The so-called "normal" conferences of the FCS

[TheBisonator]

I was just thinking about the recent demise of MAAC football with the loss of St. Peter's, and it got me to thinking about how too many conferences in FCS football do not operate in a normal way, that is, 1) They have regulations on scholarships that go beyond what the NCAA mandates, 2) They have regulations on playoff participation that go beyond what the NCAA mandates, and 3) They do not give scholarships at all.

This got me to thinking about the remaining 14 FCS conferences (once the MAAC goes away), and how I think the entire subdivision needs to establish more conferences that are a "whole part" of FCS. And what I mean by this is that we need more conferences where the only scholarship limitations are what the NCAA mandates (full 63-scholly leagues) and also an elimination of the "no playoffs" rule in a couple of these conferences.

Out of the 14 FCS conferences, only the following 9 are conferences where teams in the conference are allowed to have 63 full scholarships, and where there is complete freedom to participate in the playoffs:

Colonial Athletic Association (12)
Gateway Football Conference (7)
Big Sky Conference (9)
Southern Conference (8)
Southland Conference (8)
Ohio Valley Conference (8)
Great West Football Conference (5)
Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (9)
Big South Conference (7)

This only accounts for 73 out of the 113 FCS teams in conferences (Not counting any remaining MAAC teams).

It doesn't matter to me if there are teams in any of these conferences who do not have the full 63 (i.e. Southern Utah or Rhode Island). The point is that they are not institutionally limited by their conference in their scholarships. It does also not matter to me that a couple conferences here do not have autobids. The point I'm trying to make is how these conferences legislate their rules to football members, not the NCAA.

Now, the following 5 conferences do not act like a "normal" FCS conference, in that they either have self-imposed scholarship restrictions, have none at all, or do not participate in the playoffs:

Patriot League (No scholarships, but grant equivalencies instead. Full playoff eligibility) (7)
Southwest Athletic Conference (Total scholly freedom, but the top-2 teams aren't allowed in the playoffs. Almost no chance of #3 getting accepted) (10)
Ivy League (No technical scholarships, and no playoff participation. Chalk this one up to stuffy elitism) (8)
Northeast Conference (36 scholly maximum, but are still allowed in the playoffs. Hard task to accomplish, though) (7)
Pioneer Football League (Completely non-scholly, almost no chance of a team making the playoffs) (8)

This accounts for 40 of the 113 FCS teams in conferences (not counting any remaining MAAC teams).

The question I ask you is: Now that the MAAC is gone, is there a way that one of these following 5 conferences can change one of their rules to become like the other 9 FCS conferences?? Perhaps the SWAC could open up the playoffs to all teams. Or maybe the Patriot could allow full schollies instead of these grant deals.

With 1 or 2 more "full strength" conferences in the FCS, we can shed our subdivision's image as a hodgepodge of different level schools with completely different rules.

What do you think??

[DFW HOYA]

I was just thinking about the recent demise of MAAC football with the loss of St. Peter's, and it got me to thinking about how too many conferences in FCS football do not operate in a normal way, that is, 1) They have regulations on scholarships that go beyond what the NCAA mandates, 2) They have regulations on playoff participation that go beyond what the NCAA mandates, and 3) They do not give scholarships at all...What do you think??

The NCAA does not "mandate" scholarships in I-AA/FCS. Any school that does not meet I-A qualifications falls into I-AA by rule, and neither does the NCAA mandate participation in the playoffs, just as they do not mandate participation in bowls. (There was a time when Notre Dame went 45 years without accepting a bowl bid and they still won four national titles.)

No conference is more or less deserrving of being a "true" conference if they have met the requirements of the subdivision, which are, of course, minimal (50% of games agaisnt Division I opponents, and a minimum of six teams in the league). As to the MAAC, it died a slow death by not seeking to grow the league when it had the chance, and marginalized its schools in the process.In the last 13 years, one school joined the league and seven left (two by upgrade, five by insolvency). That speaks volumes.

Ironically, the only sport where playoff participation is mandatory is basketball, when in 1970 Marquette (22-3) was sent out of its regional and Al McGuire promptly took an NIT bid instead. Three games later, the Warriors won the NIT. The NCAA changed the rules to say if any team gets an NCAA invite, it must take it. Now if it did that for I-AA, things would get interesting...

[MplsBison]

The obvious solution to me is to make FCS have scholarship minimums, as they do in FBS, and create a 3rd subdivision for the cost containment crowd.

Perhaps the FCCS, Football Cost Containment Subdivision.

Naturally, there's be no playoff. Too expensive to send teams on extra travel just to determine a champion.



I believe the rule in FBS is you must have a minimum of 90% of the max of 85 which works out to 76.5 (but rounds to 77 since you can only have fulls in FBS).

That seems very reasonable to me, so the FCS minimum should be 90% of 63 which is 56.7.


If you aren't going to give 56.7 scholarships for football, get out of our subdivision.

[CopperCat]

Ivy school administrations need to pull their collective thumb our of their collective ass and play in the playoffs. Too many good teams never get the chance just because "we're ivy league." That's not ivy league, that's bush league.

[GoBears]

Ivy school administrations need to pull their collective thumb our of their collective ass and play in the playoffs. Too many good teams never get the chance just because "we're ivy league." That's not ivy league, that's bush league.

xnodx

[youwouldno]

I've always believed in greater uniformity. All sport is based on uniformity-- boxers have weight classes, the NFL has a salary cap, college athletics has divisions, and so on. The details vary of course as do the sports and the concurring economic realities.

The FCS is totally lacking in uniformity and basically serves as a dumping ground for D-I programs that aren't FBS in football. In my view, it should meet the original mandate-- D-I football without competing against the outrageous budgets of the major programs.

[EKU05]

For the coming season the OVC will have 10 (not 8) teams playing football. After Samford leaves at the end of the season that will still leave nine (Austin Peay returns to OVC football starting this season).

But I get what you're saying...the level at which different conferences chose to try to compete is definitely inconsitant at times.

[Model Citizen]

The question I ask you is: Now that the MAAC is gone, is there a way that one of these following 5 conferences can change one of their rules to become like the other 9 FCS conferences??

Well, of course. All it takes is a lot of money.

[Model Citizen]

I should add that the MAAC is NOT gone.

[UAalum72]

The obvious solution to me is to make FCS have scholarship minimums, as they do in FBS, and create a 3rd subdivision for the cost containment crowd... (or)...get out of our subdivision.

In case you didn't learn it in the 'entire' time you've been in 'your' subdivision, FCS IS the cost containment crowd.

[MplsBison]

And to that I raise my middle finger as high as I can.


Scholarship minimums for FCS!


Why would Albany be against that anyway? You're going up to 63, right?

[Model Citizen]

There are varying degrees of cost containment. The budget at Richmond is over three times what USD spends.

Some of I-AA is here because of cost containment, but some schools are here because they don't meet attendance requirements. At a minimum, the Southland, Southern, Ivy, and Gateway fall into the latter category. Most of their members were I-A until being kicked out.

[TheValleyRaider]

If you're looking for one of your "Other" Conferences to change, it'll probably be the Patriot League allowing scholarships. Second would be the NEC allowing the full 63, but unless they can get commitments from their lower tier members to push closer to it, I'd be surprised to see it happen. Behind that, the SWAC could be dumping their 9-Game Mandate in the near future (fingers crossed, at least), leading to better OOC schedules, better teams, and then maybe the SWAC team left out of the Title Game gets a serious look at the playoffs.

One of the beauties of the subdivision (I think) is the differences within. It's been proven that schools without scholarships (Patriot/Ivy League) and limited scholarships (NEC) can compete with members of the so-called "regular" conferences. They are different philosophies with regard to running a program and can certainly each generate their fair share of success.

As for the Ivy League joining the playoffs, who's auto-bid and at-large births do they take away? Until the playoffs expand there's only going to be a very finite number of spots for another league to squeeze into. Add the Ivies into the mix with the Patriot League and your other "normal" conferences, and you've got 11 conferences fighting for 16 spots, which is not much room for the committee to play with when it's time to pass out the invites.

[UAalum72]

And to that I raise my middle finger as high as I can.

Back atcha.

Bison haven't been in the division long enough to be eligible for the playoffs and you're ready to say who shouldn't be in the subdivision? If you didn't want to associate with these schools you should have declared from the start you're going to I-A as fast as possible, then you won't have to.

[DetroitFlyer]

if you are willing to accept the premise that the NEC can compete with the "normal" conferences, then what do you say about a conference whose champion rolled over the NEC champion in a post season bowl game? Hmmmmmmmmmm.... The "normal" conference "advocates" could be easily lumped into another catagory that I like to call "FBS Wannabees". Here is the bottom line, if you do not like playing in a diverse division like FCS, raise the funds, pony up the dough, and join the FBS ranks! Oh wait, I seem to recall FCS existing for the sole reason of "cost containment". Get off you high horse and realize that schools do not in fact have to fund 63 scholarships as defined by the NCAA in order to be "competitive". Winning a championship is certainly a long shot, but being "competitive" is not! Rather than push a divisive agenda like this, ( as in "old guard" agenda), you would be far better off working to fully include every team and conference in FCS. Yeah, that means expanding the playoffs, inviting EVERY conference champion, and figuring out a way to coax the PFL, SWAC and Ivy League to participate in the playoffs!

[MplsBison]

If you didn't want to associate with these schools you should have declared from the start you're going to I-A as fast as possible, then you won't have to.


Shouldn't have to do that.



FCS should be for schools that want to have competitive football teams but don't have the money to spend 10 million a year on football.



We should not then automatically get lumped in with the schools that want to have a football team but don't want to spend any money on it.

[Franks Tanks]

The obvious solution to me is to make FCS have scholarship minimums, as they do in FBS, and create a 3rd subdivision for the cost containment crowd.

Perhaps the FCCS, Football Cost Containment Subdivision.

Naturally, there's be no playoff. Too expensive to send teams on extra travel just to determine a champion.



I believe the rule in FBS is you must have a minimum of 90% of the max of 85 which works out to 76.5 (but rounds to 77 since you can only have fulls in FBS).

That seems very reasonable to me, so the FCS minimum should be 90% of 63 which is 56.7.


If you aren't going to give 56.7 scholarships for football, get out of our subdivision.


I cant believe you still cant understand this point. The reason why Patriot and Ivy schools do not give scholarships has nothing to do with financial reasons. They have more than enough money to spend it as they desire, and for example Fordham reports that they spend 3.6 million on their football team, which is suspect is more that almost all other in FCS. Scholarship are not give for philosiphical and institutional reasons, and the aid that is given is typically equiviliant to 55 or more scholarships.

[MplsBison]

Not interested.

Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, etc.


Some of the best universities in the world.

They're just fine giving out bundles of scholarships.



Get on board or get out.

[MplsBison]

As far as the SWAC goes, they have as much incentive to participate in the playoffs as the Big 10 and Pac 10 have if the FBS ever got a playoff.


They actually make money on their little championship game.


I would say kick the SWAC up to the FBS as they fit that model perfectly.

But we know they're too poor to afford that.

[Eyes of Old Main]

Ivy school administrations need to pull their collective thumb our of their collective ass and play in the playoffs. Too many good teams never get the chance just because "we're ivy league." That's not ivy league, that's bush league.

Very true. The Ivies would be a great addition to the playoffs.

[lucchesicourt]

As a former non schollie school, UCD did quite well, even against D1 opponents. Can a non schollie school compete with schollie schools? Yes, they can! Let's face a few facts about some of these non schollie schools.
If Harvard were to give an academic full ride schollie to an intelligent athlete, who was also offered an athletic schollie to say Georgia Southern, just where di you think he might go? Tough decision here, NOT! Advantage, Harvard. FACT! So, a school can get a good athlete without offering athletic schollies and have an advantage in competing for an athlete.
It's not like Stanford just randomly gives schollies to good athletes. They are selective about who attends, just like UCD. Just becausse you play a sport well, will not get you into the upper tier institutions like Stanford, Duke, Yale, Harvard, etc. You need to be qualified. That is why these schools do not have great football teams. It's a smaller pond in which to fish. Could they have great teams, sure? But, they may have to lower their academic requirements, and I don't see them doing that. Being a top ranked academic institution is much better than being a top ranked sports program for the school and its graduates. By having tougher entrance requirements than the rest of D1, they increase the value of the diplomas for all its graduates. And to them I applaud.

[Eyes of Old Main]

I believe the rule in FBS is you must have a minimum of 90% of the max of 85 which works out to 76.5 (but rounds to 77 since you can only have fulls in FBS).

That seems very reasonable to me, so the FCS minimum should be 90% of 63 which is 56.7.

If you aren't going to give 56.7 scholarships for football, get out of our subdivision.

A minimum cap at 57 wouldn't be a bad thing, probably. But you'd probably have to have a "phase in" period for schools transitioning in from D-II and current schools who want to stay (such as Wofford). I think Wofford is in the low 50's, but is steadily adding scholarships every year in effort to get to 63 in a few more years. Maybe a 5 year period that allowed a school to run at 75-80% of max which would move the bottom threshold down to 48-51, depending.

