The so-called "normal" conferences of the FCS

[Tod]

How many of those were autobid?

If the PFL had an autobid, they'd be sending schools to the playoffs as well.


If the playoffs were 16 autobids, the PL wouldn't be getting many teams in the playoffs.

Um...one. Like everybody else. xeyebrowx

If you meant to say at-large bids, they'd certainly have at least one team in there every year.

Either way, the PL would be represented in the playoffs.

[Franks Tanks]

How many of those were autobid?

If the PFL had an autobid, they'd be sending schools to the playoffs as well.


If the playoffs were 16 autobids, the PL wouldn't be getting many teams in the playoffs.

We had two teams make the playoffs in 2005, 2004, 1999, 1998. So at least 4 teams who were selected for the palyoffs outside the autobid. Your commenst again are stupid. If the PFL deserved and auto-bid like the PL then they would have one. Also If the palyoffes were 16 autobids than ni conferences would be getting more than one team in the palyoffs as that would imply 16 conferences all with one autobid. Seriously what are you talking about?

[MplsBison]

If you meant to say at-large bids, they'd certainly have at least one team in there every year.


Yes I meant that.


And no. They wouldn't. Not even close.

[MplsBison]

If the PFL deserved and auto-bid like the PL then they would have one.

IE, if the PFL had teams that were competitive, they would deserve an autobid.


Getting scholarships would make them competitive.

[Franks Tanks]

IE, if the PFL had teams that were competitive, they would deserve an autobid.


Getting scholarships would make them competitive.

Thats not what wer were talking about, nobody is debating how competitive the PFL is. We were speaking about how competitive "non-scholarhsip" PL.

[OL FU]

It goes beyond fans of just I-A/FBS schools. How many articles get posted on here where journalists get blasted being less than knowledgable about I-AA/FCS or taking pot shots at our division? Having atleast some kind of standard cant hurt and only evetually elevate the level of competition. It will weed out the schools who are only in the FCS so there other sports can be DIV I and who are not serious about supporting and growing and GOOD football program. Having a bunch of schools who could not even be competive in DIV II makes the whole divsion look bad.

It is the market. People don't know (including journalist) becauses the market pays attention to the where the money is and it is in I-A. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with whether we give 63 or 5 scholarships.

I am not arguing that we should not have a minimum standard, I don't really know. But either way I don't think the perception will change.

I prefer to look at us as a boutique gem in the world of collegiate football

[Franks Tanks]

Yes I meant that.


And no. They wouldn't. Not even close.

No, Than how do they get 2 teams in on multiple occasions. Also I think the 2003 Colgate team that played in the NAtional Championship game maybe would have made the plaofffs, just a hunch.

[GannonFan]

How many of those were autobid?

If the PFL had an autobid, they'd be sending schools to the playoffs as well.


If the playoffs were 16 at larges, the PL wouldn't be getting many teams in the playoffs.

That's just nonsensical and actually wrong. Since the PL has gotten 2 teams into the playoffs in multiple years, it would imply that even without automatic bids many of those teams still would've gotten in. And it's not like the PL is the last team in every year - you do realize that little ol' non-scholarship Colgate was actually the #4 seed in 2003? How they managed to do that, without scholarships, against all those scholarship teams, must be yet another detail you've conveniently left out of your analysis. And, since 1998, the PL has 7 playoff wins, all against scholarship teams - since that's 3 more than the MEAC in the same time and 7 more than the OVC in the same time, and since the MEAC and the OVC all give scholarships, I'm sure that's yet again a little detail that gets ignored. Care to talk about the level of competition and whether calling athlete financial aid "scholarships" or "grant in aids" really matters????? xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[andy7171]

That's just nonsensical and actually wrong. Since the PL has gotten 2 teams into the playoffs in multiple years, it would imply that even without automatic bids many of those teams still would've gotten in. And it's not like the PL is the last team in every year - you do realize that little ol' non-scholarship Colgate was actually the #4 seed in 2003? How they managed to do that, without scholarships, against all those scholarship teams, must be yet another detail you've conveniently left out of your analysis. And, since 1998, the PL has 7 playoff wins, all against scholarship teams - since that's 3 more than the MEAC in the same time and 7 more than the OVC in the same time, and since the MEAC and the OVC all give scholarships, I'm sure that's yet again a little detail that gets ignored. Care to talk about the level of competition and whether calling athlete financial aid "scholarships" or "grant in aids" really matters????? xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx
I believe this is where our friend abandons this fight and moves back to the turf/grass debate for a couple days. xreadx

[lizrdgizrd]

I believe this is where our friend abandons this fight and moves back to the turf/grass debate for a couple days. xreadx
Have you met MplsBison? You know he's not going to give up. xnonono2x

[MplsBison]

Than how do they get 2 teams in on multiple occasions.

ECB, obviously.

[lizrdgizrd]

ECB, obviously.
obviously. xrolleyesx

[MplsBison]

Colgate was actually the #4 seed in 2003

Very impressive for a non scholarship indeed.



If it is possible for a non scholarship to achieve such a thing, how come the PFL has never done it and the non Colgate/Lafayette/Lehigh/Fordham PL schools have never done it?


whether calling athlete financial aid "scholarships" or "grant in aids" really matters?

As I said in the other thread, it's not a one to one "it's just scholarships with a different name".

There's a philosophical difference between the two.

[andy7171]

Have you met MplsBison? You know he's not going to give up. xnonono2x
Oh believe me, I know this will never end. But from what I have observed, when presented with a hard hitting factual post like GannonFan just gave, he seems to go away fro a few days on the subject and move onto his other wacky theories for a couple days. :D

[GannonFan]

Very impressive for a non scholarship indeed.



If it is possible for a non scholarship to achieve such a thing, how come the PFL has never done it and the non Colgate/Lafayette/Lehigh/Fordham PL schools have never done it?



As I said in the other thread, it's not a one to one "it's just scholarships with a different name".

There's a philosophical difference between the two.

Why do you care that the bottom 3 teams in the PL haven't done, since 1998, what the top 4 teams in that conference have done? What does that prove? The SoCon, a full scholarship conference, has 4 teams (Elon, TN-Chatt, WCU, and The Citadel) that have done just as much as the bottom of the PL in that time, i.e. not make the playoffs. Why do you knock the PL for 43% of its teams that haven't made the playoffs, and blame that on lack of scholarships, while you ignore the 50% of the SoCon that hasn't made the playoffs in the past decade either, even though they all have scholarships?

And why stop at the SoCon? As I said in the other post, the OVC hasn't won a single playoff game in something like 10 years, yet all of their teams have scholarships and should, by your esteemed analysis, be competitive with the rest of the FCS. So why can the poor, uncompetitive, no-scholarship PL win 7 games over the past decade in the playoffs and the OVC can't muster a single win? If calling them scholarships versus calling them something else was the end all be all that you make it out to be, how do you explain the PL's competitiveness, other than ignoring it?

