the board.

-Sure, Patriot and Ivy non schlllies occasionally beat IAA schlollies, and IAA schollies occasionally lose to DII. A few exceptions have been posted, not many. How many PFL/MAAC wins are there against IAA full schlorship autobid leagues? Any? IVY & Patriot? A couple. I sure hope you don't believe that across the entire conferences that the PFL and MAAC play the same caliber of football that you see in the Patriot & Ivy and to a greater extent the full schlorship conferences.

-That DII was probably schollie, but it was still DII.1. The PFL and MAAC sponsor football in D-I at the level they can afford. Certainly spending more would increase quality in most anything.
2. Look up the PFL/MAAC wins over FCS full schollie, I dunno. Truthfully, I don't like to compare non-schollie with schollie football. I am just happy they all have football teams!
3. And D-II beats D-I too. Schollie is schollie, can't generalize.

[BDKJMU]

Those who say non-scholarship football is D-II are just ignorant.

No its not. The caliber of football play in most of the full schlorship DII leagues across the board, conferences as a whole is just as high if not higher than PFL/MAAC.

[/QUOTE]The PFL and MAAC as conferences are not as good as most full or partial scholarship conferences.[/QUOTE]

Right now they're not as good as any of the other full or partial schlorship conferences.

[/QUOTE]That is not to say that there aren't very good teams in those leagues. Most of us here thought that USD would certainly have had a chance to make the playoffs if they had played UCD prior to the beginning of the playoffs and won. I think playing the top two or three teams in either the PFL or MAAC is not a gimme win. The cream will rise to the top and one of these years we'll see a non-scholarship team make the playoffs when their record and their opponents warrant it.[/QUOTE]

This I mosly agree with. Also, darnit, how do you get quote inside quotes to work?

[youwouldno]

Oh and Ralph actually misrepresented the truth when he said PFL teams predominantly play FCS competition. That's only true in the sense they play FCS teams when they play one another. Out of conference, they actually play more non D-I teams than FCS teams of any kind, and only some of those FCS teams are scholarship teams.

[BDKJMU]

3. And D-II beats D-I too. Schollie is schollie, can't generalize.

Schollie isn't schollie, and you can generalize. DII schollie isn't to the same level IAA schollie, and IAA schollie isn't to the same level as IA. DII never plays IA (not that I know of in the last couple of decades) Sure, DII occasionally beats full, partial, and non schlorship IAA. But probably around 90% of the time IAA with the exception of PFL/MAAC, beat DII. Same with IA over IAA.

[*****]

... I just don't think they belong in the same division...
The PFL is not a competitive FCS league...
The caliber of football play in most of the full schlorship DII leagues across the board, conferences as a whole is just as high if not higher than PFL/MAAC...GUYS!

This thread is not about this stuff. Read the first post and discuss THAT. If you want to smack non-schollie football, the PFL or the MAAC please start another thread.

It is stuff like this that really discourages some FCS fans from posting. Any time they start a thread it is swooped in upon by members who crap in it. Please stop. xcoffeex

BTW guys, I get caught up in it too. I am just concerned that members are POed about it and we all need to show some restraint here. Sorry if my post appears preachy.

[*****]

Oh and Ralph actually misrepresented the truth when he said PFL teams predominantly play FCS competition...No I did not. It is the truth.

[*****]

Schollie isn't schollie, and you can generalize. DII schollie isn't to the same level... DII occasionally beats full, partial, and non schlorship...Yes, giving schollies is giving schollies. The only thing different is the amount given. That's what I meant. xcoffeex

[*****]

Recently, there has been a bit of a renewed interest in FCS, non-scholarship football. As we all know, Campbell is starting up a program and hoping to join the PFL. The latest information is that they have not been accepted yet. Also, the University of Detroit Mercy is reported to be seriously considering a non-scholarship program, and is reported to have interest in the PFL.... Most recently, Lipscomb University is reported to be studying FCS non-scholarship football again, with an eye towards the PFL.... Those of you are are giddy, just waiting for Saint Peters or Iona to fold, just might be sorely disappointed! I do not know if UDM or LU will come on board, but it sure looks like there just might still be enough room for two, FCS, non-scholarship, football conferences in the land.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702120380

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070124/SPORTS02/701240344/1019Thanks for the links, some of those I didn't know were heading towards D-I football.