[Franks Tanks]

Not interested.

Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, etc.


Some of the best universities in the world.

They're just fine giving out bundles of scholarships.



Get on board or get out.

One post you say money is the qualifier and the other scholarships? Which is it make up your mind and provide a lucnet arguement. Once again the PAtriot league and teh Ivy league dont give out scholarship because they dont have the money, its because they choose not to do so. They spend as much or more money on their football programs as most scholarship schools, they just distribute their aid in different ways. how much does NDSU spend on football? I bet half the ivies and patriots at least match it.

[MplsBison]

As I just said, NOT INTERESTED IN EXCUSES.


You have some bogus philosophical argument against scholarships? Fine, that's your choice.


Just get out of our subdivision to do it.

[Franks Tanks]

As I just said, NOT INTERESTED IN EXCUSES.


You have some bogus philosophical argument against scholarships? Fine, that's your choice.


Just get out of our subdivision to do it.

Then have the NCAA make a rule about minimum scholarships. As Ive said before if you can compete in the FCS why does it or should it matter how you get competitive ( as long as you are playing by the rules of course). And now its your subdivision, oh im sorry your not eligible for the playoffs, and have players that were recruited under D-II rules maybe you should get out!!! That how ridicilious your arguements are.

[Col Hogan]

As I just said, NOT INTERESTED IN EXCUSES.


You have some bogus philosophical argument against scholarships? Fine, that's your choice.


Just get out of our subdivision to do it.

You are so full of what makes the grass grow green it's funny...xlolx xlolx xlolx

"Our" subdivision??? Who made you commish???

[DFW HOYA]

Just get out of our subdivision to do it.


It's not your subdivision. Georgetown has the same voting power as N.D. State.

The NCAA has flat out rejected a I-AA subdivision and twice rejected a non-scholarship playoff sttructure. It's not likely to change, esp. with the number of NS schools in relative retreat.

[GannonFan]

As I just said, NOT INTERESTED IN EXCUSES.


You have some bogus philosophical argument against scholarships? Fine, that's your choice.


Just get out of our subdivision to do it.

So you're against semantics now? The Patriot and Ivies typically spend as much if not more money on football than most teams in FCS and you're saying that's not good enough if they don't use the term "scholarships"? That makes a lot of sense. xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx

[dbackjon]

When it comes right down to it, there is only one perfectly "Normal" FCS conference - A conference where ALL members play full-scholarship football, no associate members, participate in the playoffs, and is an all-sports league. No other FCS conference can make that claim. :D


The Conference - THE BIG SKY!!

[Dane96]

I am all for opinions, but MPLSBISON...you may be one of the most uninformed, biased, and hardheaded poster in the history of this board.

In fact, I would go so far in saying that your basic being on this board is to stir up the emotions of others.

Give it a rest until you at least do some historical and current research to back up your statements.

Anyone can state an opinion. A good debate, however, requires all parties to have some supporting evidence.

Take a break it is summer; You have all winter to dictate your propaganda.

[andy7171]

Defender of artifical turf, enemy to natural grass!
Pro-dome, anti weather!
Stands up for HIS subdivision of Division I football at all costs!
All for truth, justice and the American way, as long as he is in complete agreeance.

He is MPLSBISON!!!

[DetroitFlyer]

The main reason I like MplsBison is because he was voted an even more annoying poster than me! I hope he sticks around and keeps it up so that I do not rise to #1!:D

[Col Hogan]

The main reason I like MplsBison is because he was voted an even more annoying poster than me! I hope he sticks around and keeps it up so that I do not rise to #1!:D

Flyer, I may not agree with you on autobids...but you have a loooooooong way to go to reach that level...xpeacex

[Col Hogan]

Defender of artifical turf, enemy to natural grass!
Pro-dome, anti weather!
Stands up for HIS subdivision of Division I football at all costs!
All for truth, justice and the American way, as long as he is in complete agreeance.

He is MPLSBISON!!!

xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox
POST OF THE DAY NOMINEE!!!!!

[Ivytalk]

The main reason I like MplsBison is because he was voted an even more annoying poster than me! I hope he sticks around and keeps it up so that I do not rise to #1!:D


But MplsBison is out of the hole! His dark dot is now green!xnodx

[andy7171]

Flyer, I may not agree with you on autobids...but you have a loooooooong way to go to reach that level...xpeacex
I second this comment!


xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox
POST OF THE DAY NOMINEE!!!!!
Thanks, I'll be here all week! Try the veal!

[McTailGator]

What do you think??






Might have a difficult time using the "FULL 63". You would be supprised how many schools fall 1 or 2 short of the full 63 for various reasons. Kids quit, get kicked off the team, what ever.

I would say 57 or 58 would be a better number.

[flexbone]

The Ivies don't have scholarships???

What do they have??

What do they "sign" on "signing day"??

[GannonFan]

The Ivies don't have scholarships???

What do they have??

What do they "sign" on "signing day"??

Scholarships by another name, that's all. And some do it better than others. Penn's been consistently accused of giving more athletic aid than other Ivy League schools.

[Franks Tanks]

The Ivies don't have scholarships???

What do they have??

What do they "sign" on "signing day"??

The Ivies technically do not have scholarships, but they always seem to find money for recruits they want in the form of grants or scholarships or whatever, that arent earmarked specifically for sports. So they make the school affordable for the student without having the ais tied directly to athletics

[Ken_Z]

But MplsBison is out of the hole! His dark dot is now green!xnodx


not to go completely ot, but what are these green dots about and how do they work?

[Col Hogan]

not to go completely ot, but what are these green dots about and how do they work?

Check out this thread...and you can check your own by clicking on the User CP button...Upper left...

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21545

[AppMan]

The obvious solution to me is to make FCS have scholarship minimums, as they do in FBS....

I believe the rule in FBS is you must have a minimum of 90% of the max of 85 which works out to 76.5 (but rounds to 77 since you can only have fulls in FBS).

That seems very reasonable to me, so the FCS minimum should be 90% of 63 which is 56.7.


If you aren't going to give 56.7 scholarships for football, get out of our subdivision.

Amen Brother! Man it is good to have another voice in the fold! This has been my NUMBER ONE objection with the current FCS and prior 1-aa subdivision since day one of its inception. It simply isn't equitable for the programs who award few or no scholarships to be included in with those who make a major investment for their programs to play at the highest level. IMO, the resulting hodgepodge of programs within the division has been a contributing factor in so many schools leaving the division. The quality of play (across the board) has been diluted and level of play within the division is more often compared to D-II. Not so unusual considering D-II schools give more scholarships than a number of FCS programs.

"...create a 3rd subdivision for the cost containment crowd. Perhaps the FCCS, Football Cost Containment Subdivision."

You have hit upon the original idea behind 1-aa football. It was sold to the schools being kicked down as a cost containment level of football. Programs were still considered Division One, but were unable to commit the level of resources into the program as the big boys. For some unknown reason the prevailing thought was a school had to fund their program at the same level of a Michigan, Tenessee, Florida, ect in order to participate in the "real" Division One. IMO, had minimum scholarship numbers been in place since day one, FCS football would have a dramatically different look and image than it has today.

[Col Hogan]

Amen Brother! Man it is good to have another voice in the fold! This has been my NUMBER ONE objection with the current FCS and prior 1-aa subdivision since day one of its inception. It simply isn't equitable for the programs who award few or no scholarships to be included in with those who make a major investment for their programs to play at the highest level. IMO, the resulting hodgepodge of programs within the division has been a contributing factor in so many schools leaving the division.

Please list , say, 7 - 10 of the "so many schools" who have left FCS due to the "hodgepodge of programs"

[Ken_Z]

Check out this thread...and you can check your own by clicking on the User CP button...Upper left...

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21545

thanks, although i am rather depressed now. as best i can tell i don't have a reputation. maybe i need to make a few inflammatory remarks to test out the system.

[MplsBison]

Then have the NCAA make a rule about minimum scholarships.


Where do I sign?!

Lets do it yesterday.

[MplsBison]

Amen Brother! Man it is good to have another voice in the fold! This has been my NUMBER ONE objection with the current FCS and prior 1-aa subdivision since day one of its inception. It simply isn't equitable for the programs who award few or no scholarships to be included in with those who make a major investment for their programs to play at the highest level. IMO, the resulting hodgepodge of programs within the division has been a contributing factor in so many schools leaving the division. The quality of play (across the board) has been diluted and level of play within the division is more often compared to D-II. Not so unusual considering D-II schools give more scholarships than a number of FCS programs.

"...create a 3rd subdivision for the cost containment crowd. Perhaps the FCCS, Football Cost Containment Subdivision."

You have hit upon the original idea behind 1-aa football. It was sold to the schools being kicked down as a cost containment level of football. Programs were still considered Division One, but were unable to commit the level of resources into the program as the big boys. For some unknown reason the prevailing thought was a school had to fund their program at the same level of a Michigan, Tenessee, Florida, ect in order to participate in the "real" Division One. IMO, had minimum scholarship numbers been in place since day one, FCS football would have a dramatically different look and image than it has today.


Hearing you loud and clear!


We need 2 levels of competitive play and then a cost containment level.



Scholarship minimums for FCS!

[Sundown]

Ivy school administrations need to pull their collective thumb our of their collective ass and play in the playoffs. Too many good teams never get the chance just because "we're ivy league." That's not ivy league, that's bush league.

QFT.

[Col Hogan]

thanks, although i am rather depressed now. as best i can tell i don't have a reputation. maybe i need to make a few inflammatory remarks to test out the system.

Make good, fact based arguements...not emotional (unless you're on the smack board...then go for it :p ) tirades...

and check your rep again...xthumbsupx xpeacex

[OL FU]

thanks, although i am rather depressed now. as best i can tell i don't have a reputation. maybe i need to make a few inflammatory remarks to test out the system.

You can't have more rep points than post. It is a rule:p

just kiddingxsmiley_wix

[Dane96]

Make good, fact based arguements...not emotional (unless you're on the smack board...then go for it :p ) tirades...

and check your rep again...xthumbsupx xpeacex

Heck...i have been doing that for a while now...have a star...but no rep points....xsmhx

[dbackjon]

Heck...i have been doing that for a while now...have a star...but no rep points....xsmhx

I gave you some the other day!!

[CopperCat]

QFT.

Huh?xeyebrowx

[Dane96]

Appreciate it...but as you can see...my two green dots...are not as bright as others....hmmmm.

Kidding.

G-d...we need football to start already.

[Dane96]

Huh?xeyebrowx

Unless I am mistaken, it means "quit f----g talking."

I much prefer "quiet the f-k up"

MPLSBISON makes my head hurt from xrotatehx

[Col Hogan]

Huh?xeyebrowx

He agrees with you...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=QFT

[AppMan]

Please list , say, 7 - 10 of the "so many schools" who have left FCS due to the "hodgepodge of programs"

Don't pick three words out of a quote and try to make an arguement out of them. Use the entire comment in the context in which it was written.

"IMO, the resulting hodgepodge of programs within the division has been a contributing factor in so many schools leaving the division."

First off, it is My Opinion. I have nothing in writing or quotes from school officials using this as a reason they pulled out of the division. Besides I never said it was THE REASON or A REASON on which those schools based their decison to bolt. I said it was a "CONTRIBUTING FACTOR" in their decision. Obviously no one has used it as a central reason for bolting. However, the huge diversity and lack of continuity among the programs within the division has to have some bearing on their decision. Its kind of like when you move into a neighborhood and after a number of years the houses become dated, and unkept. The prices begin to fall (or more likely do not keep up with the surrounding areas) and people of lower incomes begin to move in and soon you realize the neighborhood is falling apart. Time to move to a newer neighborhood. It isn't the only reason you feel the desire to move, but it cetainly does factor into your decision. That is why I used the term "contributing factor" to make the point. I base my point on several factors where this has impacted the division, but the two primary ones are, A: The erosion of the level of play - ACROSS THE BOARD, B: The level of respect the division garners from the college football community at large.

A: Can anyone honestly argue the division has a higher level of play now than it did when Marshall, Troy, Boise State, Nevada, Middle Tennessee, ULM, North Texas, Central Arkansas, Central Florida, ect were involved?

B: One look back at college football publications from the mid-80's and early 90's instantly tell you how the division was viewed. How many national publications even mention the FCS these days? Two, Three? The Sporting News doesn't even cover the division now. However, back in the 80's they had a 1-aa All American section that was equivalent to that of the 1-a schools. The conference and team articles were well written, detailed, and well documented. They were spread through out the publication and not relegated to the last few pages.

So, while there might be no direct evidence a school may have used these points as an argument for moving on, I feel certain they had some bearing on their decision.

[RichH2]

Darn, little green dots, I thought it was just the bourbon or my senility. They are real. little green men too???

[GannonFan]

Don't pick three words out of a quote and try to make an arguement out of them. Use the entire comment in the context in which it was written.

