next NCAA meeting

[tarmac]

The next meeting starts on 4-22-05.


http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_I/board_of_directors/2005/April/08_BOD_Football_Membership_Standards.htm

NCAA Division I football Membership Standards

1. april 2005 Action ItemS.

Recommendations to the Division I Board of Directors.

a. Recommendation No. 1.

Adopt emergency legislation to provide that effective for the 2005 football season, a Division I-A member shall demonstrate during a rolling two-year period, at least one season in which it averages a minimum of 15,000 in actual attendance for all home football games, or at least one season in which the institution aver*ages a minimum of 15,000 in paid attendance for all home football games.

Reasoning: This recommendation maintains a measure of public support, but aids those who consider actual attendance to be outside the control of an institution by pro*viding the opportunity to demonstrate compliance through paid attendance once every two years. This recommendation also continues to encourage efforts to build a local following, thereby making the institution more attractive to football bowl sponsors associated with the Division I-A postseason format. This membership criterion also provides relief from the 2004 attendance requirement and can be distinguished clearly from the re*quirements necessary to secure and maintain Division I-AA status.

b. Recommendation No. 2.

Adopt emergency legislation to provide that effective for the 2005 football season, a Division I-A institution may use one win each year against a Division I-AA op*ponent (i.e., has averaged 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in the sport of Division I-AA football over a rolling two-year period) for bowl eligibility.

Reasoning: This provides for some competition between the two subdivisions and is considered an enhancement by Division I-AA. It also has the probable effect of in*creasing the number of Division I-A bowl eligible teams.

c. Recommendation No. 3.

Adopt emergency legislation to provide that effective for the 2005 football season, a Division I-A institution may use one game each year against a Division I-AA opponent (i.e., has averaged 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in the sport of Division I-AA football over a rolling two-year period) to satisfy the home game scheduling requirement for Division I-A membership (for 2005, four home games; for 2006 and thereafter, five.)

Reasoning: This provides flexibility for Division I-A institutions to meet the home-game scheduling requirement and permits some competition between the two subdivi*sions.

d. Recommendation No. 4.

The Board of Directors should request that the NCAA staff, Collegiate Commissioners Association (CCA) and Division I Management Council evaluate editorial and other changes in the NCAA Manual to provide that for football competition purposes, references to Division I-A and I-AA be changed to distin*guish Division I football members by reference to those eligible for Bowl Championship Series (BCS) and Football Bowl Association games in contrast to those eli*gible for the NCAA Division I Football Championship.

Reasoning: This would affirm that the Bowl Championship Series, Football Bowl Association games, and the NCAA Championship are alternative postseason formats for football in Division I. In addition, this would help avoid confusion when institu*tions participate in Division I championships other than football where there is no distinction by subdivision. The NCAA Division I Football Championship would limit eligibility to institutions that, among other possible requirements, provide no more than the equivalent value of 63 grants-in-aid in football and that schedule and play more than 50 percent of football games against members of either the bowl or championship eligible groups. The bowl eligible group would continue to vote as a subdivision on its bowl eligibility requirements. Therefore, this recommended change is primarily editorial in nature and would not impact representation or votes in the governance structure for either group.

e. Recommendation No. 5.

The Board of Directors should continue to support additional en*hancements that may impact the NCAA budget that would encourage stability of the Division I-AA group and participation in the Division I football championship. Also, attention to low and no-scholarship programs, and evaluation of regular season and post season opportunities for these programs, would serve to benefit the long range viability of football.

Reasoning: It appears appropriate to evaluate the NCAA’s Division I regular season and championship to ensure viability, stability and satisfaction for all participating institu*tions and student-athletes, recognizing that the football bowl game and BCS formats have established the baseline for perceptions of institutions, student-athletes and the public. The Division I-AA Governance Committee and Division I-AA Football Committee, along with the Football Issues Committee, may be best suited to develop and monitor on behalf of the Board, a plan for a coordinated set of enhancements and initiatives.

Further, many institutions in Division I and Division II either do not provide football grants-in-aid or provide only a limited number, yet they conduct football programs that are integral to their athletics’ and institutional missions. The relative competitiveness and budgets of these institutions may support increased opportunities for competition within this group. Ensuring meaningful regular and post season competition opportunities for these programs should be a priority as well.

2. informational items.