[lizrdgizrd]

If it is possible for a non scholarship to achieve such a thing, how come the PFL has never done it and the non Colgate/Lafayette/Lehigh/Fordham PL schools have never done it?
Maybe they haven't had good enough coaches or recruiting or bad luck with injuries. Making the playoffs isn't just about your # of scholarships.

[MplsBison]

What does that prove?

It proves that lack of scholarships are holding back those non scholarship programs that can't recruit the top level players because of it.

If that were not true then the PFL and the rest of the PL would be right with the top of the PL.


Bucknell, Holy Cross, and Georgetown obviously don't have that problem in basketball, where they give scholarships. Neither do the PFL schools in bball.

[MplsBison]

Making the playoffs isn't just about your # of scholarships.

But it's obviously a big part of it.


APP would be in last place in the SoCon if you took away their ability to give scholarships.

[lizrdgizrd]

It proves that lack of scholarships are holding back those non scholarship programs that can't recruit the top level players because of it.

If that were not true then the PFL and the rest of the PL would be right with the top of the PL.


Bucknell, Holy Cross, and Georgetown obviously don't have that problem in basketball, where they give scholarships. Neither do the PFL schools in bball.
So why have the top of the PL had such success and the OVC and MEAC had none? It must be the # of scholarships....oh, wait.

[lizrdgizrd]

But it's obviously a big part of it.


APP would be in last place in the SoCon if you took away their ability to give scholarships.
But if we used grants in aid or other measures of financial aid we could be right back on top again.

[MplsBison]

So why have the top of the PL had such success and the OVC and MEAC had none? It must be the # of scholarships....oh, wait.

Because, somehow, the top of the PL have found a way to recruit top players without giving scholarships.


As history has shown, this has not been duplicated in the rest of the PL and the PFL.

So it's not something that any non scholarship program can do.

[MplsBison]

But if we used grants in aid or other measures of financial aid we could be right back on top again.


No you wouldn't. You'd be on par with Holy Cross, Bucknell, and Georgetown.

[GannonFan]

Because, somehow, the top of the PL have found a way to recruit top players without giving scholarships.


As history has shown, this has not been duplicated in the rest of the PL and the PFL.

So it's not something that any non scholarship program can do.

And history (10 years) has shown that the entire OVC, most of the MEAC, half of the SoCon, and Indiana St are unable to recruit top players even though they give scholarships, so apparently it's not something that any scholarship program can do either. My, what a conundrum. xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[MplsBison]

Red herring.

We're talking about small private schools. Not public schools.

[lizrdgizrd]

Red herring.

We're talking about small private schools. Not public schools.

Move the target all you want! THe fact is that it can be done and it has been done. The only thing holding back the PFL is non-conference scheduling (and winning).

[GannonFan]

Red herring.

We're talking about small private schools. Not public schools.

???? Lehigh and Lafayette and Colgate and Fordham are private schools. The only public schools mentioned were the ones who, even with the scholarships that you claim equalize everything, still can't be competitive.

[DUPFLFan]

Now I'm really confused. I thought that it was our collective SOS that kept the PFL out of the playoffs.

So is it really the lack of scholarships?

Which is is?

[Col Hogan]

Now I'm really confused. I thought that it was our collective SOS that kept the PFL out of the playoffs.

So is it really the lack of scholarships?

Which is is?

I've been following this circular arguement for a while without participating...

Please show me where someone...anyone...said a lack of scholarships kept any team out of the playoffs...

And while you are at it, where did anyone say your "collective SOS" kept a PFL team out of the playoffs...

Facts...just facts...

[Model Citizen]

SOS was an official comment from the selection committee.

[lizrdgizrd]

I've been following this circular arguement for a while without participating...

Please show me where someone...anyone...said a lack of scholarships kept any team out of the playoffs...

And while you are at it, where did anyone say your "collective SOS" kept a PFL team out of the playoffs...

Facts...just facts...
I think MplsBison is the only one blaming scholarships or "scholarships" for the lack of PFL in the playoffs.

[UAalum72]

And while you are at it, where did anyone say your "collective SOS" kept a PFL team out of the playoffs...

Facts...just facts...
Championship Selection
[Reference: Bylaws 31.01.2, 31.01.3 and 31.3 in the NCAA Manual.]

At-large teams shall be selected by the Division I-AA football committee, assisted by four regional advisory committees that serve in an advisory capacity only.

The following principles shall apply when selecting at-large teams:

....3. The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of schedule; however, less than seven Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of not being selected;
4. The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all Division I opponents

[Col Hogan]

Championship Selection
[Reference: Bylaws 31.01.2, 31.01.3 and 31.3 in the NCAA Manual.]

At-large teams shall be selected by the Division I-AA football committee, assisted by four regional advisory committees that serve in an advisory capacity only.

The following principles shall apply when selecting at-large teams:

....3. The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of schedule; however, less than seven Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of not being selected;
4. The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all Division I opponents

Understand that a teams SOS can and should be used...What I questioned is...


Now I'm really confused. I thought that it was our collective SOS that kept the PFL out of the playoffs.

If a PFL team plays a schedule with a high SOS, and wins, the weak SOS of the remaining PFL teams will not be used against them...

[DUPFLFan]

Please show me where someone...anyone...said a lack of scholarships kept any team out of the playoffs.........

Sure - look on page 27 of this thread and see anynumber of MPLSBISON posts


And while you are at it, where did anyone say your "collective SOS" kept a PFL team out of the playoffs...


Jeez... this has been talked about ad nauseum in so many posts over the last few monts - all the way back to all the San Diego threads...

Look back a few pages where it was said that PFL teams could not make the playoffs with this schedule because the PFL is weak - I think you can find it with the rundown of the GPI for each conference.

Also I think UAAlum above cited facts...
xoopsx

Bottom line is that there is so much trash talked about the PFL on this board, I am just trying to point out people's personal prejudices against non-scholarship football.

[UAalum72]

If a PFL team plays a schedule with a high SOS, and wins, the weak SOS of the remaining PFL teams will not be used against them...
I think it will - since they're going for an at-large, weak SOS of anyone you play lowers your own ratings - a D-III loss by Butler (for example) lowers the rating of everyone else in the league too.

[GannonFan]

Sure - look on page 27 of this thread and see anynumber of MPLSBISON posts



Jeez... this has been talked about ad nauseum in so many posts over the last few monts - all the way back to all the San Diego threads...

Look back a few pages where it was said that PFL teams could not make the playoffs with this schedule because the PFL is weak - I think you can find it with the rundown of the GPI for each conference.

Also I think UAAlum above cited facts...
xoopsx

Bottom line is that there is so much trash talked about the PFL on this board, I am just trying to point out people's personal prejudices against non-scholarship football.