"IMO, the resulting hodgepodge of programs within the division has been a contributing factor in so many schools leaving the division."

First off, it is My Opinion. I have nothing in writing or quotes from school officials using this as a reason they pulled out of the division. Besides I never said it was THE REASON or A REASON on which those schools based their decison to bolt. I said it was a "CONTRIBUTING FACTOR" in their decision. Obviously no one has used it as a central reason for bolting. However, the huge diversity and lack of continuity among the programs within the division has to have some bearing on their decision. Its kind of like when you move into a neighborhood and after a number of years the houses become dated, and unkept. The prices begin to fall (or more likely do not keep up with the surrounding areas) and people of lower incomes begin to move in and soon you realize the neighborhood is falling apart. Time to move to a newer neighborhood. It isn't the only reason you feel the desire to move, but it cetainly does factor into your decision. That is why I used the term "contributing factor" to make the point. I base my point on several factors where this has impacted the division, but the two primary ones are, A: The erosion of the level of play - ACROSS THE BOARD, B: The level of respect the division garners from the college football community at large.

A: Can anyone honestly argue the division has a higher level of play now than it did when Marshall, Troy, Boise State, Nevada, Middle Tennessee, ULM, North Texas, Central Arkansas, Central Florida, ect were involved?

B: One look back at college football publications from the mid-80's and early 90's instantly tell you how the division was viewed. How many national publications even mention the FCS these days? Two, Three? The Sporting News doesn't even cover the division now. However, back in the 80's they had a 1-aa All American section that was equivalent to that of the 1-a schools. The conference and team articles were well written, detailed, and well documented. They were spread through out the publication and not relegated to the last few pages.

So, while there might be no direct evidence a school may have used these points as an argument for moving on, I feel certain they had some bearing on their decision.

Well, first of all, the "respect" that the division gets overall, IMO, hasn't changed one bit since what you think were the "heydays" of the 80's. The biggest reason why there is less coverage in publications today as compared to then is the demise of paper publications as a whole. Circulation in the print media is significantly lower today than during the 80's - it's old fashioned. Coverage of all sports in any paper publication remaining is less today than it was back then. I don't think there's been any dropoff in respect of this division - people back in the '80's weren't clammoring for I-AA news.

And second, while the loss of schools like Marshall, Boise St, Nevada, Idaho, and Troy were losses, some schools that moved (Middle Tenn St, ULM) weren't big deals for the most part in IAA anyway. And, other schools do move up as well. Towson, Hofstra, villanova, Central Arkansas (they're on your list but they just moved up to FCS last year so I think you have a typo) Wofford, pretty much the whole Great West, and now at least 4 or 5 teams from the NEC are all good schools and some with big enrollments and all playing quality football. That's about 14 or 15 schools without even trying who are all credits to the FCS division - I don't think you can name 14 or 15 better schools that have left. I think FCS is just fine, and more than comparable to the IAA of the '80's - I think you're grossly overestimating the football that was played back then.

[Ken_Z]

Make good, fact based arguements...not emotional (unless you're on the smack board...then go for it :p ) tirades...

and check your rep again...xthumbsupx xpeacex

thanks for the sympathy rep points guys. and in particular for the one i believe I actually earned, thanks to The Valley Raider.

as for making good, fact based arguments... not so sure that's my style. however, in a few years, when my prediction of Richmond joining the PL comes true, i expect lots of accrued rep points to materialize. and when they see the light and convert for all sports, a number one rep ranking is expected.

[Sundown]

Unless I am mistaken, it means "quit f----g talking."

I much prefer "quiet the f-k up"

MPLSBISON makes my head hurt from xrotatehx

"Quoted For Truth".

[OL FU]

Well, first of all, the "respect" that the division gets overall, IMO, hasn't changed one bit since what you think were the "heydays" of the 80's. The biggest reason why there is less coverage in publications today as compared to then is the demise of paper publications as a whole. Circulation in the print media is significantly lower today than during the 80's - it's old fashioned. Coverage of all sports in any paper publication remaining is less today than it was back then. I don't think there's been any dropoff in respect of this division - people back in the '80's weren't clammoring for I-AA news.

And second, while the loss of schools like Marshall, Boise St, Nevada, Idaho, and Troy were losses, some schools that moved (Middle Tenn St, ULM) weren't big deals for the most part in IAA anyway. And, other schools do move up as well. Towson, Hofstra, villanova, Central Arkansas (they're on your list but they just moved up to FCS last year so I think you have a typo) Wofford, pretty much the whole Great West, and now at least 4 or 5 teams from the NEC are all good schools and some with big enrollments and all playing quality football. That's about 14 or 15 schools without even trying who are all credits to the FCS division - I don't think you can name 14 or 15 better schools that have left. I think FCS is just fine, and more than comparable to the IAA of the '80's - I think you're grossly overestimating the football that was played back then.

Also the Blundering Turds dominated the last year they were in the division. (when they were already 75% of the way to I-A) Marshall was good but they did not dominate during most of their I-AA existence, even the later part)

[OL FU]

I think the various level of scholarships given by the division do make it confusing for the the non-FCS fan. xnodx

So, who caresxrolleyesx
The typical BCS fan is not going to understand anyway.

[EKU05]

When it comes right down to it, there is only one perfectly "Normal" FCS conference - A conference where ALL members play full-scholarship football, no associate members, participate in the playoffs, and is an all-sports league. No other FCS conference can make that claim. :D


The Conference - THE BIG SKY!!

That's true, though the OVC is one non-sholarhip school (Morehead State) away from becoming the second if they ever bring back scholarships (and I've heard some whispers that it may be a possibility).

[Go...gate]

A minimum cap at 57 wouldn't be a bad thing, probably. But you'd probably have to have a "phase in" period for schools transitioning in from D-II and current schools who want to stay (such as Wofford). I think Wofford is in the low 50's, but is steadily adding scholarships every year in effort to get to 63 in a few more years. Maybe a 5 year period that allowed a school to run at 75-80% of max which would move the bottom threshold down to 48-51, depending.

I think if the PL ever goes to scholarships, there will be some lobbying with the PL and NEC with the NCAA to attempt to lower that number or accept equivalencies. Also, the scholarships will have to be divisible, which several of the PL schools do now.

[Model Citizen]

Also, the scholarships will have to be divisible, which several of the PL schools do now.

Virtually everyone does that already. That's why they call it an equivalency sport. 63 rides to 85 people.

[MplsBison]

Here's the new rule:

if you're a DI basketball school with a football team you have 3 choices:

FBS: minimum of 77 scholarships

FCS: minimum of 56.7 scholarships

or you are allowed to play in DII but you can't have more than 36 scholarships.



There it is.

These rules are going into effect in 5 years.


Make your little committees to decide where you're going and make a commitment!



The rest of the DI rules still apply.

IE, if you have DI basketball you must have 14 DI sports for FCS or 16 DI sports for FBS.

[danefan]

Here's the new rules:

if you're a DI basketball school with a football team you have 3 choices:

FBS: minimum of 77 scholarships

FCS: minimum of 56.7 scholarships

or you are allowed to play in DII but you can't have more than 36 scholarships.



There it is.

These rules are going into effect in 5 years.


Make your little committees to decide where you're going and make a commitment!


I actually agree with you here. But only if there is an adequate transition period, say like 3 years or so. I would also need an easy transition process for teams to later move up or down if they wanted to.

[DFW HOYA]

The NCAA has spoken and it's not MplsBison's up or out philosophy. When schools like Fordham are spending upwards of $4 million a year on football and that's not good enough because it's called "financial aid" and not "athletic scholarship", I think critics miss the point about I-AA/FCS's place in the Division I landscape.

Furthermore, there are schools that do not give any aid as a matter of philospophy. There is no merit aid at Harvard of any kind, athletic or otherwise, but they still manage to field a more than representative athletic program--its 43 sports are the most of any NCAA school and drawfs the I-AA programs getting by with the minimum of 14.

Telling the Ivies that they now have to play Gannon and Mercyhurst in Div. II solely because they don't give merit aid to the 12% of applicants they accept every year seems very short-sighted.

Bottom line, the I-AA schools aren't leaving. If one of the bigger fish doesn't like it, there's always the Sun Belt.

[MplsBison]

You can have that philosophy and still have DI basketball.

Fine with me.


Just get out of FCS football.



Also, as far as the argument that some schools spend big bucks on football by calling them "financial aid" rather than "scholarships" goes, it cuts both ways.


If it's such a non big deal, then it's also not a big deal for those schools to just change the name from "financial aid" to "scholarships".


I guess it goes right back to the pseudo philosophy that "scholarships" are bad, even though arguably the best university in the world (Stanford) gives out hundreds of them for athletics alone.

[DFW HOYA]

If it's such a non big deal, then it's also not a big deal for those schools to just change the name from "financial aid" to "scholarships".

Great, Fordham now has 60 "scholarships" and Georgetown now has...well... a few less "scholarships" than that. xeyebrowx

Except the NCAA doesn't consider them scholarships because 1) they are not given out for athletic performance, regardless of need, and 2) the acceptance of a "scholarship" offer does not guarantee one's admission to the school.

[MplsBison]

Then make those 2 simple changes, since it's such a non big deal.


If you want a competitive football team, you should be offering aid to the best players regardless of their need or their academic ability to gain acceptance to the school.

You're telling me Georgetown only goes after bball recruits that can gain acceptance to the school regardless of their athletic ability and can afford the school regardless of any financial aid? Come on.

[Franks Tanks]

Then make those 2 simple changes, since it's such a non big deal.


If you want a competitive football team, you should be offering aid to the best players regardless of their need or their academic ability to gain acceptance to the school.

You're telling me Georgetown only goes after bball recruits that can gain acceptance to the school regardless of their athletic ability and can afford the school regardless of any financial aid? Come on.

No one is saying they go after kids who can afford the school without financial aid. The patriot league gives "need based" financial aid earmarked specifially for football. So you basically get more scholarship money if your parents make less money. Now I agree the concept is completely stupid, but that doesnt change the fact that Lafayette, Lehigh, Colgate, and Fordham, give enough in athletic financial aid for football to equal roughly 55-60 scholarships per school. It is a scholarship in a different name, but it equals fully funded FCS football. Also keep in mind that a scholarship or the financial aid equivilant at these schools averages about 45k per year at these schools. That is a ton of money and more that the two cows, 4 pigs, and 7 bails of hay, NDSU has to put out to pay for a kid to attend om scholarship. HA...just kidding NDSU folksxlolx

[MplsBison]

As I said, since it's such a non big deal that those big 4 provide so much aid to football players, then call it what it is and on top of that give it to kids with direct bias towards athletic ability.


I'm not going to compromise.


Give scholarships as the NCAA defines them or don't. Your choice.


(I also appreciate that the tuition to attend these schools is staggering, but I won't allow that as an excuse as, again, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, etc. manage)

[AppMan]

Well, first of all, the "respect" that the division gets overall, IMO, hasn't changed one bit since what you think were the "heydays" of the 80's. The biggest reason why there is less coverage in publications today as compared to then is the demise of paper publications as a whole. Circulation in the print media is significantly lower today than during the 80's - it's old fashioned. Coverage of all sports in any paper publication remaining is less today than it was back then. I don't think there's been any dropoff in respect of this division - people back in the '80's weren't clammoring for I-AA news.

And second, while the loss of schools like Marshall, Boise St, Nevada, Idaho, and Troy were losses, some schools that moved (Middle Tenn St, ULM) weren't big deals for the most part in IAA anyway. And, other schools do move up as well. Towson, Hofstra, villanova, Central Arkansas (they're on your list but they just moved up to FCS last year so I think you have a typo) Wofford, pretty much the whole Great West, and now at least 4 or 5 teams from the NEC are all good schools and some with big enrollments and all playing quality football. That's about 14 or 15 schools without even trying who are all credits to the FCS division - I don't think you can name 14 or 15 better schools that have left. I think FCS is just fine, and more than comparable to the IAA of the '80's - I think you're grossly overestimating the football that was played back then.

Yes there are fewer publications today than in years past. However, of those still in print only one gives FCS any appreciable amount of coverage. I have a most of these mags dating back to the early 80's and Street & Smith's back into the 70's. The Sporting News, Athlon, Sports Illustrated, and Game Plan are just a few of the national publications that no longer cover FCS. In the early days of 1-aa Street & Smith's used to group school articles based on regions and the conferences in them. The Southern was given almost the same number of column inches as the ACC. The Southland the same as the Southeastern Conference. You can not convince me the image of the division has slipped. As one who has been involved with college football long before 1-aa was ever dreamed up, I can say for certain the division doesn't carry near the same weight as it once did. I hear people argue the point about the number of 1-aa/FCS games shown today vs back then. Well, ESPN first hit the air in 1979 and wasn't a household name until far into the 80's. Heck, I live outside Charlotte and didn't even have cable until 1981. Back in those early days programming was so sparse they replayed taped games all week just to fill up air time during the day. There were no regional sports channels, no CNN, just local sports. If it wasn't for Al Gore inventing the internet we wouldn't be having this conversation. In one sense coverage of the schools in the FCS has expanded, but coverage of the division itself hasn't. BTW, ASU played several games on ABC & CBS in regional coverage during the 70's & 80's. I don't think more people are clammoring for coverage of the division today than in the past? ASU folks were just as passionate about the football program back then, there just weren't many avenues to get coverage. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled with the technology we have today. It sure makes it a lot easier to stay up to date with whats going on. But all the information in the world still doesn't make the division more popular around college football circles. In fact I believe it has hurt the division more than anything else. With all the technology available people are easily sucked into a situation. The media downplays FCS football and does their best to elevate FBS to new levels. They have created more fans for the big boys and in effect drop kicked the FCS to the curb.