[youwouldno]

No I did not. It is the truth.

Well then the PFL must be playing a bunch of games going unreported by the NCAA. From the past 5 seasons:

OOC Games by Season

2002
non D-I: 31
D-I: 16*

2003
non D-I: 25
D-I: 19

2004
non D-I: 22
D-I: 17

2005
non D-I: 26
D-I: 12

2006
non D-I: 18
D-I: 11

*includes game against D-IA Troy State.

Now, as is quite obvious, the PFL goes outside its conference primarily against non D-I competition. In the past 5 years, the conference has played 122 non D-I games versus 75 D-I games. And it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of those D-I games were against programs that offer either no scholarships or very limited aid. Games against Ivy, Patriot, and Gateway teams, among other such leagues, were relatively rare, and victories against such competition were extremely rare.

[BDKJMU]

Yes, giving schollies is giving schollies. The only thing different is the amount given. That's what I meant. xcoffeex

If you believe that as a whole/across the board DII schlorship players are the same caliber as IAA schlorship players and IAA schlorship players are the same as IA schlorship players, then I have a bridge to sell you.

[andy7171]

well i'll chime in with an opinion I know detroit flyer won't like, but I think there should be strict requirements for FCS football. I think a lot of schools moved up and want to move up because they see FCS as a joke, I can get a few friends together and we can make an FCS football team. There are no requirements. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate Non-Scholly football or what USD did last year. I just don't think they belong in the same division. You make requirements a priority, and police the requirements, we will see a better product.
I agree.
I think all the teams in a division or subdivision should be on equal ground. I think I can consider the PL and Ivy League financial aide packages as equal to a scholarship program. Having differing levels of scholarships ranging from maximum allowable to none and calling the mix as equals only causes confusion. An exceptional team like San Diego feels disrespected, full scholarship teams are insulted when compared as equals, the schedules are not equal, yuck.

[*****]

youwouldknow, please. I wasn't talking about OOC at all. I am refraining from now on here to stay off-topic.

[*****]

GUYS!

This thread is not about this stuff. Read the first post and discuss THAT. If you want to smack non-schollie football, the PFL or the MAAC please start another thread.

It is stuff like this that really discourages some FCS fans from posting. Any time they start a thread it is swooped in upon by members who crap in it. Please stop. xcoffeex

BTW guys, I get caught up in it too. I am just concerned that members are POed about it and we all need to show some restraint here. Sorry if my post appears preachy.Mods, could you move these to their own thread? :twocents: :nod:

[youwouldno]

youwouldknow, please. I wasn't talking about OOC at all. I am refraining from now on here to stay off-topic.

Very dishonest ralph. You know full well it's meaningless to say they play 'FCS competition' if you only mean within their own league. I'm not sure what your problem is on this issue...

[lizrdgizrd]

This I mosly agree with. Also, darnit, how do you get quote inside quotes to work?
You have to make sure the word quote is capitalized. :thumbsup:

[Sir William]

well i'll chime in with an opinion I know detroit flyer won't like, but I think there should be strict requirements for FCS football. I think a lot of schools moved up and want to move up because they see FCS as a joke, I can get a few friends together and we can make an FCS football team. There are no requirements. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate Non-Scholly football or what USD did last year. I just don't think they belong in the same division. You make requirements a priority, and police the requirements, we will see a better product.

Well said. A voice of reason and kind common sense.

[DetroitFlyer]

An entire thread of "evidence" about how many of you feel concerning the PFL and MAAC.... While I have no problem with the NCAA imposing "requirements" on FCS football, the facts are that today, ALL PFL teams and ALL MAAC teams meet the requirements to play FCS football. One thing seems certain, the NCAA is slow to change and even "simple" proposals like a 12 game season, go down in flames.... Creating a unique division for Division I, non-scholarship football teams is probably not going to happen, nor is the NCAA imposing some kind of scholarship or financial minimum on teams to play FCS football going to happen any time soon in my opinion. Frankly, I find it amusing to hear talk about how the NCAA should better define "cost containment" football more strictly.... The entire reason for FCS in the first place is cost containment. If not, then every program would be FBS.... Let me ask a certain poster who "knows" so much more about FCS football than the rest of us.... Who spent more on football last year, "full scholarship" Wofford of the Southern Conference or "non-scholarship" San Diego of the PFL? Open question to any poster, based on money spent, who has the "right" FCS program, Wofford or USD? The very thought of the NCAA defining how much money a team has to spend to play the right level of cost containment football is almost too silly to contemplate....