Anytime you reference MplsBison for an opinion or position should tell you all that you need to know in reference to that said opinion... xpeacex

[DetroitFlyer]

He is getting at the crux of the argument that I have been making for years. The best of the best non-scholarship team in any given season can be competitive in the playoffs! A team like USD is hammered by the old guard, I mean selection committee, because teams like Butler and Valparaiso might lose to lower division teams, causing the overall ranking of the PFL to be low.... A team like USD does not get any credit for winning conference games. Last season the last place team in the PFL went undefeated in their three OOC games. Care to guess who that was? OK, I'll help, Dayton! We defeated Robert Morris, Austin Peay, and Division III playoff team Wittenberg. We went 1-6 in the PFL, including a loss to Butler! I do not care what conference you play in, conference games are tough! Who does legendary coach Mike Kelly view as the Flyers biggest rival? San Diego, Drake, Morehead State, nope! It is Butler. The results of last season's game bear that out!! Winning your conference is a big deal! If, as it looks now, the PFL ends up as the only non-scholarship, FCS conference, I still believe that the team that wins that conference in any given season, is playoff worthy!

[GannonFan]

He is getting at the crux of the argument that I have been making for years. The best of the best non-scholarship team in any given season can be competitive in the playoffs! A team like USD is hammered by the old guard, I mean selection committee, because teams like Butler and Valparaiso might lose to lower division teams, causing the overall ranking of the PFL to be low.... A team like USD does not get any credit for winning conference games. Last season the last place team in the PFL went undefeated in their three OOC games. Care to guess who that was? OK, I'll help, Dayton! We defeated Robert Morris, Austin Peay, and Division III playoff team Wittenberg. We went 1-6 in the PFL, including a loss to Butler! I do not care what conference you play in, conference games are tough! Who does legendary coach Mike Kelly view as the Flyers biggest rival? San Diego, Drake, Morehead State, nope! It is Butler. The results of last season's game bear that out!! Winning your conference is a big deal! If, as it looks now, the PFL ends up as the only non-scholarship, FCS conference, I still believe that the team that wins that conference in any given season, is playoff worthy!

San Diego did themselves no favor by scheduling 2, lower division teams as part of their OOC schedule. It wasn't just conference affiliation that killed USD's strength of schedule. Playing only 10 games, and playing two of them against bad DII schools (one that was in their innagural year of even playing NCAA football) played a big role in the SOS.

[Col Hogan]

Now I'm really confused. I thought that it was our collective SOS that kept the PFL out of the playoffs.

So is it really the lack of scholarships?

Which is is?


I've been following this circular arguement for a while without participating...

Please show me where someone...anyone...said a lack of scholarships kept any team out of the playoffs...


Sure - look on page 27 of this thread and see anynumber of MPLSBISON posts.

OK, credibility level .05 on a scale of 1 - 100...


And while you are at it, where did anyone say your "collective SOS" kept a PFL team out of the playoffs...

Facts...just facts...


Championship Selection
[Reference: Bylaws 31.01.2, 31.01.3 and 31.3 in the NCAA Manual.]

At-large teams shall be selected by the Division I-AA football committee, assisted by four regional advisory committees that serve in an advisory capacity only.

The following principles shall apply when selecting at-large teams:

....3. The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of schedule; however, less than seven Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of not being selected;
4. The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all Division I opponents

Good quote...for this discussion though, it was claimed that the collective SOS of the PFL would hurt a team...the NCAA by-law quoted speaks to a teams SOS, not a conference. If a PFL team would schedule all DI OOC teams with good SOS, and win, the cited by-law would indicate they would gain positive consideration..

I also have found not reference in the NCAA by-laws to number of scolly a team awards...and as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, there is ample examples of non-scholly teams getting into the playoffs and doing well...

Bottom Line (NO TRASH TALK)

1. Conference schedule - Win it
2. OOC Games - All DI teams w/good SOS and win most or all

San Diego did not do 1 & 2 last year

[MplsBison]

THe fact is that it can be done and it has been done.

It's only been done by Colgate, Lehigh, and Layfayette!


Why haven't the PFL schools and esp. the rest of the PL been able to copy them? They've had more than enough time.

[MplsBison]

???? Lehigh and Lafayette and Colgate and Fordham are private schools.

You mentioned public schools in the OVC and MEAC as proof that scholarships don't allow a school to succeed, which is a red herring.

[Franks Tanks]

You mentioned public schools in the OVC and MEAC as proof that scholarships don't allow a school to succeed, which is a red herring.

He NEVER said that its proof that scholarships dont allow a school to suceed, that is just dumb and im not even sure how you could twist that comment into that. He is simply saying that scholarships dont guarantee success, success may be easier to achieve, but no guarantee.

[MplsBison]

Have I said that scholarships guarantee success in the FCS? If I did, it was a mistake.


And it's not even that not having scholarships guarantees that you won't hve a chance (even though the non scholarship schools that aren't L-L-C haven't had a chance).


It's purely that the model of the FCS should be the scholarship model. Schools should give money to and admit athletes based on their ability to play football.


This "academic merit" model is for DIII.

[Franks Tanks]

Have I said that scholarships guarantee success in the FCS? If I did, it was a mistake.


And it's not even that not having scholarships guarantees that you won't hve a chance (even though the non scholarship schools that aren't L-L-C haven't had a chance).


It's purely that the model of the FCS should be the scholarship model. Schools should give money to and admit athletes based on their ability to play football.


This "academic merit" model is for DIII.

Patriot league schools do admit and give money to students based solely on their ability to play football.

[Franks Tanks]

Patriot league schools do admit and give money to students based solely on their ability to play football.

As long as they qualify for the school academically of course.

[lizrdgizrd]

It's only been done by Colgate, Lehigh, and Layfayette!


Why haven't the PFL schools and esp. the rest of the PL been able to copy them? They've had more than enough time.
I guess all the other scholly teams have had success in the playoffs then? Since you expect all the other non-scholly teams to have the success of L-L-C what's your excuse for the scholly teams that haven't done well (or made) the playoffs?

[MplsBison]

I guess all the other scholly teams have had success in the playoffs then?

Same exact red herring.

Stick with the PFL and PL that we're discussing, please.

[GannonFan]

Same exact red herring.

Stick with the PFL and PL that we're discussing, please.

Fine, more than half of the Patriot League succeeds just fine giving athletic-based aid - they don't call it scholarships, but to the athletes cashing the checks the money doesn't look any different (a $10 bill that came as the result of a scholarship doesn't look any different than the $10 bill that came as the result of an athletic-based grant-in-aid).

Also, that "more than half" number of the Patriot League that is successful year in and year out is either equal to or even better of a percentage of competitive teams as compared to conferences that fit your seemingly preferred "scholarship" model.

So by any credible analysis, the Patriot League competes very well with the rest of the FCS, indicating that the grant-in-aid model can and does work very well in the classification.

Any more questions? xreadx

[UAalum72]

Also, that "more than half" number of the Patriot League that is successful year in and year out is either equal to or even better of a percentage of competitive teams as compared to conferences that fit your seemingly preferred "scholarship" model.
Remember, he's from near Lake Woebegone, where all the kids are above average.

[MplsBison]

they don't call it scholarships, but to the athletes cashing the checks the money doesn't look any different

It's not simply scholarships with a different name.

No matter how many times you pretend it is, it's not.




Any more questions?


Why is it impossible for the rest of the PL and the PFL to copy the non scholarship success of L-L-C?