As far as grossly overestimating the level of play back in the 80's, well we'll just have to disagree on that one. IMO, you far overestimate the level of play today. Name a school which moved up from D-II that has impacted the division as much as the one it replaced. No way does Wofford bring to the Southern what Marshall took with it. Arkansas State won a national championship, so did LA Monroe when they were NE Louisiana. Who among their replacements in the Southland have come close to winning a national title? What about the Big Sky and the void left by Boise State and Nevada after winning national championships? I'd be willing to bet the same can be said for almost every school that replaced those who left. I could go on, but you get my point.

[AppMan]

Here's the new rule:

if you're a DI basketball school with a football team you have 3 choices:

FBS: minimum of 77 scholarships

FCS: minimum of 56.7 scholarships

or you are allowed to play in DII but you can't have more than 36 scholarships.



There it is.

These rules are going into effect in 5 years.


Make your little committees to decide where you're going and make a commitment!



The rest of the DI rules still apply.

IE, if you have DI basketball you must have 14 DI sports for FCS or 16 DI sports for FBS.

Haven't seen this legislation yet. Does the 200 total program scholarships to play at the FBS level still apply?

[Franks Tanks]

As I said, since it's such a non big deal that those big 4 provide so much aid to football players, then call it what it is and on top of that give it to kids with direct bias towards athletic ability.


I'm not going to compromise.


Give scholarships as the NCAA defines them or don't. Your choice.


(I also appreciate that the tuition to attend these schools is staggering, but I won't allow that as an excuse as, again, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, etc. manage)

The folks at the Big 4 if you will--I believe would love to cut out the semantics and just give scholarships, but we have those pesky league by-laws and we might alienate some of the other league members. But I think it will happen in the next ten years. I undertsand what you are saying about lack of commitment of some schools who play in FCS. I know you guys crushed Valpo a few years back and think all non-scholarships are like that but its not true. Valpo is basically D-III and give little to no aid for football. All I am sayig is that although Lafayette, or lehigh or colgate technically dont give scholarships we give just as much money to our football players to come to school as most of the major players. Myself and many of my classmates didnt pay a dime to go to Lafayette, and we surely werent their on academic scholarships. So I agree on thr point why dont we just give scholarships? But I think you still have to look at the overall amount if aid given for football to measure commitment, as no matter what term you give it it is still aid specifially to entice football players to come to you school. Also it can be argued that football is an even bigger commitment for schools like Lafayette or Colgate over Stanford or Northwestern, as Lafayette and Colgate have only about 2,500 students not upwards of 15k like the other two. And we probably spend more per on football than just about anyone around (except for Woford)

[AppMan]

When it comes right down to it, there is only one perfectly "Normal" FCS conference - A conference where ALL members play full-scholarship football, no associate members, participate in the playoffs, and is an all-sports league.

I agree completely! The SoCon sure isn't a normal conference. Davidson plays non-scholarship football. Not sure if Elon, Wofford, or now Samford give the full compliment of scholarships. We have three schools who don't even play football in UNCG, College of Charleston, and Western Carolina!

[UAalum72]

Haven't seen this legislation yet. Does the 200 total program scholarships to play at the FBS level still apply?
There is no such legislation, except out of Mplsbison's mouth.

[MplsBison]

Haven't seen this legislation yet.

LOL, probably because I made it up in my head.


Does the 200 total program scholarships to play at the FBS level still apply?

Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

[MplsBison]

All I am sayig is that although Lafayette, or lehigh or colgate technically dont give scholarships we give just as much money to our football players to come to school as most of the major players.

I understand and appreciate this.


The thrust of my rant isn't really directed toward the big 4 PL members, as you certainly do have a commitment to football, even though it isn't a standardized one.

It's directly mostly at the Ivy, PFL, and the lower tiers of the PL and NEC.

The DIII schools playing in FCS, if you will.

[Franks Tanks]

I understand and appreciate this.


The thrust of my rant isn't really directed toward the big 4 PL members, as you certainly do have a commitment to football, even though it isn't a standardized one.

It's directly mostly at the Ivy, PFL, and the lower tiers of the PL and NEC.

The DIII schools playing in FCS, if you will.

I understand your point of view and willl respectfully disagree, but I dont think continued debate will get i anywhere xlolx. And again I understnd if you disagree but I would also put all the Ivies in the category with the top end of the the Patriot as far as commitment. And also Nec teams like Albany and Central Conn. are not quite their yet, but will be a force sooner than later I believe.

[AppMan]

Something just occurred to me and I think some closer scrutiny of this need based scholarship business is needed. It appears to me this concept could be used as a way to get around NCAA scholarship numbers. Since these students are not going to school on an athletic scholarship, awarding on a need basis could actually allow a program have more "scholarship" players than are allowed by NCAA rules. Perhaps this is something everyone should be looking into!!!

[GannonFan]

Something just occurred to me and I think some closer scrutiny of this need based scholarship business is needed. It appears to me this concept could be used as a way to get around NCAA scholarship numbers. Since these students are not going to school on an athletic scholarship, awarding on a need basis could actually allow a program have more "scholarship" players than are allowed by NCAA rules. Perhaps this is something everyone should be looking into!!!

I believe if a player receives any money for any reason, academic included, it is used as a counter for the scholarship limits on any sports team. That would be a pretty obvious loophole you are talking about - that loophole doesn't exist.

[MplsBison]

I understnd if you disagree but I would also put all the Ivies in the category with the top end of the the Patriot as far as commitment.

Fully disagree.

They don't give any athletic biased aid whatsoever.

That's a must if you're going to have a competitive FBS or FCS football team.


Yale, the co champions last season (right?), got spanked by San Diego for crying out loud.

The top Ivies, despite all their past glory, just wouldn't last 2 seconds with a full 11 game schedule of 63 scholarship teams. It'd be a blood bath.

[GannonFan]

Yes there are fewer publications today than in years past. However, of those still in print only one gives FCS any appreciable amount of coverage. I have a most of these mags dating back to the early 80's and Street & Smith's back into the 70's. The Sporting News, Athlon, Sports Illustrated, and Game Plan are just a few of the national publications that no longer cover FCS. In the early days of 1-aa Street & Smith's used to group school articles based on regions and the conferences in them. The Southern was given almost the same number of column inches as the ACC. The Southland the same as the Southeastern Conference. You can not convince me the image of the division has slipped. As one who has been involved with college football long before 1-aa was ever dreamed up, I can say for certain the division doesn't carry near the same weight as it once did. I hear people argue the point about the number of 1-aa/FCS games shown today vs back then. Well, ESPN first hit the air in 1979 and wasn't a household name until far into the 80's. Heck, I live outside Charlotte and didn't even have cable until 1981. Back in those early days programming was so sparse they replayed taped games all week just to fill up air time during the day. There were no regional sports channels, no CNN, just local sports. If it wasn't for Al Gore inventing the internet we wouldn't be having this conversation. In one sense coverage of the schools in the FCS has expanded, but coverage of the division itself hasn't. BTW, ASU played several games on ABC & CBS in regional coverage during the 70's & 80's. I don't think more people are clammoring for coverage of the division today than in the past? ASU folks were just as passionate about the football program back then, there just weren't many avenues to get coverage. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled with the technology we have today. It sure makes it a lot easier to stay up to date with whats going on. But all the information in the world still doesn't make the division more popular around college football circles. In fact I believe it has hurt the division more than anything else. With all the technology available people are easily sucked into a situation. The media downplays FCS football and does their best to elevate FBS to new levels. They have created more fans for the big boys and in effect drop kicked the FCS to the curb.

As far as grossly overestimating the level of play back in the 80's, well we'll just have to disagree on that one. IMO, you far overestimate the level of play today. Name a school which moved up from D-II that has impacted the division as much as the one it replaced. No way does Wofford bring to the Southern what Marshall took with it. Arkansas State won a national championship, so did LA Monroe when they were NE Louisiana. Who among their replacements in the Southland have come close to winning a national title? What about the Big Sky and the void left by Boise State and Nevada after winning national championships? I'd be willing to bet the same can be said for almost every school that replaced those who left. I could go on, but you get my point.

As far as TV and so on, it's almost impossible to compare today with that long ago - everything was different in terms of coverage and channels and so on. I do agree that FBS schools have been more of a beneficiary of the expanded media world than FCS has, but it's not like you can't find FCS football - on any given Saturday (hehe) I can watch about 7 different FCS games on TV - I couldn't do that back in the 70's. And I truly doubt the claim that you are making that the coverage of the SEC was equal to that of the Southland. Let's not get crazy here.

And as for competitiveness, I think there's a significant flaw in how you are looking at things. You say that Marshall left and Wofford joined, as an example, and because Marshall won all those titles and Wofford hasn't won any is proof that competition has slipped. However, what you're missing is that the new teams added, by themselves, don't have to equal those who left. As long as existing teams in IAA (FCS) stepped into the void left by teams leaving, the new teams being added just have to fill those spots. When Marshall left, Georgia Southern regained a lot of their prior prestige, and then after them Appalachian St. Appy St, when Marshall was here, wasn't winning titles. But they are part of the filling of that void. Wofford, while not the equal of Marshall, has kinda filled the void that Appalachian used to play, that being second fiddle to the top team in the SoCon. Same with McNeese filling the gap for NE Louisiana (who wasn't always good btw, national championship nonwithstanding). It's erroneous to only compare the new teams directly with the teams who left - you also have to look how existing FCS teams changed after those teams left. Doing that makes the picture look a lot different. xthumbsupx

[GannonFan]

Fully disagree.

They don't give any athletic biased aid whatsoever.

That's a must if you're going to have a competitive FBS or FCS football team.


Yale, the co champions last season (right?), got spanked by San Diego for crying out loud.

The top Ivies, despite all their past glory, just wouldn't last 2 seconds with a full 11 game schedule of 63 scholarship teams. It'd be a blood bath.


Again, you speak of what you do not know. Ivies give a lot of athletic based aid - if you don't think so you either are not very knowledgeable about the Ivy schools or you're just being stubborn. Miraculously, good football players (and other sports as well - Penn is notorious about this in basketball for instance), often at positions needed by the team, get generous academic scholarships. Imagine that.

I'm not arguing that Ivies, all of them, would be great teams playing anybody outside the conference, but if you really think the Harvard teams of 2-3 years ago couldn't compete against anybody in FCS then you're just being delusional. But, you've shown an amazing lack of knowledge about things that happen out here on the East Coast before (you said nova should easily be able to move up to FBS, same with UMass) so maybe this is just one more in a long line of East Coast unawareness? xpeacex

[OL FU]

I hate to be one-dimensional, but Marshall's dominance lasted one to three years depending on how you interpret it. They became a stunning football team after they made the moves to leave I-AA. With out that decision, they would have remain a great football team but not like '96. For that reason I don't think any coversation including Marshall's leaving diminishing I-AA is valid. THEY BECAME GREAT BECAUSE THEY STARTED THE MOVING UP PROCESS BEFORE THEY LEFT.

Socon Champs prior to Marshall leaving
1988 Furman / Marshall 6-1-0
1989 Furman 7-0-0
1990 Furman 6-1-0
1991 Appalachian State 6-1-0
1992 The Citadel 6-1-0
1993 Georgia Southern 7-1-0
1994 Marshall 7-1-0
1995 Appalachian State 8-0-0
1996 Marshall 8-0-0

[youwouldno]

Isn't Marshall kind of an exception anyway? Didn't they go I-AA because they had to rebuild their program after the tragedy? I wasn't around back then but that's what I thought.

[OL FU]

Isn't Marshall kind of an exception anyway? Didn't they go I-AA because they had to rebuild their program after the tragedy? I wasn't around back then but that's what I thought.

That's true and their program sufferred in the early days, became good in the mid-80's and great in the mid 90's.

As far as the argument that FCS is not as strong because of the teams that left, I don't buy it. Most of the teams mentioned were never consistent I-AA powers. Could they beat most FCS teams now, yesxnodx But most of the teams mentioned were good teams, but not dominant when they were in I-AA. Marshall is an example of that.