[Dane96]

This is the wrong place to do this, but do you want to compare the Dayton roster to a local HS team? I saw on lineman at 300lbs, he was also 6'1" and hadn't played a down in 3 years. Yikes!




Leaving Dayton out of the equation...shall I go down a list of UNDERSIZED PLAYERS who became stars at all different types of levels.

90% of the time...speed is the differential when size is equal.

[DetroitFlyer]

9/20/1997 at Tampa Florida: Drake 23 South Florida 22
10/6/2001 in Des Moines, IA: Drake 31 Florida Atlantic 7
11/8/2003 in Des Moines, IA: Drake 20 Saint Mary's, (CA ) 13
10/26/2002 in Charleston, SC: Jacksonville: 24 Charleston Southern 21
9/20/2003 in Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville 14 Coastal Carolina 9
10/24/1998 in Lexington, VA: Morehead State 41 VMI 38
10/13/2001 in Martin, TN: Morehead State 31 UT Martin 13
9/13/2003 in Conway, SC Morehead State 31 Coastal Carolina 6

I think that we will see more and more games with PFL teams playing teams from other FCS conferences. We will win a few more and proably lose many more, but every once in a while, on any given Saturday, we can win a few....

[Model Citizen]

It appears most of the league is taking a few extra dollars to play body bag games. They should follow USD's lead and play lower equivalency teams like Holy Cross.

[dbackjon]

9/20/1997 at Tampa Florida: Drake 23 South Florida 22
10/6/2001 in Des Moines, IA: Drake 31 Florida Atlantic 7
11/8/2003 in Des Moines, IA: Drake 20 Saint Mary's, (CA ) 13
10/26/2002 in Charleston, SC: Jacksonville: 24 Charleston Southern 21
9/20/2003 in Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville 14 Coastal Carolina 9
10/24/1998 in Lexington, VA: Morehead State 41 VMI 38
10/13/2001 in Martin, TN: Morehead State 31 UT Martin 13
9/13/2003 in Conway, SC Morehead State 31 Coastal Carolina 6

I think that we will see more and more games with PFL teams playing teams from other FCS conferences. We will win a few more and proably lose many more, but every once in a while, on any given Saturday, we can win a few....

If you will note, most of the games noted were not against full schollie teams - CCU was in their 1st/2nd year, UT-Martin was nowhere close to full schollie, St. MAry's never was. CSU wasn't full schollie back then , and I don't think FAU was either.

[youwouldno]

Heck I'm not sure if South Florida was...

[ucdtim17]

I know, that's why I can say it. Trickle Down Condescension.



I'm not reading this whole thread, but that's funny

[Go...gate]

An entire thread of "evidence" about how many of you feel concerning the PFL and MAAC.... While I have no problem with the NCAA imposing "requirements" on FCS football, the facts are that today, ALL PFL teams and ALL MAAC teams meet the requirements to play FCS football. One thing seems certain, the NCAA is slow to change and even "simple" proposals like a 12 game season, go down in flames.... Creating a unique division for Division I, non-scholarship football teams is probably not going to happen, nor is the NCAA imposing some kind of scholarship or financial minimum on teams to play FCS football going to happen any time soon in my opinion. Frankly, I find it amusing to hear talk about how the NCAA should better define "cost containment" football more strictly.... The entire reason for FCS in the first place is cost containment. If not, then every program would be FBS.... Let me ask a certain poster who "knows" so much more about FCS football than the rest of us.... Who spent more on football last year, "full scholarship" Wofford of the Southern Conference or "non-scholarship" San Diego of the PFL? Open question to any poster, based on money spent, who has the "right" FCS program, Wofford or USD? The very thought of the NCAA defining how much money a team has to spend to play the right level of cost containment football is almost too silly to contemplate....

This point certainly has merit. Back when many of us were "Major Independents", this argument was made against Colgate all the time, even though we more than held our own with bigger schools who spent more money. We had champagne tastes with a beer budget and did quite well. If Dayton, USD, Drake, et al. want to do this their own way, it is not without precedent.