[Dane96]

Oh no...it is not scholarship situated? Hmmmm...how? You do know the difference of scholarships and grants.

The simple difference: ONE CAN BE GIVEN REGARDLESS OF FINANCIAL STANDING....the other ONLY based on financial standing.

Money is money....a spade is a spade. There are very creative ways the IVY and PL find to give out money to those above the income barrier.

DIII schools have been doing this for years: see Mt. Union, Rowan, Ithaca, Cortland, Union, RPI, to name a few.

[DUPFLFan]

Why is it impossible for the rest of the PL and the PFL to copy the non scholarship success of L-L-C?

Simple...

L-L-C belong to the Patriot League - an autobid conference.

THE PFL DOESN'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. NO AUTOBID - NO BID AT ALL.

That is what this whole thing is about!xbangx

Perhaps if we had an autobid - WE COULD DUPLICATE THEIR SUCCESS!!!

Lafayette gets in at 6-5 - San Diego gets left out at 11-1...
xoopsx

[lizrdgizrd]

I guess all the other scholly teams have had success in the playoffs then? Since you expect all the other non-scholly teams to have the success of L-L-C what's your excuse for the scholly teams that haven't done well (or made) the playoffs?


Same exact red herring.

Stick with the PFL and PL that we're discussing, please.
Great job avoiding the substantive question, Mpls. I'll repeat it for you:

Since you expect all the other non-scholly teams to have the success of L-L-C what's your excuse for the scholly teams that haven't done well (or made) the playoffs?

[lizrdgizrd]

Simple...

L-L-C belong to the Patriot League - an autobid conference.

THE PFL DOESN'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. NO AUTOBID - NO BID AT ALL.

That is what this whole thing is about!xbangx

Perhaps if we had an autobid - WE COULD DUPLICATE THEIR SUCCESS!!!

Lafayette gets in at 6-5 - San Diego gets left out at 11-1...
xoopsx
Maybe you should get a team into the playoffs once before you start asking for an autobid. I won't argue the Lafayette point from this season, I think it was unfortunate.

[GannonFan]

Simple...

L-L-C belong to the Patriot League - an autobid conference.

THE PFL DOESN'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. NO AUTOBID - NO BID AT ALL.

That is what this whole thing is about!xbangx

Perhaps if we had an autobid - WE COULD DUPLICATE THEIR SUCCESS!!!

Lafayette gets in at 6-5 - San Diego gets left out at 11-1...
xoopsx

Nonsense. There are plenty of conferences that have had an autobid and that didn't end up equaling success. The OVC's current decade drought comes to mind. The MEAC still struggles today despite having the autobid for years, and we all know the history of the SWAC when they had the autobid. Just getting to have a team in the playoffs does not in anyway guarantee success.

Saying that the majority of the Patriot League that has enjoyed success is all due to the autobid is just silly and ignores the fact that many of those teams (Colgate, Lehigh, even Holy Cross) had substantial success well before an autobid was given.

What's truly different between the PL and the PFL comes down, IMO, to almost entirely about scheduling. The PFL is incredibly insular, and the vast, vast majority of OOC games are played against lower division teams. And not just DII teams, but an unprecedented level of DIII and NAIA teams. You rarely see the PFL play outside of that small bubble of less than competitive teams, although Drake playing UNI and USD playing some Ivies and UC Davis (albeit playing them after it mattered) is a good sign.

If the PFL really wants to be like the PL in terms of success, the best way to get there is to go out, like the PL has, and play good OOC schedules against other FCS teams. Oh, and win some of those OOC games then too. xthumbsupx

[UAalum72]

Maybe you should get a team into the playoffs once before you start asking for an autobid.
Exactly how many at-large bids did Patriot League teams earn from the league's founding in 1986 before it received its autobid (1997?)?

[GannonFan]

Exactly how many at-large bids did Patriot League teams earn from the league's founding in 1986 before it received its autobid (1997?)?

Maybe our Patriot League friends can help us, but did the Patriot League even allow their teams to enter the playoffs? I thought the PL started up and kinda copied the Ivy League model by eschewing the playoffs. The Holy Cross teams in the late 80's were some of the best teams in I-AA lore, yet were not in the playoffs. Holy Cross in 1987 went undefeated, 11-0, and beat a schedule that included Army (.500 that year), Harvard (Ivy League champs), Brown (Ivy League runner-ups), Dartmouth, UMass, William and Mary, and nova. The closest game was the 10 point win at Army - they scored 511 points and only gave up 110 to a pretty good schedule. The 10-1 Holy Cross team in 1989 (only lost to Army) was pretty good too, and that team had a 3 TD win against eventual A10 co-champ nova in that year.

I'm pretty sure the Patriot League had a policy of not participating in the playoffs until the late 90's.

[MplsBison]

ONE CAN BE GIVEN REGARDLESS OF FINANCIAL STANDING....the other ONLY based on financial standing.


And you have to be admitted to the school in order to qualify for financial aid.

[MplsBison]

what's your excuse for the scholly teams that haven't done well (or made) the playoffs?

Don't have one and I'm not going to waste time thinking of one as it's a completely different matter. Utterly unrelated.

[lizrdgizrd]

Don't have one and I'm not going to waste time thinking of one as it's a completely different matter. Utterly unrelated.
How is it unrelated? You ask why the rest of the PL doesn't have the success of L-L-C but you think scholly schools not having success doesn't relate?!? xnutsx

[Maverick]

BSBison,
Your approach seems to be like that one from the book that is all the rage after being on Oprah. The Secret. If you think it, you can make it happen. You think it should be a certain way. Yet it obviously isn't and doesn't seem likely to change any time soon. Still I enjoy your tilting at the windmills. Building your straw men and attacking them. xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

No illusion like self-delusion. xrotatehx xrotatehx xrotatehx xrotatehx

[MplsBison]

You ask why the rest of the PL doesn't have the success of L-L-C but you think scholly schools not having success doesn't relate?!?

Because we're talking about non scholarship schools in the PL and PFL.

Anything else is a red herring.

[GannonFan]

Because we're talking about non scholarship schools in the PL and PFL.

Anything else is a red herring.

Just calling something a red herring over and over again doesn't eventually make it a red herring. xthumbsupx

You made it an issue by claiming that 3 teams in the conference over 10 years not acheiving the success of the top 4 is somehow proof of the inherent difficulty of not having scholarships. The issue that is really not a red herring is that you see the same issue in scholarship conferences - most conferences typically have bottom dwellers that are consistently bottom dwellers. Ignoring the general tendency for any conference to have habitual bottom dwellers and, in the PL, trying to make a fanciful connection of those bottom dwellers to their non-scholarship status is just flat out erroneous logic.

But by all means, keep the blinders on, claim that the herring is red, and ignore the big gaping hole in your argument. :p

[MplsBison]

You made it an issue by claiming that 3 teams in the conference over 10 years not acheiving the success of the top 4 is somehow proof of the inherent difficulty of not having scholarships.


False.