[DetroitFlyer]

The last time I checked, San Diego spent more on football than Wofford, yet San Diego is a "Division III" team playing in FCS, while Wofford is a "real" FCS team? Care to explain that to me? Dayton, if I remember correctly, spent about as much as Wofford, ( yes another "Division III" team playing FCS football ). How about Savannah State? I do not know how much they spend, but are they a "real" FCS team? Yeah, it would be a lot "cleaner" if every team in FCS simply gave athletic scholarships. I do agree that it is frustrating to try and figure out how the aid at USD versus the aid at Montana State versus the aid at Colgate versus the aid at Harvard stack up.... This is an exercise that recruits go through each season. I can tell you, that Dayton has landed recruits that had FBS and FCS scholarship offers, NAIA and Division II scholarship offers, and of course Division III "need based or academic aid "offers. We have even landed recruits that the PL and Ivies were after.... Now, that said, we do not land 63 of these kids, so the scholly teams have an advantage there. That does not mean that every once in a while, a non-scholly team cannot rise up and compete with any team, including 63 scholly teams. Could they do it week in and week out? Maybe not as well, but on any given Saturday, no doubt they could do it. As you know, I also think the best non-scholly team in any given season, could also compete well in the playoffs!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

And as for competitiveness, I think there's a significant flaw in how you are looking at things. You say that Marshall left and Wofford joined, as an example, and because Marshall won all those titles and Wofford hasn't won any is proof that competition has slipped. However, what you're missing is that the new teams added, by themselves, don't have to equal those who left. As long as existing teams in IAA (FCS) stepped into the void left by teams leaving, the new teams being added just have to fill those spots. When Marshall left, Georgia Southern regained a lot of their prior prestige, and then after them Appalachian St. Appy St, when Marshall was here, wasn't winning titles. But they are part of the filling of that void. Wofford, while not the equal of Marshall, has kinda filled the void that Appalachian used to play, that being second fiddle to the top team in the SoCon. Same with McNeese filling the gap for NE Louisiana (who wasn't always good btw, national championship nonwithstanding). It's erroneous to only compare the new teams directly with the teams who left - you also have to look how existing FCS teams changed after those teams left. Doing that makes the picture look a lot different. xthumbsupx

Case in point. Does anyone really think that Western Kentucky's departure from the Gateway really "weakens" that conference and NDSU and SDSU's addition next year shows that competition has "slipped"? For every Marshall comparison, you can come up with a nothing team that decided to move up (Buffalo, FIU, FAU leap to mind) or a team which was replaced with something better than before (NDSU will prove that in spades, never mind SDSU which is also a great school).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Fully disagree.

They don't give any athletic biased aid whatsoever.

Come on guys, you haven't forwarded the argument that MplsBison cannot counter: that if H-Y-P have a kid who can play football, can hack it academically and their folks make $65,000 or less a year, they get a full ride. There's a threshold under which you get a free ride if you qualify academically and you pass through admissions.

And you can bet that the aid is not football-blind, no matter what anybody says.

Two schools. One school spends $2 million on 63 scholarships which cost $10,000 a year. Another spends $5 million of endowment money on (guessing) 50-55 full and partial football sc* I mean, merit-based financial aid on educations that cost (generously) $40,000 a year. If you don't think that's equivalent - or that the NCAA should legislate them to be different - you're delusional.

Oh wait...

[GannonFan]

The last time I checked, San Diego spent more on football than Wofford, yet San Diego is a "Division III" team playing in FCS, while Wofford is a "real" FCS team? Care to explain that to me? ... That does not mean that every once in a while, a non-scholly team cannot rise up and compete with any team, including 63 scholly teams. Could they do it week in and week out? Maybe not as well, but on any given Saturday, no doubt they could do it. As you know, I also think the best non-scholly team in any given season, could also compete well in the playoffs!

It all comes down to 3 things - schedule, schedule, schedule. Wofford plays a tough schedule, San Diego, to date, does not. And I'm sure that a non-scholly team could easily do well in the playoffs - problem is, you can't get there unless you play a legitimate schedule during the year. Why is this hard to understand? Play a good schedule, win against most of it, and you're in the playoffs - doesn't matter one iota the name on the jersey. Don't play the good schedule and win against it and you don't make the playoffs. It's really very simple and has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with financing or any other flight of fancy. xthumbsupx

[MplsBison]

Miraculously, good football players (and other sports as well - Penn is notorious about this in basketball for instance), often at positions needed by the team, get generous academic scholarships.


I know what you're saying and I believe 100% that academic *wink wink* aid is being given with football bias.


That's not good enough.







Why is it so hard to just come out and say you're giving scholarships to student athletes that would not be able to get into the school or pay for it without their athletic ability?

Why is that such a bid deal?



Why can Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, etc. do it but not the Ivy League and Patriot League?

[MplsBison]

Care to explain that to me?

Sure.


San Diego offers zero scholarships for football.



I want a minimum of 56.7 scholarships offered to be in the division.


So I'm proposing that San Diego be allowed to play in DII (as long as they don't go over 36 scholarships) if they don't want to offer 56.7.

[MplsBison]

Come on guys, you haven't forwarded the argument that MplsBison cannot counter: that if H-Y-P have a kid who can play football, can hack it academically and their folks make $65,000 or less a year, they get a full ride. There's a threshold under which you get a free ride if you qualify academically and you pass through admissions.


Still not good enough.



Come out and call it what it is, an athletic scholarship, or leave the division.

[GannonFan]

I know what you're saying and I believe 100% that academic *wink wink* aid is being given with football bias.


That's not good enough.


Why is it so hard to just come out and say you're giving scholarships to student athletes that would not be able to get into the school or pay for it without their athletic ability?

Why is that such a bid deal?



Why can Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, etc. do it but not the Ivy League and Patriot League?

Why is it not good enough? Who's hurt by the Ivy's giving even more money than people who call them scholarships? I don't feel as if my school is injured because of what Harvard or Yale want to call their football scholarships. Why is not calling them athletic scholarships such a big deal?

[OL FU]

Why is it not good enough? Who's hurt by the Ivy's giving even more money than people who call them scholarships? I don't feel as if my school is injured because of what Harvard or Yale want to call their football scholarships. Why is not calling them athletic scholarships such a big deal?

Damn Sneaky Yankee Schools:p xlolx

(in citdog's absence)

[Mountaineer]

The last time I checked, San Diego spent more on football than Wofford, yet San Diego is a "Division III" team playing in FCS, while Wofford is a "real" FCS team?

Is reading comprehension something not taught at Dayton? It was repeated ad nauseum last season, and apparently it's going to be reshashed repeatedly this year as well.

It's really simple how Wofford is able to make the playoffs (and why San Diego isn't):

S - C - H - E - D - U - L - E

[MplsBison]

Why is not calling them athletic scholarships such a big deal?

Because that should not be the model of FCS.

It certainly isn't the model of FBS. There, you must have at least 77 scholarships.


In FCS, you should have to have at least 56.7.



If you want to have a DIII athletic model, which that is, then you should be DIII.

[MplsBison]

Again I'll ask:


Why is it so hard to just come out and say you're giving scholarships to student athletes that would not be able to get into the school or pay for it without their athletic ability?

Why is that such a bid deal?

[GannonFan]

Because that should not be the model of FCS.

It certainly isn't the model of FBS. There, you must have at least 77 scholarships.


In FCS, you should have to have at least 56.7.



If you want to have a DIII athletic model, which that is, then you should be DIII.


Again I'll ask:


Why is it so hard to just come out and say you're giving scholarships to student athletes that would not be able to get into the school or pay for it without their athletic ability?

Why is that such a bid deal?

Model for FCS??? Who cares? Everyone who would care anyway already knows that the Ivies are just like everyone else in FCS in terms of athletic aid, they just don't say they are. Since everybody is already aware of that, then what's the problem. If UD started calling all of its scholarships "Blue Hen Cookies" who would care if the result is the same? Why is this such a big deal to take up all this space and posts? The Ivies fund their football just like all the other scholarship schools do, and everyone is aware of it. Who cares what they want to call them????

http://www.geoffanddrews.com/images/full/2925.jpg
Mmmmmm...Blue Hen Cookies........yummy

[lizrdgizrd]

Again I'll ask:


Why is it so hard to just come out and say you're giving scholarships to student athletes that would not be able to get into the school or pay for it without their athletic ability?

Why is that such a bid deal?
Why is it such a big deal to call them scholarships? If you want a floor on $ spent on football, why not just say you have to provide at least 56.7 X (cost tuition at your school) to help athletes on your football team? Then you've got what you really want - a $$ commitment to football. xpeacex

[AppMan]

And I truly doubt the claim that you are making that the coverage of the SEC was equal to that of the Southland. Let's not get crazy here.

I was specifically talking about coverage in publications like Street & Smith's in the 70's & early 80's. And yes I do have copies of the mag to support that claim.


You say that Marshall left and Wofford joined, as an example, and because Marshall won all those titles and Wofford hasn't won any is proof that competition has slipped. However, what you're missing is that the new teams added, by themselves, don't have to equal those who left. As long as existing teams in IAA (FCS) stepped into the void left by teams leaving, the new teams being added just have to fill those spots. When Marshall left, Georgia Southern regained a lot of their prior prestige, and then after them Appalachian St. Appy St, when Marshall was here, wasn't winning titles. But they are part of the filling of that void. Wofford, while not the equal of Marshall, has kinda filled the void that Appalachian used to play, that being second fiddle to the top team in the SoCon. Same with McNeese filling the gap for NE Louisiana (who wasn't always good btw, national championship nonwithstanding).xthumbsupx

Thanks for making my point. Using your arguement one can summise the division never gets any better and in reality is sliding backwards. How? If the replacement teams simply fill in the void on the schedule of the departing teams and seldom achieve the same level of success.... and the existing teams simply move up the food chain by default without actually having to improve because they are now playing inferior competition.... the division is loosing ground.


It's erroneous to only compare the new teams directly with the teams who left - you also have to look how existing FCS teams changed after those teams left. Doing that makes the picture look a lot different.

I disagree totally. The ONLY way to look at the new programs entering the division is with a side by side comparison with those who have departed. If the new guy falls short of their predecessor the overall competition level has obviously diminished. If you don't make those direct comparisons a gradual erosion of the product takes place. IMO, conferences who add members just to fill up slots and without any consideration to the level of competition are begging for trouble.

[GannonFan]

Thanks for making my point. Using your arguement one can summise the division never gets any better and in reality is sliding backwards. How? If the replacement teams simply fill in the void on the schedule of the departing teams and seldom achieve the same level of success.... and the existing teams simply move up the food chain by default without actually having to improve because they are now playing inferior competition.... the division is loosing ground.

I disagree totally. The ONLY way to look at the new programs entering the division is with a side by side comparison with those who have departed. If the new guy falls short of their predecessor the overall competition level has obviously diminished. If you don't make those direct comparisons a gradual erosion of the product takes place. IMO, conferences who add members just to fill up slots and without any consideration to the level of competition are begging for trouble.

You're just missing the point again and again here. Teams don't just move up the food chain by default simply because teams vacate those top rungs. Are you honestly saying that the past two Appalachian St teams aren't good historically because all they are doing is filling the void that Marshall left? That's nonsense. The Delaware '03 team is inferior to what we had in the 80's? By what measure? I saw the UD '03 team and the UD '82 team that lost in the NC game in a nail biter and I'd take the '03 team every time. And the Wofford team who lost in the semis that year to UD was pretty good as well. Those Georgia Southern repeat champ teams at the turn of the century were inferior? How so? Teams that are left can actually get better - they don't just remain who they were and never change - that's ludicrous. You're just taking a simplistic approach when you just compare who came in versus who went out - it's more complicated than that. Teams and programs can improve. It happens all the time. xthumbsupx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Thanks for making my point. Using your arguement one can summise the division never gets any better and in reality is sliding backwards. How? If the replacement teams simply fill in the void on the schedule of the departing teams and seldom achieve the same level of success.... and the existing teams simply move up the food chain by default without actually having to improve because they are now playing inferior competition.... the division is loosing ground.

So you're saying that the Gateway is "losing ground" by having Western Kentucky move up, while sliding in "inferior" North Dakota State and South Dakota State?

3 N Dakota St GWFC
16T S Dakota St GWFC

...

33 W Kentucky GFC

Oops.

What you're saying is "if they aren't as good, then they're bringing the conference down." Well, yeah. If you'd like to argue that Buffalo or Florida International somehow have not been replaced by better schools, be my guest, but you'll have an awfully tough time.

[flexbone]

I can see both sides of this discussion.

My take is this - FCS needs uniformity with regards to scholarships -"whether called athletic, academic, our blue hen cookies"

uniformity in the "Playoff" system as it pertains to football. Ivies, SWAC not participating is a joke. Actually a slap in the face to everyone else who participates.

With regards to "OUR" little brother status with FBS.
It makes "us", by this I mean what everyone is afraid to say "The so-called bigger" FCS schools, look even smaller when we are categorized, with the non-scholly teams, as a league whose members don't give athletic scholarships. Just PERCEPTION. But reality.

As a League "WE NEED to set HIGHER STANDARDS" or just be happy being the "Little Brother" or Minor league of college football.