Additional factors to consider.

a. Division I-A Membership Principles. In 2001, the eight presidents that comprised the Football Study Oversight Committee (FSOC), and later the Board of Directors, agreed that in order to foster and maintain a high level of competition, the Division I-A membership is committed to similarities in: the level of competition in football; resource allocation; and public support.

The 15,000 average attendance requirement that was adopted in 2002 (effective in 2004) was intended to address the principle of public support and replaced previous legislation that required either 17,000 in paid attendance for home games in a 30,000 seat stadium one year in a four-year period, or required the institution to aver*age more than 17,000 in paid attendance for all home games during the immediate past four-year period.

b. New BCS Structure. In 2004, the eleven current Division I-A conferences joined to*gether to establish a new Bowl Championship Series format for the football post-season and recommitted to long standing conference agreements with Football Bowl Association events. A consideration in establishing the new BCS national championship format was the continued promotion of the sport at institutions that desire to participate at the highest level. Media and corporate partners that are associated with all bowl games seek community and public support of such games and “public interest” in the teams is a significant consideration in selection of teams, in addition to “competitive rank” among available teams.

c. Marketability of Division I-A. Division I-A is committed to intercollegiate football competition on the highest amateur level possible and recognizes that this unique product should be preserved through competition together, promotion and public sup*port of programs that involve student-athletes who are fully integrated into the insti*tution’s academic as well as athletics’ mission.

d. Current Division I-AA membership. Any modification of the Division I-A member*ship criteria will affect the stability of the Division I-AA membership. The Division I-AA membership supports a clear demarcation between the two groups in regard to the required financial commitment to both the overall intercollegiate athletics program and football.

Public support is a desired outcome for participation in Division I-AA competition and championships, but is not a primary consideration. Division I-AA competition and opportunities for championship play among similarly competitive programs provides a meaningful and balanced experience for the involved student-athletes and institutions.

see linkfor remainder ( recent history of these issues)

[89Hen]

d. Recommendation No. 4.

The Board of Directors should request that the NCAA staff, Collegiate Commissioners Association (CCA) and Division I Management Council evaluate editorial and other changes in the NCAA Manual to provide that for football competition purposes, references to Division I-A and I-AA be changed to distin*guish Division I football members by reference to those eligible for Bowl Championship Series (BCS) and Football Bowl Association games in contrast to those eli*gible for the NCAA Division I Football Championship.

Reasoning: This would affirm that the Bowl Championship Series, Football Bowl Association games, and the NCAA Championship are alternative postseason formats for football in Division I. In addition, this would help avoid confusion when institu*tions participate in Division I championships other than football where there is no distinction by subdivision. The NCAA Division I Football Championship would limit eligibility to institutions that, among other possible requirements, provide no more than the equivalent value of 63 grants-in-aid in football and that schedule and play more than 50 percent of football games against members of either the bowl or championship eligible groups. The bowl eligible group would continue to vote as a subdivision on its bowl eligibility requirements. Therefore, this recommended change is primarily editorial in nature and would not impact representation or votes in the governance structure for either group.

Does anyone else agree that perhaps this could open the door for a I-AA team to play in a Bowl? The one instance I could see it happen would be Montana in the Boise Bowl (whatever they decide to call it each year). Right now they have a tie in with the ACC, but Clemson and UVA aren't exactly jazzed about sending their fans more than half way across the country to Boise. I think Montana would bring a LOT more fans than an ACC team.

[TexasTerror]

Well if they let I-AA games count towards bowls, we should see some random teams become eligible for bowls that wouldn't have in the past due to the one game every four years. I think more teams will schedule I-AAs for this very reason, no matter what they are called.

Though we do have an increasing amount of bowl games now. Toronto and several other cities are applying and if the supply does not need the demand, perhaps we'll see what we saw as I-AA in there.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Does anyone else agree that perhaps this could open the door for a I-AA team to play in a Bowl? The one instance I could see it happen would be Montana in the Boise Bowl (whatever they decide to call it each year). Right now they have a tie in with the ACC, but Clemson and UVA aren't exactly jazzed about sending their fans more than half way across the country to Boise. I think Montana would bring a LOT more fans than an ACC team.

Hmmm, the Poulan Weed-Eater Bowl against a 3rd place team in the MAC? Or a shot at a national title? Gee, what a choice.

If I-AA's are seriously going to consider bowls instead of the I-AA playoffs, then we might as well give up the whoile thing now.