Here is the the issue;


Small private schools having had great success without giving scholarships:

Lafayette, Lehigh, Colgate


Small private schools having not had sucess withouth giving scholarships:

Holy Cross, Fordham, Bucknell, Georgetown, Butler, Davidson, Dayton, Drake, Jacksonville, San Diego, Valparaiso.



The question that you keep avoiding: how is it possible that the first 3 have success when all other things are equal with the bottom 11?

[andy7171]

Didn't Fordham make it into the second round of the playoffs a couple years ago?

[MplsBison]

One year means nothing compared to the continued success of LLC.

Stop dodging the question.

[Col Hogan]

One year means nothing compared to the continued success of LLC.

Stop dodging the question.

You keep dodging questions...and when someone provides an answer to you that answers the question, you call it a red herring...

[andy7171]

The problem here is that you are equating the PL with the PFL, they are not. The PL has put 4 of the 7 members in the playoffs in the last 10 years, several years with at large bids and auto bids. The PL does not schedule down OOC games.
You can make your case with the PFL, but as far as the PL being lump in, you are making yourself look foolish. Last year was not the norm for the PL with a log jam of 6-5 teams. There are usually a clear cut champion and occasionally a second place playoff worthy at large.

[DUPFLFan]

False.


Here is the the issue;


Small private schools having had great success without giving scholarships:

Lafayette, Lehigh, Colgate


Small private schools having not had sucess withouth giving scholarships:

Holy Cross, Fordham, Bucknell, Georgetown, Butler, Davidson, Dayton, Drake, Jacksonville, San Diego, Valparaiso.



The question that you keep avoiding: how is it possible that the first 3 have success when all other things are equal with the bottom 11?


How do you equate success? Making the playoffs? Winning records?

Drake's record the last three seasons have been 9-2, 6-4 and 10-2 (Three PFL Championships in their history).

Before last year, Dayton has had 28 consecutive winning seasons... Including 8 PFL Championships

San Diego has had good seasons of 8-3, 7-4 and 11-1 (1 PFL Championship)

Since none of these teams (including Dayton's 1996 11-0 team) made the playoffs, I guess they are not successful in your eyes, right? xnonono2x

[andy7171]

How do you equate success? Making the playoffs? Winning records?

Drake's record the last three seasons have been 9-2, 6-4 and 10-2 (Three PFL Championships in their history).

Before last year, Dayton has had 28 consecutive winning seasons... Including 8 PFL Championships

San Diego has had good seasons of 8-3, 7-4 and 11-1 (1 PFL Championship)

Since none of these teams (including Dayton's 1996 11-0 team) made the playoffs, I guess they are not successful in your eyes, right? xnonono2x
Unfortunately, I believe that is his criteria.

[OL FU]

What does fish have to do with this threadxeyebrowx xsmiley_wix

[MplsBison]

The problem here is that you are equating the PL with the PFL, they are not. The PL has put 4 of the 7 members in the playoffs in the last 10 years, several years with at large bids and auto bids. The PL does not schedule down OOC games.
You can make your case with the PFL, but as far as the PL being lump in, you are making yourself look foolish. Last year was not the norm for the PL with a log jam of 6-5 teams. There are usually a clear cut champion and occasionally a second place playoff worthy at large.


I can make the exact same case with only Gtown, Bucknell, and Holy Cross.


Esp Gtown and Holy Cross. Are those 2 schools no name nobodies? Come on!

How come they can't copy the success of LLC?

[MplsBison]

How do you equate success?

Playoff wins.

Simply making the playoffs only proves that your conference has an autobid.

[Maverick]

Um, they don't want to? They are doing what they want to do with what they have in the conference they want to be in. Sorry that doesn't conform to your BSBison Vision, but that reality trumps your world view. But when you take over one of those athletic deparments or become the president of one of those colleges, then you can get right to it! Until then, Don Quixote, you and your straw men are pretty amusing.

[Franks Tanks]

I can make the exact same case with only Gtown, Bucknell, and Holy Cross.


Esp Gtown and Holy Cross. Are those 2 schools no name nobodies? Come on!

How come they can't copy the success of LLC?

Well why hasnt the Citadel or Western Carolina made the playoffs recently? Certain schools in ceratin leagues will have more success than others period. I dont really understand what you are agruing as according to your logic the Southern Conference stinks as well because Elon never made the playoffs. Oh and the Patriot league has had many playoff wins, 7 I believe.

[DetroitFlyer]

I almost understand MplsBison's argument, if you are looking at it from an FBS wannabee perspective. I believe that I have heard it before, but doesn't FBS require that a school provide a minimum number of full scholarships? I seem to recall that the military academies were exempt because they were so unique. So, FBS requires things like a miminum number of full scholarships, minimum attendance, etc. So, if you really want your school to be FBS, but the cold hard cash is just not there, the next best thing might be to have the rules of the division your team plays in identical to FBS only cheaper.... ( Less scholarships, less attendance required, etc. ). Just think how much fun we could have debating minimum FCS attendance requirements.... In fact, we could change the name of the division again to something like FBSL - Football Bowl Subdivision Light or if you want a trademark battle, "Lite".

Perhaps one of the things that makes FCS a bit more interesting than FBS is the diversity of football funding models. Of course, as I have said in the past, it would be better if all teams and all conferences participated in the playoffs via champion autobids, ( Ivy, SWAC, PFL, NEC and all other eligible conferences ). If there is a serious fault with FCS football, it is that not everyone is fully engaged in the division. Fix that problem, and stop losing sleep over various teams/conferences funding models.

[Col Hogan]

I almost understand MplsBison's argument, if you are looking at it from an FBS wannabee perspective.

Give this man the cuppie doll.....

Some people feel if a school is not trying to be FBS, they should remain in DIII...

Sometimes they even come very close to saying that...but wimp out at the last moment...

But you, sir, have seen through the smoke and mirrors...verry good!!!!xbowx

[Maverick]

Those options of being fullly "engaged" exist now. It is up the conferences and its members to decide how "engaged" they wish to be not us. That is the "problem" that BSBison seeks to solve. The conferences and their members are aware of the parameters but choose to operate as they do. That is what BSBison the red herring king is choosing to ignore. Perhaps by contacting these conferences directly he can help straighten them as well as the NCAA out on how things should be in the world according to him. I am sure once he does that they will simply say thanks for telling us we had never thought of that. Or maybe they will just be as amused with him as some of us are?xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx

[MplsBison]

the Patriot league has had many playoff wins, 7 I believe.

Let me fix that for you:


L-L-C has had many playoff wins, 7 I believe.



Fordham, Holy Cross, Georgetown, and Bucknell have never won a DI-AA or FCS playoff game.

[MplsBison]

In any 16 game playoff, there are 15 game winners.

In 2006 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams.
In 2005 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams
In 2004 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams.
In 2003 12 game winners were scholarship teams and Colgate won 3 games.
(that's as far back as NCAAsports.com has)




You can see where this is going. Scholarship teams dominate the division.