[already123]

im lost...

[MplsBison]

If UD started calling all of its scholarships "Blue Hen Cookies" who would care if the result is the same?

Because it's more different than just a scholarship by another name.

It's not the same at all.

[AppMan]

You're just missing the point again and again here. Teams don't just move up the food chain by default simply because teams vacate those top rungs. Are you honestly saying that the past two Appalachian St teams aren't good historically because all they are doing is filling the void that Marshall left? That's nonsense. The Delaware '03 team is inferior to what we had in the 80's? By what measure? I saw the UD '03 team and the UD '82 team that lost in the NC game in a nail biter and I'd take the '03 team every time. And the Wofford team who lost in the semis that year to UD was pretty good as well. Those Georgia Southern repeat champ teams at the turn of the century were inferior? How so? Teams that are left can actually get better - they don't just remain who they were and never change - that's ludicrous. You're just taking a simplistic approach when you just compare who came in versus who went out - it's more complicated than that. Teams and programs can improve. It happens all the time. xthumbsupx

I'm not missing anything. However, you refuse to look at the big picture and focus only on individual situations. Just because someone else wins the conference championship after the other guy has gone is irrelevant. You can not seriously believe the SoCon was just as strong after Marshall was replaced by Wofford. The same goes for the Big Sky after Boise State, Nevada, and Idaho were replaced by Portland State, Sacramento State, and Cal State Northridge. If those conferences were not as powerful because of the changes the entire division is weakened as well. If you refuse to recognize and accept these simple examples as fact, I can understand why you hold the position you do. I will not waste any more of your or my time on the subject. xthumbsupx.

[DetroitFlyer]

I am not for any "established minimums" aka FBS. I would not object to a much cleaner accounting of athletic aid, however. From an accounting viewpoint, I do not like systems that are not very transparent. The aid provided by the likes of the Ivy League, the Patriot League, the PFL, etc. is not at all transparent. I can look at Youngstown State and easily see 63 scholarships for football. I look at Fordham, and have no idea. With some effort, I can make an educated guess, but that is all it will ever be.... The PFL is even more interesting. Most players receive aid to attend PFL schools. Of course the aid is not "athletic" as defined by the NCAA so we offer "ZERO" scholarships. In making some very broad assumptions, I have estimated that a PFL school might provide enough aid to students that happen to play football to equal somewhere between 20 to 30 scholarships if they were counted as such. The Ivy League is widely acknowledged to provide AT LEAST a level of aid to students that happen to be football players comparable to the 63 scholarship level. Once again, because it is not "athletic aid" it is counted by the NCAA as ZERO scholarships. It sure seems to me that the Ivy League could actually do better than the 63 limit, since all aid is non-athletic.... As I said, I am not for any minimums, but let's account for aid to athletes, regardless of the "bin" that it is put in by a university, the same way. At least that makes the entire messy system transparent, and allows everyone to better understand the amount of aid provided from school to school. Sounds way too logical you say? Well that means that it will never happen....

[MplsBison]

Having scholarship minimums is by far the easiest way to have transparant football aid in the division.


Agree fully that the way the PL, IL, and PFL get money to players is under the table/sneaky.

[89Hen]

I'm not missing anything. However, you refuse to look at the big picture and focus only on individual situations. Just because someone else wins the conference championship after the other guy has gone is irrelevant. You can not seriously believe the SoCon was just as strong after Marshall was replaced by Wofford. The same goes for the Big Sky after Boise State, Nevada, and Idaho were replaced by Portland State, Sacramento State, and Cal State Northridge. If those conferences were not as powerful because of the changes the entire division is weakened as well. If you refuse to recognize and accept these simple examples as fact, I can understand why you hold the position you do. I will not waste any more of your or my time on the subject. xthumbsupx.
Sorry to but in, but IMO you are looking at this in a very strange way. You are comparing teams that left with a team that joined the conference they left. You need to be looking at the division as a whole. We don't know how good some of these teams are yet, but NDSU, SDSU, Cal Poly... could end up being better I-AA teams than all of those that left. You can't compare UNC to Nevada... that's NOT a replacement.

Furthermore, Marshall is really the only team that was a dominant I-AA that left. Boise had one NC in 1980 when the division was NOTHING, and a runner up in 1994. They weren't the team you're propping them up to be. You mentioned ArkSt in one of your earlier posts... they did NOT win an NC in I-AA and in fact got whalloped in the playoffs by the likes of UNI, Montana State and Georgia Southern who are still in I-AA. LA-Monroe? please. One NC followed by a 1-3 record in the playoffs. Replacing them is EASY.

The landscape in I-AA has changed, but IMO the division as a whole is STRONGER today than it was in the 1980's.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I'm not missing anything. However, you refuse to look at the big picture and focus only on individual situations. Just because someone else wins the conference championship after the other guy has gone is irrelevant. You can not seriously believe the SoCon was just as strong after Marshall was replaced by Wofford. The same goes for the Big Sky after Boise State, Nevada, and Idaho were replaced by Portland State, Sacramento State, and Cal State Northridge. If those conferences were not as powerful because of the changes the entire division is weakened as well. If you refuse to recognize and accept these simple examples as fact, I can understand why you hold the position you do. I will not waste any more of your or my time on the subject. xthumbsupx.

Okay, you give one very borderline example (the Marshall/Wofford one) where the "more powerful" school was replaced with another. Although I would argue that Wofford is a superior program when it comes to playing by the rules and recruiting better human beings than Marshall, let's for a minute accept your hypothesis about the Big Sky and SoCon.

So then I come up with WKU leaving FCS, and being replaced with TWO more powerful programs - and you don't mention it. There are others - do you REALLY want to say that ULM and ULL leaving the Southland hurt the conference? Did UConn's move from the A-10 hurt the CAA in any way? Did either "hurt" FCS in general? - but you instead generalize with ONE example of ONE program that has a history of being hated by many in FCS and has been under NCAA investigation over what they even did in the SoCon, as the crown jewel of your argument.

Again, your argument is circular. "If a conference is weaker since they replaced one member with another, then the subdivision is weaker". Well, NDSU and SDSU were D-II schools five years ago, and now they're both ranked in the Top 25. Some argument.

[OL FU]

I will say it one more time. The only reason Marshall was "dominant" is because for all practical purposes they had made the decision to "move up" and had already started playing by the higher levels rules. If they had not made that decision to move up, they would not have been dominant for the last year.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Because that should not be the model of FCS.

It certainly isn't the model of FBS. There, you must have at least 77 scholarships.


In FCS, you should have to have at least 56.7.



If you want to have a DIII athletic model, which that is, then you should be DIII.


ecause it's more different than just a scholarship by another name.

It's not the same at all.


Having scholarship minimums is by far the easiest way to have transparant football aid in the division.


Agree fully that the way the PL, IL, and PFL get money to players is under the table/sneaky.

Oh, I see now what you're arguing. The PL and Ivy are so sneaky that they have an unfair advantage over full-scholarship programs! Getting money to players, under the guise of..... academics! Thanks for clarifying... xrolleyesx

[MplsBison]

Not even close to what I'm saying.


I'm saying that PL and IL school need to be forced to offer a minimum number of scholarships on the basis that the NCAA has defined for scholarship.

[lizrdgizrd]

Not even close to what I'm saying.


I'm saying that PL and IL school need to be forced to offer a minimum number of scholarships on the basis that the NCAA has defined for scholarship.
You just want it all called 'athletic scholarships', is that right? Hardly seems worth worrying about as long as their accounted for correctly.

[DUPFLFan]

Agree fully that the way the PL, IL, and PFL get money to players is under the table/sneaky.

I can't speak to other situations, but my son goes to Drake and has been a three year starter. He received Drake's Presidential Scholarship based on his ACT score (30% of the costs). This scholarship is offered to all students that are accepted to Drake and is provided based on their ACT Scores.

I paid the rest.

He is going to attend this fall for his final season. The Scholarship lasted 4 years so I am paying the full amount this year. No help.

Now, if you think that Drake helps out it's players, why would a two-time all conference and one time MidMajor all american have to pay the full freight? Wouldn't that type of student be one that they would pass money "under the table"?

By the way - He was recuited by several Ivy League teams that offered no money whatsoever.

So only speaking for Drake, a player is looked at as a normal student. If the player qualifies for scholarships and grants based on need or academic achievement, he will receive it in the same proportion as the general population.

xpeacex

[MplsBison]

You just want it all called 'athletic scholarships', is that right? Hardly seems worth worrying about as long as their accounted for correctly.

As I said, what the PL, IL, and PFL are doing is not as simple as "scholarships by a different name".

[DUPFLFan]

Another thing... (one of the reasons that I have a red flag on my rep points)

I just don't get all of the animosity toward non-scholarship football. Many posters have taken a stance that if taken by the NCAA, would eliminate football at most if not all of these institutions. To me, that can't be a good thing.

There has been many posting wanting the Ivy League to participate in the playoffs. Yet just as many or more saying that the PFL should not. Yet again, last year the PFL champion beat the Ivy League co-champion.

So many here have said "if you want to be in the playoffs, then schedule accordingly".

Ok, here is Drake's Schedule this year.

Thu, Aug 30 Illinois State at Normal, Ill.
Sat, Sep 08 Waldorf Drake Stadium
Sat, Sep 15 Wisconsin-Platteville at Platteville, Wis.
Sat, Sep 22 Northern Iowa Drake Stadium
Sat, Sep 29 Valparaiso Drake Stadium
Sat, Oct 06 Butler Drake Stadium
Sat, Oct 13 San Diego at San Diego, Calif.
Sat, Oct 20 Davidson at Davidson, N.C.
Sat, Oct 27 Jacksonville Drake Stadium
Sat, Nov 03 Morehead State at Morehead, Ky.
Sat, Nov 10 Dayton Drake Stadium

I am sure that to play a better schedule than this and eliminate, say Waldorf, we would have to play on the road giving us only five home games. Anyone want to volunteer their FCS scholarship program to come to DesMoines for a game so we can have a better schedule and chance for the playoffs?

The bottom line is that the NCAA and Title IX has put most of these institutions in this situation. If you have a beef, it is with those two things. Not the PFL...

[MplsBison]

I can't speak to other situations, but my son goes to Drake and has been a three year starter. He received Drake's Presidential Scholarship based on his ACT score (30% of the costs). This scholarship is offered to all students that are accepted to Drake and is provided based on their ACT Scores.

I paid the rest.

He is going to attend this fall for his final season. The Scholarship lasted 4 years so I am paying the full amount this year. No help.

Now, if you think that Drake helps out it's players, why would a two-time all conference and one time MidMajor all american have to pay the full freight? Wouldn't that type of student be one that they would pass money "under the table"?

By the way - He was recuited by several Ivy League teams that offered no money whatsoever.

So only speaking for Drake, a player is looked at as a normal student. If the player qualifies for scholarships and grants based on need or academic achievement, he will receive it in the same proportion as the general population.

xpeacex


That's exactly what I'm talking about.



That's the DIII model.


Nothing wrong with that.



It's not and should not be the FCS model!

[DUPFLFan]

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

That's the DIII model.

Nothing wrong with that.

It's not and should not be the FCS model!

Then go talk to the NCAA. They are the ones who mandated this. Why, you ask? Because the other DIII schools made such a stink about how good Dayton was and how dominant they were that they made up the "Dayton Rule": If you are D-1 in one sport, you must be D-1 in all sports.

So guess what - NCAA says it is part of the FCS Model..

Come to think about, why can't your team add 20 scholarships and move up to FBS. Then you would not have to deal with the non-schollys..

[MplsBison]

Because we can't do that and be compliant with title IX.


I don't know if you read the thread, but my idea is to either create a new subdivision for the DI basketball schools that have DIII football teams or allow those schools to play DII and make a scholarship minimum for FCS.

And I believe that the Dayton rule only says that if you have DI bball you must have DI football.

[Model Citizen]

By the way - He was recuited by several Ivy League teams that offered no money whatsoever.

I bet you get comments like, "you turned down an *Ivy League* school?!? So what if you had to take a second mortgage? Your son would've received such a better education..."

What do you say to those people?

[BDKJMU]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't back in 92' the NCAA mandate that if you were IA in other sports, you had to be DI in football? Didn't rule mainly affected about 20 or so schools that were Div I in basketball but DIII in football? If so you had about 20 schools that said, ok, we'll call ourselves DI-AA in football, but still won't give schorships, which meant they remained, at least initially, Div III in caliber, yet became ineligible for the DIII playoffs,couldn't compete with the schlorship IAAs so didn't schedule them, which meant no I-AA playoff bids even if they went undefeated or only had 1 loss. If the NCAA did institute that rule as I remember it, then IMHO is a dumb rule. IMHO, if a school wants to be Div I in other sports, but Div III in football, let them.

[DUPFLFan]

I bet you get comments like, "you turned down an *Ivy League* school?!? So what if you had to take a second mortgage? Your son would've received such a better education..."

What do you say to those people?

I say that he is getting a great education at a great school and that I didn't have to go into debt for it to happen.