[DFW HOYA]

It appears most of the league is taking a few extra dollars to play body bag games. They should follow USD's lead and play lower equivalency teams like Holy Cross.

Lower equivalency? By its budget, Holy Cross looks to have around 50 equivalencies.

[Model Citizen]

Lower equivalency? By its budget, Holy Cross looks to have around 50 equivalencies.

I didn't mean to suggest they were anywhere near non-scholarship, but doesn't 50 put them in the lower half of I-AA in terms of scholarship equivalencies? :eyebrow:

[DUPFLFan]

GUYS!

This thread is not about this stuff. Read the first post and discuss THAT. If you want to smack non-schollie football, the PFL or the MAAC please start another thread.

It is stuff like this that really discourages some FCS fans from posting. Any time they start a thread it is swooped in upon by members who crap in it. Please stop. xcoffeex

BTW guys, I get caught up in it too. I am just concerned that members are POed about it and we all need to show some restraint here. Sorry if my post appears preachy.

Thanks Ralph...

Count me as a poster who is tired of getting smacked and seeing others get smacked everytime we talk about the PFL...

It's why I rarely post anymore...

[DUPFLFan]

Very dishonest ralph. You know full well it's meaningless to say they play 'FCS competition' if you only mean within their own league. I'm not sure what your problem is on this issue...

Because Youwouldno..

Unless I missed something, the PFL is still an FCS league - or did they get moved to some other division???

Sounds like Youwouldnonothing

[youwouldno]

Because Youwouldno..

Unless I missed something, the PFL is still an FCS league - or did they get moved to some other division???

Sounds like Youwouldnonothing

Semantics. As a conference the PFL does not mostly play FCS competition. Honestly I cannot understand what is so difficult to grasp about that. Sure PFL teams play each other... duh... but they play very few games out of conference against scholarship (or equivalent) FCS teams.

[DUPFLFan]

Semantics. As a conference the PFL does not mostly play FCS competition.

So we don't play FCS competition but our conference is FCS...

Must be new math but if a PFL team plays PFL teams, that's seven games. If you play another team out of conference like say, a Gateway conference team, that's eight.

Minimum 8 out of 11 is most isn't it?

Or are you, like most others on this board, saying that the PFL is not a FCS conference??

Which one is it?

[DetroitFlyer]

From the games I know of thus far, Dayton is playing 9/10 games against FCS teams. 7 PFL games, one NEC game and one PL game. Game 10 is against a rival in Central Ohio, Central State, ( formally NAIA, now Division II ). The current CSU coach personally played against Dayton in the past as a CSU player, and he is certainly looking forward to renewing the rivalry! I do not know who game #11 is against, if there is a game #11.... Even if it is not an FCS team, that would make 9/11. Every math book I have ever seen would call that "most." Try again!

[youwouldno]

I dunno, I guess some PFL fans just can't read. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. When PFL teams play out of conference, they play more non D-I games than D-I games. In fact, it's not even close. The relevance of that should be obvious but maybe I overestimated the intelligence of some posters. A conference can only be judged by how it performs against other conferences. Without out of conference games, it would be impossible to say whether the SEC was better than the SoCon because there would be no empirical evidence to examine.

PFL games in-conference do not show anything about the PFL relative to other leagues. The fact is, the PFL is FCS in name only. PFL teams play OOC games mostly against non D-I competition. Dodging the issue doesn't change the facts.

[*****]

I said PFL teams predominantly play FCS competition. You said then the PFL must be playing a bunch of games going unreported by the NCAA. Admit it, you are biased against the PFL and jumped in this thread to exhibit your dislike by changing the subject to OOC, completely ignoring the topic of the thread.
I dunno, I guess some PFL fans just can't read... maybe I overestimated the intelligence of some posters... the PFL is FCS in name only...BTW, all conferences are in the FCS by name only. :nonono2: :nonono2:

[youwouldno]

The only problem with your argument is that saying PFL teams play mostly FCS competition makes no sense if you are including in-conference games. No one ever questioned whether the PFL was technically a FCS conference. So either you made a redundant remark that had no meaning, which you now claim, or in fact you wrongly thought PFL teams played more FCS competition out of conference than non-FCS. There's really no way for me to know though I still think it originally was the latter.