[Maverick]

What about 2002? Fordham defeated Northeastern 29-24. So make the L-L-C-F! Seems that if you were looking for facts you would have found this instead of only looking for support of your "weltanschaung". (PS: That is world view in German!)

BSBison, don't let the facts get in the way of your delusion!!

[Maverick]

What about 2002? Fordham defeated Northeastern 29-24. So make the L-L-C-F!

BSBison, don't let the facts get in the way of your delusion!!

http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history

on this page is little item that says NCAA records, click on it and it will take you to page where you can download the NCAA football records for both subdivisions in D-I as a .pdf file. Happy Hunting!

[Maverick]

What about 2002? Fordham defeated Northeastern 29-24. So make the L-L-C-F!

BSBison, don't let the facts get in the way of your delusion!!

http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history

on this page is little item that says Official records books, click on NCAA.org and it will take you to page where you can download the NCAA football records for both subdivisions in D-I as a .pdf file. Happy Hunting!

[MplsBison]

OK, DIAAfootball.com has playoffs further back:

In 2006 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams.
In 2005 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams
In 2004 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams.
In 2003 12 game winners were scholarship teams and Colgate won 3 games.
In 2002 14 game winners were scholarship teams and Fordham won a game.
In 2001 14 game winners were scholarship teams and Lehigh won a game.
In 2000 14 game winners were scholarship teams and Lehigh won a game.
In 1999 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams.
In 1998 14 game winners were scholarship teams and Lehigh won a game.
In 1997 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams.

From 96 down I don't even see any PL teams in there.


So there you have it. Other than Lehigh and Colgate/Fordham their one years, the non scholarships schools have done squat in the playoffs.


Quite obvious that scholarship schools are the competitive ones in the division.

[TheValleyRaider]

OK, DIAAfootball.com has playoffs further back:

In 2006 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams.
In 2005 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams
In 2004 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams.
In 2003 12 game winners were scholarship teams and Colgate won 3 games.
In 2002 14 game winners were scholarship teams and Fordham won a game.
In 2001 14 game winners were scholarship teams and Lehigh won a game.
In 2000 14 game winners were scholarship teams and Lehigh won a game.
In 1999 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams.
In 1998 14 game winners were scholarship teams and Lehigh won a game.
In 1997 all 15 game winners were scholarship teams.

From 96 down I don't even see any PL teams in there.


So there you have it. Other than Lehigh and Colgate/Fordham their one years, the non scholarships schools have done squat in the playoffs.


Quite obvious that scholarship schools are the competitive ones in the division.

So is it no longer LLC, but LCF?

It's already been pointed out (if not on this thread then on the other "Scholarships" one) that it was only recently that the Patriot League even allowed their members into the postseason.

And as for "the scholarship schools are the competitive ones," who flippin' cares? You've already pointed out that there are a limited number of non-scholarship schools that even get their names put into the discussion for playoffs (the 7 Patriot League schools and the handful of Pioneer League teams that may possibly, maybe, kinda, sorta had a shot at the postseason over the League's history). Compare that to conferences filled with scholarship teams, which would be, well, the rest of them. To be more exact, it's the Big Sky, A-10/CAA, Gateway, SoCon, Southland, MEAC, OVC, Big South, and Great West, which currently totals approximately 70 schools. The ratio gets even more lopsided when you consider the NEC and SWAC, which have all been part of the playoff picture before.

In other words, no kidding Scholarship teams have the lion's share of success. They also have the lion's share of teams.xreadx

[MplsBison]

All the more reason to get rid of the anomaly.

[TheValleyRaider]

All the more reason to get rid of the anomaly.

But.....why? So they aren't anomalies anymore?

Two straight National Titles are anomalies too, you want to get rid of them as well? xcoffeex

[DFW HOYA]

So there you have it. Other than Lehigh and Colgate/Fordham their one years, the non scholarships schools have done squat in the playoffs.

Given that the PL schools are the only N-S teams which have ever been invited, how can you argue the other schools have not performed well in the playoffs? xlolx

[MplsBison]

Lafayette as also in there. They haven't won a playoff game yet.


Looking like another 0-fer year for the non scholarships in 2007. The Patriot autobid will get in and one and done in the first round, continuing the previous 3 year trend.

[MplsBison]

But.....why?

Why allow it in our subdivision?

DIII was created exactly for things like this.

[AppMan]

I almost understand MplsBison's argument, if you are looking at it from an FBS wannabee perspective. I believe that I have heard it before, but doesn't FBS require that a school provide a minimum number of full scholarships? I seem to recall that the military academies were exempt because they were so unique. So, FBS requires things like a miminum number of full scholarships, minimum attendance, etc. So, if you really want your school to be FBS, but the cold hard cash is just not there, the next best thing might be to have the rules of the division your team plays in identical to FBS only cheaper.... ( Less scholarships, less attendance required, etc. ).

If there is a serious fault with FCS football, it is that not everyone is fully engaged in the division. Fix that problem, and stop losing sleep over various teams/conferences funding models.

This is the central point of the issue. From the get-go 1-aa became the dumping grounds for those schools who could not keep up with the cash rich elite conferences in the nation. It was sold as a cost containment wing of Division One football for schools who wanted to play at a high level of competition but could not afford to award 95 scholarships (at the time of the split), did not have the resources to build 30,000 seat stadiums, and did not average 15,000 per game. It was not created as a place for low & non scholarship programs programs to exist. That was what D-II & D-III were for. Everything was rolling along fairly smooth until the NCAA mandated schools had to play all sports at the same level. No longer were schools allowed to play D-III football and D-I in everything else. Prior to that decison there was some talk of establishing minimum scholarship reqirements, but with the influx of the low, need based, and non-scholarship programs those ideas were tabled. As a result 1-aa became a convoluted mess. Schools with 20,000+ seat stadiums and giving the full 75 grants (since lowered to 67) were lumped in with those playing in 2,000 seat stadiums and giving zero grants. The diversity of the divison is simply too great to find much common ground. There is no right and no wrong. There are just a number of schools who disagree on the amount of funding for football or a comittment to play at certain levels. Yet, people wonder why there is such turmoil in the division.

[MplsBison]

Great post App!


This proves that we need scholarship minimums now!

[Dane96]

Actually, it is a ridiculous post. Again, the PL offers what would be equivavlent to the same allotment as the CAA, Gateway, etc.

The difference: Can give a Gateway kid $$ no matter what, while a PL kid has to have "NEED."

That being said, it comes down to bottom line financial $$$ support. PL TEAMS HAVE GIVEN THAT SUPPORT.

Even in the full-ride conferences, there is a disparity between teams economic spending. Are we to jettison those teams as well? Yes, Georgetown may not spend as much as others...but top-to-bottom, the PL on a whole spends $$$.

THE IVY's? Please, again, anyone not believing there is "found" money to get the kids these schools want...is living in la la land. Were it not for an butt-clown dean, I would have been playing baseball at Princeton. My parents worked three jobs between them and, therefore, we were WAY ABOVE THE GRANT LEVEL.

That being said, I was getting a full-boat to Princeton.