Then I ask them if they would have contributed to his Ivy League education xthumbsupx

[MplsBison]

No because they can then use DI bball money for the DIII football team.

[Model Citizen]

Home run!

[DFW HOYA]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't back in 92' the NCAA mandate that if you were IA in other sports, you had to be DI in football? Didn't rule mainly affected about 20 or so schools that were Div I in basketball but DIII in football? If so you had about 20 schools that said, ok, we'll call ourselves DI-AA in football, but still won't give schorships, which meant they remained, at least initially, Div III in caliber, yet became ineligible for the DIII playoffs,couldn't compete with the schlorship IAAs so didn't schedule them, which meant no I-AA playoff bids even if they went undefeated or only had 1 loss. If the NCAA did institute that rule as I remember it, then IMHO is a dumb rule. IMHO, if a school wants to be Div I in other sports, but Div III in football, let them.


The NCAA voted in 1992 to move 28 teams up from Division II and III (it became 27 after Santa Clara dropped FB soon after the announcement). All but one (Alabama-Birmingham) went to I-AA. The NCAA made the move largely from D-III schools complaining that Dayton had an unfair advantage in football (of course, no one complained that St. Peter's or Siena had an unfair advantage of its own). A concurrent resolution to estblish a separate subdivision and playoff system ("I-AAA") failed when Division II voted it down, worried that teams would abandon D-II in the process. At that time, all three divisions needed to sign off on the plan--I and III were OK, but II was not.

The NCAA is not going to go back on this rule.

[89Hen]

Yet again, last year the PFL champion beat the Ivy League co-champion.
And the year before the third place Ivy beat the undefeated PFL champ. Point?

[DUPFLFan]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't back in 92' the NCAA mandate that if you were IA in other sports, you had to be DI in football? Didn't rule mainly affected about 20 or so schools that were Div I in basketball but DIII in football? If so you had about 20 schools that said, ok, we'll call ourselves DI-AA in football, but still won't give schorships, which meant they remained, at least initially, Div III in caliber, yet became ineligible for the DIII playoffs,couldn't compete with the schlorship IAAs so didn't schedule them, which meant no I-AA playoff bids even if they went undefeated or only had 1 loss. If the NCAA did institute that rule as I remember it, then IMHO is a dumb rule. IMHO, if a school wants to be Div I in other sports, but Div III in football, let them.

BDK - that is the crux of the argument here. At that time, these schools were D-III in name but at a higher level in calibur. The NCAA mandated this.

The debate centers around the fact that we who root for these schools think that if we are FCS, mandated by the NCAA to be FCS, then treat us like FCS.

Those like Bison think that since we don't give scholarships that we should not be part of FCS.

By the way Bison, Your reasoning for not giving more than 63 scholarships and moving to FBS is the EXACT same reason why we cannot give football scholarships.

If we gave out 63 scholarships at 30K per($1,890,000), we would have to add an equal number to the women's teams for a total of ($3,780,000). Also, since all the women teams are fully funded already, more teams would have to be added or Men's teams eliminated.

Combine that figure with the $1,416,409 in operating expenses we already have gives us a total operating expense of $5,196,409 for a school of 3000 undergrads. Compare that to Iowa with a total operating expense of 8,077,556 with 20,000 students or Iowa State with a total operating expense of $5,140,143 for 19,000 students.

THIS IS WHY WE ARE NON-SCHOLARSHIP AND WILL REMAIN SO.

[DUPFLFan]

And the year before the third place Ivy beat the undefeated PFL champ. Point?

The point is that the top teams in both conferences are roughly equal. Yet the same people who want the Ivy's in the playoffs don't want the PFL.

Why?

[DetroitFlyer]

It is almost like taking candy from a baby!! I can tell you why 89Hen and others like him do not want the PFL in the playoffs.... Just look at the picture at the bottom of his posts. Enough said!!

[lizrdgizrd]

It is almost like taking candy from a baby!! I can tell you why 89Hen and others like him do not want the PFL in the playoffs.... Just look at the picture at the bottom of his posts. Enough said!!

He's a muppet!?!?!?! xeekx

[Model Citizen]

Maybe he's two muppets, tag-teaming us.

To answer his question, the point is that the PFL has overtaken the Ivy.

[89Hen]

The point is that the top teams in both conferences are roughly equal.
Got anything besides one San Diego victory that would support that?

[89Hen]

It is almost like taking candy from a baby!! I can tell you why 89Hen and others like him do not want the PFL in the playoffs.... Just look at the picture at the bottom of his posts. Enough said!!
You deserve all the credit for my signature line. xnodx xnodx xnodx

BTW, I triple dog dare you to find even ONE instance where somebody says they don't WANT the PFL in the playoffs. Not wanting and not deserving are two VERY different concepts. I want ALL deserving teams in the playoffs.

[89Hen]

the PFL has overtaken the Ivy.
Crap, I need a new monitor, I just spit all over mine.

[DUPFLFan]

Maybe he's two muppets, tag-teaming us.

To answer his question, the point is that the PFL has overtaken the Ivy.

I am not going to go that far. Suffice it to say that they are roughly equal among the top teams and equally should have access to the playoffs.

[DetroitFlyer]

This whole thread is primarily about kicking the "Division III funding model schools" out of FCS altogether. I'm not entirely certain, but I'm betting that if the PFL were kicked out of FCS altogether, we would not be welcome in the playoffs....xcoolx. Seems like it was not too hard to find some posts indicating that the PFL was not welcome in the playoffs....

[89Hen]

Suffice it to say that they are roughly equal among the top teams
I'll ask a second time... Got anything besides one San Diego victory that would support that?

And AFAIK, the Ivy does not get a bid to the playoffs, so you do have the same access.

[89Hen]

Seems like it was not too hard to find some posts indicating that the PFL was not welcome in the playoffs....
You'd think, but I still dare you to find one.

[lizrdgizrd]

I want ALL deserving teams in the playoffs.
Pay attention DF!

Ok, here is Drake's Schedule this year.

Thu, Aug 30 Illinois State at Normal, Ill.
Sat, Sep 08 Waldorf Drake Stadium
Sat, Sep 15 Wisconsin-Platteville at Platteville, Wis.
Sat, Sep 22 Northern Iowa Drake Stadium
Sat, Sep 29 Valparaiso Drake Stadium
Sat, Oct 06 Butler Drake Stadium
Sat, Oct 13 San Diego at San Diego, Calif.
Sat, Oct 20 Davidson at Davidson, N.C.
Sat, Oct 27 Jacksonville Drake Stadium
Sat, Nov 03 Morehead State at Morehead, Ky.
Sat, Nov 10 Dayton Drake Stadium
Looking at DUPFLFan's Drake schedule, I'd say Drake is scheduling to make the playoffs. ISU and UNI are good tests of Drake's playoff worthiness. Sweep the PFL schedule, win one of those two games and stay close in the other and you've likely got a shot at the playoffs. Can drake do it?

[Model Citizen]

Pay attention DF!

Looking at DUPFLFan's Drake schedule, I'd say Drake is scheduling to make the playoffs. ISU and UNI are good tests of Drake's playoff worthiness. Sweep the PFL schedule, win one of those two games and stay close in the other and you've likely got a shot at the playoffs. Can drake do it?

The Drake people are not mentally challenged. They are not scheduling for the playoffs any more than your team is scheduling for the Rose Bowl.

Drake is scheduling for a $50,000 paycheck at Illinois State and a chance for some ticket sales with UNI. Beyond that, Drake is scheduling whoever they can get.

[lizrdgizrd]

The Drake people are not mentally challenged. They are not scheduling for the playoffs any more than your team is scheduling for the Rose Bowl.

Drake is scheduling for a $50,000 paycheck at Illinois State and a chance for some ticket sales with UNI. Beyond that, Drake is scheduling whoever they can get.
But if they can do what I said they will have a shot at the playoffs when selection time rolls around. It doesn't have to hurt to schedule well.

[DUPFLFan]

Lizrd..

I'd say if we swept the PFL, won the two OOC games against platteville and Waldorf and stay close in the ISU and NIU games, we still won't get in the playoffs...

[lizrdgizrd]

Lizrd..

I'd say if we swept the PFL, won the two OOC games against platteville and Waldorf and stay close in the ISU and NIU games, we still won't get in the playoffs...
I was assuming wins over non D-I, but if you couldn't win one against ISU or UNI you wouldn't deserve a place in the playoffs. xpeacex

[89Hen]

if we swept the PFL, won the two OOC games against platteville and Waldorf and stay close in the ISU and NIU games, we still won't get in the playoffs...
xconfusedx 7-2 vs unranked DI doesn't get anyone in the playoffs.

[DUPFLFan]

[quote=89Hen;574384]xconfusedx 7-2 vs unranked DI doesn't get anyone in the playoffs.[/quote}

Really?

How about Lafayette (6-5) and McNeese St. (7-4)

[89Hen]

How about Lafayette (6-5) and McNeese St. (7-4)
Could have gone with Montana State a couple years ago too... good arguement against autobids, but not a good arguement to get a 7-2 Drake an invite.

[DUPFLFan]

Could have gone with Montana State a couple years ago too... good arguement against autobids, but not a good arguement to get a 7-2 Drake an invite.

Better argument is that if those two conferences are good enough to get autobids, why not the PFL?

[89Hen]

Better argument is that if those two conferences are good enough to get autobids, why not the PFL?
1. Apply for one

2....

Conference Rank
Rank, Conference (Average Rating)
1. Great West Football Conference (22.35)
2. Atlantic 10 Conference (24.93)
3. Gateway Football Conference (30.04)
4. Southern Conference (35.67)
5. Big Sky Conference (36.59)
6. Ivy League (40.90)
7. Big South Conference (46.69)
8. Ohio Valley Conference (50.21)
9. Southland Conference (50.81)
10. Patriot League (55.79)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (58.23)
12. Northeast Conference (64.49)
13. Southwestern Athletic Conference (64.63)
14. Independents (67.70)
15. Pioneer Football League (69.58)
16. Metro-Atlantic Athletic Conference (83.64)

CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS
11 GREAT WEST (AA)= 60.82 60.24 ( 12) 5
14 ATLANTIC 10 (AA)= 56.48 56.97 ( 14) 12
15 GATEWAY (AA)= 55.15 54.19 ( 15) 8
16 BIG SKY (AA)= 53.48 53.39 ( 16) 9
17 SOUTHERN (AA)= 49.59 50.71 ( 17) 8
18 IVY LEAGUE (AA)= 48.21 48.50 ( 18) 8
19 BIG SOUTH (AA)= 43.34 42.96 ( 20) 5
20 SOUTHLAND (AA)= 43.30 43.20 ( 19) 7
21 PATRIOT LEAGUE (AA)= 41.92 41.30 ( 21) 7
22 OHIO VALLEY (AA)= 41.11 40.82 ( 22) 9
23 SOUTHWESTERN (AA)= 38.41 38.24 ( 23) 10
24 MID-EASTERN (AA)= 37.92 37.21 ( 24) 9
25 NORTHEAST (AA)= 33.36 32.92 ( 25) 8
27 PIONEER (AA)= 27.90 29.69 ( 27) 8
28 METRO ATLANTIC (AA)= 19.03 19.84 ( 28) 5

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Better argument is that if those two conferences are good enough to get autobids, why not the PFL?

xdeadhorsex xdeadhorsex xdeadhorsex

In the past 5 years:
* In 2003 Colgate of the PL went 11-0, beat a I-A (Buffalo), beat at least two, probably three, nationally-ranked teams in the regular season, and made it to the championship game.

* In 2002 McNeese State of the Southland went 10-1, beat a I-A (UL-Monroe), lost to a BCS team (Nebraska) and beat two, probably three, nationally ranked teams in the regular season, and made it to the championship game.

[DUPFLFan]

1. Apply for one

2....

Conference Rank
Rank, Conference (Average Rating)
1. Great West Football Conference (22.35)
2. Atlantic 10 Conference (24.93)
3. Gateway Football Conference (30.04)
4. Southern Conference (35.67)
5. Big Sky Conference (36.59)
6. Ivy League (40.90)
7. Big South Conference (46.69)
8. Ohio Valley Conference (50.21)
9. Southland Conference (50.81)
10. Patriot League (55.79)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (58.23)
12. Northeast Conference (64.49)
13. Southwestern Athletic Conference (64.63)
14. Independents (67.70)
15. Pioneer Football League (69.58)
16. Metro-Atlantic Athletic Conference (83.64)

CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS
11 GREAT WEST (AA)= 60.82 60.24 ( 12) 5
14 ATLANTIC 10 (AA)= 56.48 56.97 ( 14) 12
15 GATEWAY (AA)= 55.15 54.19 ( 15) 8
16 BIG SKY (AA)= 53.48 53.39 ( 16) 9
17 SOUTHERN (AA)= 49.59 50.71 ( 17) 8
18 IVY LEAGUE (AA)= 48.21 48.50 ( 18) 8
19 BIG SOUTH (AA)= 43.34 42.96 ( 20) 5
20 SOUTHLAND (AA)= 43.30 43.20 ( 19) 7
21 PATRIOT LEAGUE (AA)= 41.92 41.30 ( 21) 7
22 OHIO VALLEY (AA)= 41.11 40.82 ( 22) 9
23 SOUTHWESTERN (AA)= 38.41 38.24 ( 23) 10
24 MID-EASTERN (AA)= 37.92 37.21 ( 24) 9
25 NORTHEAST (AA)= 33.36 32.92 ( 25) 8
27 PIONEER (AA)= 27.90 29.69 ( 27) 8
28 METRO ATLANTIC (AA)= 19.03 19.84 ( 28) 5

So now we are getting away from strength of schedule and looking at the conference.