[henfan]

But would Montana, for example, stand to make or lose money by participating in a bowl versus having as many as three extra homes games during the playoffs? Frankly, even if it were allowed, I just don't see why I-AA teams would want to participate in bowls that would cost them money, especially if they stand to recoup most, if not all, of their losses in an NCAA sponsored tourney.

[89Hen]

I-AA's often play I-A's for $250,000 with it possibly hurting their playoff chances. You'd say a team would forego a $750,000 pay day and a chance to knock off a I-A team in what would essentially be a home game?

I'm not saying that Montana would jump at the chance vs. trying for a National Championship, but they already have a couple of those, so who knows?

Last year UNI lost to Iowa State and ended up 7-4. If they play a I-AA they can beat, they're probably in the playoffs. How much did UNI get for that game?

[putter]

Hen,

The problem I have heard with the bowls is that you may get $750k but you must buy so many tickets regardless if you sell them or not. Most teams lose money with the ticket purchases and traveling to the game. Granted, Boise for Montana would not be that much, however I would rather play for the NC.

[89Hen]

The problem I have heard with the bowls is that you may get $750k but you must buy so many tickets regardless if you sell them or not. Most teams lose money with the ticket purchases and traveling to the game. Granted, Boise for Montana would not be that much, however I would rather play for the NC.


I'm not sure about that Putter. I read about teams returning part of their allotment after not selling them and I know that for many of the bowls the initial allotments are very small. I'd have to think that for a Boise Bowl, Montana would sell FAR more than any minumum allotment. I used Montana because I can't think of many other bowls/I-AA teams that this scenario could work. I'm not predicting whether they'd forego the playoffs for it.

[SoCon48]

I dunno, if the friggin Tire Bowl draws 70,000??? However, I don't see Virginia fans wanting to fly to Boise en masse.

[arkstfan]

No this doesn't open the door to a I-AA in a bowl any more than it has ever been.

First you have to have six qualifying wins. Once 12 game comes along you need 7 qualifying wins. The exception for 6-6 is that your conference contracted to play in the game before the season began and can only meet the obligation by sending a 6-6 team.

So from a practical standpoint a I-AA would have to win 6 I-A games plus 1 I-AA against a school awarding 90% of the I-AA limit just to be eligible to play in a bowl without even dealing with the whole subgroup discussion.

[HensRock]

Agreed. What they meant was that more I-A teams would likely be bowl eligible because they would have an extra game (and likely win) against a I-AA team each year. So all of those 6-5 I-A teams add a I-AA to the schedule and viola.
Of course, it could also result in LESS I-A teams being bowl eligible ;)


I actually read it just the opposite. I don't know: Does I-A membership REQUIRE more than 63 scholarships offered. If not...
Would I-A teams that offered 63 ships or less, be eligible for the playoffs???? :eek:

[GSU Eagle]

Getting rid of the 1 in 4 rule would immensely help 1AA teams. It would open up the chance for far more 1AAs to play 1As. This would help with budgets. Very few 1A teams will have the attitude "We can't play a 1AA as it would hurt our national championship chances." I believe many more 1A teams would start scheduling a 1AA every year.

[bisonguy]

.......
I don't know: Does I-A membership REQUIRE more than 63 scholarships offered.

I-A requires a minimum of 90% of the maximum financial aid for I-A football to be funded over a rolling two-year period. Therefore, with my calculations, an average of 76.5 grants (90% of 85)must be funded every year.

I-A schools must also fund a minimum of 200 total athletic grants, or expend $4MM on athletic grants.

From- NCAA DI Manual (http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2004-05/2004-05_d1_manual.pdf NCAA DI Manual)


20.9.6.4 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.

[Ronbo]

Anybody know when the transfer rule is coming up for vote. This rule change would allow a player to transfer to another 1A school without waiting a year. This would benefit MidMajor 1A's and hurt 1AA. Also would the stars from 1AA be tempted to jump to 1A teams. It's a no win situation for 1AA, especially Montana where we lose out on many recruits to 1A because 1AA is pretty much off the radar here. Most of the Div. 1 schools out here are 1A.

[HensRock]

IMO, the transfer rule change would really hurt the game overall, especially at the upper I-A level. Teams would not be able to hold on to players. The I-A "Mid Majors" are there by choice. If they really want to get transfers w/o waiting a year they can always switch to I-AA.

Question:
If the nomenclature change goes through and I-A and I-AA are both referred to as simply Division I, then will athletes still be able to transfer from a (formerly)I-A to a (formerly)I-AA without sitting out a year? How will THAT work?