So, when it comes down to it, only the PFL and NEC are really disproportionate to the rest of FCS (on paper...and in the $$ dept). That is what, 20 teams plus the remaining 3 MAACS.

So, Apps argument that scholarship mins are stalled because of the influx of non-scholly schools, fails at its inception; 20 schools are not holding back the voting members of 100+ schools.

If the schools who are disproportionate in $$$ spending had that much power we would see autobids for the NEC and PFL.


For the record: THAT...is how you debate and post a constructive argument Bison Boy. State a point, give the facts, give the concepts that support your view based on the facts given...and come to a conclusory statement.

[Franks Tanks]

This is the central point of the issue. From the get-go 1-aa became the dumping grounds for those schools who could not keep up with the cash rich elite conferences in the nation. It was sold as a cost containment wing of Division One football for schools who wanted to play at a high level of competition but could not afford to award 95 scholarships (at the time of the split), did not have the resources to build 30,000 seat stadiums, and did not average 15,000 per game. It was not created as a place for low & non scholarship programs programs to exist. That was what D-II & D-III were for. Everything was rolling along fairly smooth until the NCAA mandated schools had to play all sports at the same level. No longer were schools allowed to play D-III football and D-I in everything else. Prior to that decison there was some talk of establishing minimum scholarship reqirements, but with the influx of the low, need based, and non-scholarship programs those ideas were tabled. As a result 1-aa became a convoluted mess. Schools with 20,000+ seat stadiums and giving the full 75 grants (since lowered to 67) were lumped in with those playing in 2,000 seat stadiums and giving zero grants. The diversity of the divison is simply too great to find much common ground. There is no right and no wrong. There are just a number of schools who disagree on the amount of funding for football or a comittment to play at certain levels. Yet, people wonder why there is such turmoil in the division.

The Patriot league and the IVy league were never lumped into this low end. Patriot and Ivy league schools have always historically played schools that are in Division I and alwasy have been. Lafayette used to be in the same conference as Rutgers for football years back and Patriot league teams have a long histiory of playing team like Army, The Cuse, Rutgers, Navy etc. So I undestand you point but it better directed at some of the glofified d-III's in the PFL or MAC

[AppMan]

In reality with all the diversity in Division One there needs to be four sub-divisions. Although I don't like the A, AA classification nomenclature, I don't know what you would call these since the last three sub-divisions would all conduct playoff tournaments. So, for the lack of better terminology I'll just stick with the old terminology.

I-A - Award 85 full grants, average 25,000 in paid home attendance, sponsor 16 varsity sports, award 200 total grants in aid, or $4,000,000 in total grants.

I-AA - Award total of 75 grants, 5 of which may be split in half, average 15,000 in paid home attendance, sponsor 14 varsity sports, 150 total grants in aid or $2,000,000 in total grants.

I-AAA - Award total of 55 grants, 12 of which may be split in half, no minimum home attendance requirements, sponsor 10 varsity sports, 100 minimum total grants, or $1,000,000 in total grants.

I-AAAA - No Athletic grants, no minumum home attendance requirements, no minimum requirements, meets all other Division One requirements.

[Dane96]

Number 1: There already is a I-AAA

Number 2- What is this 75 grant thing...not understanding it....that is an increase in 12...and makes no sense, nor does min in attendence. I think you are saying IA teams will drop...and I-AA (use only for this argument) are going up (Montana).

FEW WORDS: NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!

[AppMan]

Actually, it is a ridiculous post. Again, the PL offers what would be equivavlent to the same allotment as the CAA, Gateway, etc.

The difference: Can give a Gateway kid $$ no matter what, while a PL kid has to have "NEED."

That being said, it comes down to bottom line financial $$$ support. PL TEAMS HAVE GIVEN THAT SUPPORT.

Even in the full-ride conferences, there is a disparity between teams economic spending. Are we to jettison those teams as well? Yes, Georgetown may not spend as much as others...but top-to-bottom, the PL on a whole spends $$$.

THE IVY's? Please, again, anyone not believing there is "found" money to get the kids these schools want...is living in la la land. Were it not for an butt-clown dean, I would have been playing baseball at Princeton. My parents worked three jobs between them and, therefore, we were WAY ABOVE THE GRANT LEVEL.

That being said, I was getting a full-boat to Princeton.

So, when it comes down to it, only the PFL and NEC are really disproportionate to the rest of FCS (on paper...and in the $$ dept). That is what, 20 teams plus the remaining 3 MAACS.

So, Apps argument that scholarship mins are stalled because of the influx of non-scholly schools, fails at its inception; 20 schools are not holding back the voting members of 100+ schools.

If the schools who are disproportionate in $$$ spending had that much power we would see autobids for the NEC and PFL.


For the record: THAT...is how you debate and post a constructive argument Bison Boy. State a point, give the facts, give the concepts that support your view based on the facts given...and come to a conclusory statement.

You make my point beautifully. The only thing ridiculous is how the "need based" proponents shade their agruements in order to have the appearance of being legit. You base your entire arguement for belonging on one part of the total picture. IMO, the discussion should be centered around the total comittment level a school has for football, not just how many guys playing football receive money from the school. If a school decides not to offer athletic scholarships it stands to reason they are not fully comitted to playing at a very high level. I would also be willing to bet their recruiting budgets fall way short of the top programs in the division. This is not saying the coaches aren't good, don't work hard, and the players aren't any good. However, the institution itself doesn't view football as an important part to their university or alumni.

I edited out of my earlier post an admiration for the Ivies. Those folks have determined what their level of emphasis is going to be for football and have stuck to their guns. The really cool part is they really do not care what anyone else thinks and are content because it suits the needs of their institutions and alumni. That is what this entire debate actually needs to be centered around.

[Franks Tanks]

In reality with all the diversity in Division One there needs to be four sub-divisions. Although I don't like the A, AA classification nomenclature, I don't know what you would call these since the last three sub-divisions would all conduct playoff tournaments. So, for the lack of better terminology I'll just stick with the old terminology.

I-A - Award 85 full grants, average 25,000 in paid home attendance, sponsor 16 varsity sports, award 200 total grants in aid, or $4,000,000 in total grants.

I-AA - Award total of 75 grants, 5 of which may be split in half, average 15,000 in paid home attendance, sponsor 14 varsity sports, 150 total grants in aid or $2,000,000 in total grants.

I-AAA - Award total of 55 grants, 12 of which may be split in half, no minimum home attendance requirements, sponsor 10 varsity sports, 100 minimum total grants, or $1,000,000 in total grants.

I-AAAA - No Athletic grants, no minumum home attendance requirements, no minimum requirements, meets all other Division One requirements.

There is to many qualifiers there, each of you 4 or so subdivisiosn would have only liek 50 teams, ar eyou gonna crown a cahmpion in each division of 50 teams?

1-A will be BCS conference teams and a few others minro connverence teams.

Your 1-AA will prettyy mucb be the lower level of BCS with MAYBE a hald dozen current FCS schools thrown. Who can even meet that criteria maybe APP, Montana, Delware, Y-town, NDSU that 15 k qualifier is rather high when you look at FCS attandance. Also I disagree, If you are dissatisfied with the quality of FCS football that your school shoudl move up not make others rise to yiru level. FCS is for cost containment remenber

[Dane96]

[QUOTE=AppMan;581156]You make my point beautifully. The only thing ridiculous is how the "need based" proponents shade their agruements in order to have the appearance of being legit. You base your entire arguement for belonging on one part of the total picture. IMO, the discussion should be centered around the total comittment level a school has for football, not just how many guys playing football receive money from the school. If a school decides not to offer athletic scholarships it stands to reason they are not fully comitted to playing at a very high level. I would also be willing to bet their recruiting budgets fall way short of the top programs in the division. This is not saying the coaches aren't good, don't work hard, and the players aren't any good. However, the institution itself doesn't view football as an important part to their university or alumni.

I edited out of my earlier post an admiration for the Ivies. Those folks have determined what their level of emphasis is going to be for football and have stuck to their guns. The really cool part is they really do not care what anyone else thinks and are content because it suits the needs of their institutions and alumni. That is what this entire debate actually needs to be centered around.[/QUOTE/]

Actually, I do not make your point beautifully. Your point was non-scholarship schools are holding back scholarship schools.

Considering the MASSIVE minority the non-schollys are in, your POINT IS FALSE!

Additionally, PL schools near the top of that league spend more than some BCS schools...and that is a fact.

Fact is, the large MAJORITY of schools at the FCS level spend a good, and equal, amount of money as the others.

In hoops, NOT ALL DIVISIONS AND SCHOOLS spend equal amounts of dollars...and the disparity is ten times worse than football.

Don't give me a "well the sports are different argument", because they are not.

Bottom line: Schools who want to spend a ridiculous amount of $$$ above and beyond the median of the FCS have an option: FBS.

[MplsBison]

anyone not believing there is "found" money to get the kids these schools want...is living in la la land.

Unless you can confirm this with a source, this is nothing but a lie by you to try to legitimize need based athletic aid.

[Dane96]

Well...considering I was getting a full-ride to Princeton to play baseball and my parents made over the FAFSA grant mark...yep...I can confirm.

But, if you did not speak before researching, you could probably find the articles indicating the "trouble" some Ivies got into by stretching aid.

It is pretty well documented.

Thanks for playing.

And for the record, I prefer scholarships, however I don't thumb my nose at grants because, unlike you, I understand the basic conceptual difference between grants and scholarships. Again, as others have explained:

-scholarships and grants, by definition, are free money.
-loans, including trustee and school based, must be paid back
-SCHOLARSHIPS can be given regardless of financial background
-GRANTS are given based on need and merit, though merit in the PL is limited
-talented student athletes (ATHLETIC for this argument...not academic) received offers of FREE MONEY (scholarship or grant) based on ATHLETIC ABILITY.
-the type of aid depends on school disposition
-those limiting themselves to grants either A) get creative (the minority unless you are an IVY...see above); or B) lose some talented kids to other program.

The result: For the most part the grant schools (forgetting the PFL who offers no aid) can play competitively with the full-bores (see NEC top half and PL teams who have won playoff games).

Anything else you need explained?

[MplsBison]

For the most part the grant schools (forgetting the PFL who offers no aid) can play competitively with the full-bores (see NEC top half and PL teams who have won playoff games).



False.

The last three years the PL has not won a playoff game whereas the three years before it, they had (and Colgate won 3 in 03).


Obviously the tide has shifted and even the best PL schools can't recruit against the scholarship programs. Indeed the only reason they're even making the playoffs is the autobid.


You'll see this trend continue in 07 with the "best" PL team limping into the playoffs to be put out of their misery.

[Dane96]

Whoak. I do remember USC being one of the worst football programs of the majors for awhile. Guess they never recovered.

Right.

Fact is the PL has been competitive. If competitive is what you are after, your point cannot be directly proportioned to $$$ spent. There are plenty of full blown programs who are not situated to be in a NC chase every year. EVERY CONFERENCE HAS THEM. These teams spend $$$ and build facilties...but you know what...only 16 teams can make the playoffs.

Go do something productive with your day...at least I have an excuse...I am at work.

[MplsBison]

In all honestly, Colgate in 03 is the only exception.

Yeah big deal, Lehigh has won a few first rounds. Pretty meaningless when they always lose in the 2nd round. That's not really being competitive.

[Dane96]

Finishing in the top 8 is not competitive?

Done with you.

[MplsBison]

Winning one playoff game (to 14) every few years (and none the last three years) doesn't justify allowing the need based non scholarship way of life to continue in FCS.


Done with them.

[Dane96]

I am sure they are crying. And I am sure the FCS Committee will institute your "sane" plan.

[Go...gate]

Is there such an animal as a "normal" conference??? IMO, they are all unique.

[DFW HOYA]

Winning one playoff game (to 14) every few years (and none the last three years) doesn't justify allowing the need based non scholarship way of life to continue in FCS. Done with them.

You understand that the Patriot League is not considered a true "non-scholarship" league, don't you?

Posts like your above read more as shock value. So why not rid FCS of all private schools as well? Clearly, they do not meet the same goals of state sponsored institutions, do they?

[MplsBison]

All I'm proposing is scholarship minimums.

What does that have to do with academics goals?

[Go...gate]

All I'm proposing is scholarship minimums.

What does that have to do with academics goals?

Nothing, provided the schools are permitted the discretion as to what a scholarship is and to whom it can or should be awarded.

[MplsBison]

They shouldn't get that discretion.


That's what the NCAA is for.

[Go...gate]

This is a fascinating argument of centralized leadership vs. individual discretion. Max Weber and Emile Durkheim should be here to participate! :)

[MplsBison]

But it's not even close to the same vein as government politics.


The NCAA is a private club.

If you don't like their rules, you're free to leave.

[UAalum72]

If you don't like their rules, you're free to leave.
All FCS teams today are following the rules. You are free to leave - now.

[MplsBison]

It should be obvious that I'm advocating policy change.


Yes, I realize that the word "change" strikes fear into the hearts of every apple pie eating American.

[Dane96]

No...you just annoy us. Advocates argue salient points. You have nothing but barbs that are factless.

Amazing...1806 unquality posts in a year.

Congrats.

[Maverick]

BSBison,
Please explain how your "advocacy" (actually it is more like idiocy) will bring about the change? Can you explain how you see this "change" you advocate coming about? Which NCAA member will you get to sponsor the proposal that any insititution in Div I who doesn't give scholarships in football be demoted to Div. II. After the highly succesful campaign here, I am fascinated by what you might be able to do by talking to schools and conferences about your "concept".

[Franks Tanks]

This is a fascinating argument of centralized leadership vs. individual discretion. Max Weber and Emile Durkheim should be here to participate! :)

Nice...maybe we can discuss what "life-chances" were part of MPLS bison make-up. When you scroll through other threads did you ever notice that in many instances he is the only poster with totally contrarian view on many subjects and never connsider the other side afer debate