Silly me, I thought all we had to do was schedule tough. Now our whole conference has to schedule tough for one to make it...

So what exactly are the parameters for making the playoffs?

And Lehigh, I will beat this horse for a long time to come...

[AZGrizFan]

1. Apply for one

2....

Conference Rank
Rank, Conference (Average Rating)
1. Great West Football Conference (22.35)
2. Atlantic 10 Conference (24.93)
3. Gateway Football Conference (30.04)
4. Southern Conference (35.67)
5. Big Sky Conference (36.59)
6. Ivy League (40.90)
7. Big South Conference (46.69)
8. Ohio Valley Conference (50.21)
9. Southland Conference (50.81)
10. Patriot League (55.79)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (58.23)
12. Northeast Conference (64.49)
13. Southwestern Athletic Conference (64.63)
14. Independents (67.70)
15. Pioneer Football League (69.58)
16. Metro-Atlantic Athletic Conference (83.64)

CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS
11 GREAT WEST (AA)= 60.82 60.24 ( 12) 5
14 ATLANTIC 10 (AA)= 56.48 56.97 ( 14) 12
15 GATEWAY (AA)= 55.15 54.19 ( 15) 8
16 BIG SKY (AA)= 53.48 53.39 ( 16) 9
17 SOUTHERN (AA)= 49.59 50.71 ( 17) 8
18 IVY LEAGUE (AA)= 48.21 48.50 ( 18) 8
19 BIG SOUTH (AA)= 43.34 42.96 ( 20) 5
20 SOUTHLAND (AA)= 43.30 43.20 ( 19) 7
21 PATRIOT LEAGUE (AA)= 41.92 41.30 ( 21) 7
22 OHIO VALLEY (AA)= 41.11 40.82 ( 22) 9
23 SOUTHWESTERN (AA)= 38.41 38.24 ( 23) 10
24 MID-EASTERN (AA)= 37.92 37.21 ( 24) 9
25 NORTHEAST (AA)= 33.36 32.92 ( 25) 8
27 PIONEER (AA)= 27.90 29.69 ( 27) 8
28 METRO ATLANTIC (AA)= 19.03 19.84 ( 28) 5

When your conference is rated below the SWAC, it's time to just shut up. xeyebrowx xcoffeex

[AZGrizFan]

So now we are getting away from strength of schedule and looking at the conference.

Silly me, I thought all we had to do was schedule tough. Now our whole conference has to schedule tough for one to make it...

So what exactly are the parameters for making the playoffs?

And Lehigh, I will beat this horse for a long time to come...

Here's a hint, DUPL......if (and it's a HUGE IF) the rest of your conference scheduled tough, your strength of schedule might improve to the point that a 10-1 or 9-2 season would get a PFL school a second look.

If (another huge IF) YOUR team were to schedule 3 top 25 OOC schools and beat them all (or go 2-1) and go 9-2, 10-1 in the season you'd be a LOCK for the tournament. Is that REALLY so hard to understand? Or do you seriously think it's some big dark conspiracy by the "Old Guard" to keep your poor schools down? xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xrolleyesx

[lizrdgizrd]

So now we are getting away from strength of schedule and looking at the conference.

Silly me, I thought all we had to do was schedule tough. Now our whole conference has to schedule tough for one to make it...

So what exactly are the parameters for making the playoffs?

And Lehigh, I will beat this horse for a long time to come...
Your SOS is low because your conference is weak. That means you have to take advantage of the few opportunities you have. Beat UNI or ISU or both and then see where you end up.

[Model Citizen]

1. Apply for one

A useless gesture, considering the PFL would be applying to the same committee that hasn't ever given them an at-large bid. The NEC likes that kind of abuse--I don't know why.

Anyway, I hear the league hasn't applied because the Gateway commissioner doesn't want them to.

[DUPFLFan]

A useless gesture, considering the PFL would be applying to the same committee that hasn't ever given them an at-large bid. The NEC likes that kind of abuse--I don't know why.

Anyway, I hear the league hasn't applied because the Gateway commissioner doesn't want them to.


The man is the winner xbowx xbowx xbowx xbowx

[89Hen]

So now we are getting away from strength of schedule and looking at the conference.

Silly me, I thought all we had to do was schedule tough. Now our whole conference has to schedule tough for one to make it...

So what exactly are the parameters for making the playoffs?

And Lehigh, I will beat this horse for a long time to come...
Well YOU'RE the one who changed from getting a BID to getting an AUTO. If you want to talk about how your TEAM gets a BID, let's talk about schedule. 7-2 in I-A will NOT get your TEAM a BID. If you want to talk about why McNeese, Lafayette, MSU... got an AUTO, then let's talk about conference strength. xreadx

[89Hen]

A useless gesture, considering the PFL would be applying to the same committee that hasn't ever given them an at-large bid. The NEC likes that kind of abuse--I don't know why.

Anyway, I hear the league hasn't applied because the Gateway commissioner doesn't want them to.
xbabycryx

A useless gesture because the PFL is the second lowest ranked conference in the country. And as far as sharing a commissioner... how is that my problem? xconfusedx xsmhx

[DUPFLFan]

Actually 89.. how is the PFL getting any kind of bid, your problem?

[DetroitFlyer]

PFL is its own worst enemy. If, as it looks today, FCS ends up with only one non-scholarship FCS conference, I hope that the powers that be in the PFL wake up and look out to FCS instead of in to who knows what.... I see no reason why the PFL as a whole cannot approach the level of play of the PL or Ivy League on a consistent basis. I do believe that the PFL has made a big mistake by hiring a person that is also the head of another FCS conference. There is absolutely a huge conflict of interest there.... The only reason it is alleged to work is that the PFL is not all that interested in the playoffs.... USD opened some eyes last season, and exposed the conflict of interest, but alas, nothing happened.... Now, make no mistake, fans of the PFL are interested in the playoffs and are not at all happy with the current direction of the conference. Of course, we become even more frustrated when you old guard types reinforce the sterotype of the PFL as a second class conference, not worthy of a playoff bid.... That "attitude" by the rest of the FCS community further reinforces the twisted thinking of the PFL powers that be.... If, like the Ivy League, the world of FCS was clammoring for the PFL to participate in the FCS playoffs, I believe that change for the better would occur.... In the meantime, folks like me and DUPFLfan will be carrying the torch on AGS as well as trying to work with the powers that be in the PFL to fix this dysfunctional situation....

[813Jag]

When your conference is rated below the SWAC, it's time to just shut up. xeyebrowx xcoffeex

xreadx And we still need to improve our numbers. xnonono2x

[DUPFLFan]

In the meantime, folks like me and DUPFLfan will be carrying the torch on AGS as well as trying to work with the powers that be in the PFL to fix this dysfunctional situation....

xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

[89Hen]

Actually 89.. how is the PFL getting any kind of bid, your problem?
Where Illinois State is ranked isn't my problem either, yet I continue to post on the topic. Go figure, a message board about I-AA and I'm talking about I-AA teams. xrolleyesx

[89Hen]

PFL is its own worst enemy. If, as it looks today, FCS ends up with only one non-scholarship FCS conference, I hope that the powers that be in the PFL wake up and look out to FCS instead of in to who knows what.... I see no reason why the PFL as a whole cannot approach the level of play of the PL or Ivy League on a consistent basis. I do believe that the PFL has made a big mistake by hiring a person that is also the head of another FCS conference. There is absolutely a huge conflict of interest there.... The only reason it is alleged to work is that the PFL is not all that interested in the playoffs.... USD opened some eyes last season, and exposed the conflict of interest, but alas, nothing happened.... Now, make no mistake, fans of the PFL are interested in the playoffs and are not at all happy with the current direction of the conference.
You should have stopped there.


Of course, we become even more frustrated when you old guard types reinforce the sterotype of the PFL as a second class conference, not worthy of a playoff bid.... That "attitude" by the rest of the FCS community further reinforces the twisted thinking of the PFL powers that be.... If, like the Ivy League, the world of FCS was clammoring for the PFL to participate in the FCS playoffs, I believe that change for the better would occur....
It's YOUR job to improve, not the rest of I-AA. FWIW, I don't think "clamoring" is the right word for Ivy participation. I would say a vast majority of people would want to see it because they generally do play a full DI schedule year in and year out and outside of PL teams, we would like to see how they stack up with the rest of I-AA, but I've seen very few posts petitioning or 'clamoring' for the Ivy to do it.


In the meantime, folks like me and DUPFLfan will be carrying the torch on AGS as well as trying to work with the powers that be in the PFL to fix this dysfunctional situation....
You got back on track there though. I fully expect fans of the PFL to want more for their conference. However, you and others NEVER address the fact that independant teams have made the playoffs many many times. It really deflates your arguement. xpeacex

[MplsBison]

The NCAA voted in 1992 to move 28 teams up from Division II and III (it became 27 after Santa Clara dropped FB soon after the announcement). All but one (Alabama-Birmingham) went to I-AA. The NCAA made the move largely from D-III schools complaining that Dayton had an unfair advantage in football (of course, no one complained that St. Peter's or Siena had an unfair advantage of its own). A concurrent resolution to estblish a separate subdivision and playoff system ("I-AAA") failed when Division II voted it down, worried that teams would abandon D-II in the process. At that time, all three divisions needed to sign off on the plan--I and III were OK, but II was not.

The NCAA is not going to go back on this rule.


Then DII deserves to have the DI basketball schools's DIII football teams dumped right on their heads!

They caused this to happen, they should have to clean up the mess!



I hereby enact that any FCS football team with fewer than 56.7 scholarships at the end of 5 years from today will be dropped down to DII football.


It is done.

[lc83]

We just need a new commissioner. xthumbsupx

[DUPFLFan]

I hereby enact that any FCS football team with fewer than 56.7 scholarships at the end of 5 years from today will be dropped down to DII football.


It is done.

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[PantherRob82]

Drake fans: Finance some schollies and join the Gateway. xthumbsupx

[MplsBison]

They'll have to.

Unless they want to drop down to DII.

[Col Hogan]

Then DII deserves to have the DI basketball schools's DIII football teams dumped right on their heads!

They caused this to happen, they should have to clean up the mess!



I hereby enact that any FCS football team with fewer than 56.7 scholarships at the end of 5 years from today will be dropped down to DII football.


It is done.



Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain.....

5284

[PantherRob82]

It is almost like taking candy from a baby!! I can tell you why 89Hen and others like him do not want the PFL in the playoffs.... Just look at the picture at the bottom of his posts. Enough said!!

or maybe because they would get stomped. How'd your 2nd best team Drake do against UNI, who did not make the playoffs?

[PantherRob82]

Not wanting and not deserving are two VERY different concepts. I want ALL deserving teams in the playoffs.

exactly. I wish they were high enough calibur.

[PantherRob82]

Better argument is that if those two conferences are good enough to get autobids, why not the PFL?

if Montana was in the PFL...

[PantherRob82]

A useless gesture, considering the PFL would be applying to the same committee that hasn't ever given them an at-large bid. The NEC likes that kind of abuse--I don't know why.

Anyway, I hear the league hasn't applied because the Gateway commissioner doesn't want them to.

xrolleyesx nothing to do with the Gateway, their commish, who is also the Gateway commish knows it's a waste of time.

[PantherRob82]

Of course, we become even more frustrated when you old guard types reinforce the sterotype of the PFL as a second class conference, not worthy of a playoff bid.... That "attitude" by the rest of the FCS community further reinforces the twisted thinking of the PFL powers that be.... If, like the Ivy League, the world of FCS was clammoring for the PFL to participate in the FCS playoffs, I believe that change for the better would occur.... In the meantime, folks like me and DUPFLfan will be carrying the torch on AGS as well as trying to work with the powers that be in the PFL to fix this dysfunctional situation....

You have it backwards. Get some good teams who prove themselves and we'll want the PFL in the playoffs. See San Diego's one scholarship games in 06 and Drake's game against UNI (at Drake even).

[AppMan]

Sorry to but in, but IMO you are looking at this in a very strange way. You are comparing teams that left with a team that joined the conference they left. You need to be looking at the division as a whole. We don't know how good some of these teams are yet, but NDSU, SDSU, Cal Poly... could end up being better I-AA teams than all of those that left. You can't compare UNC to Nevada... that's NOT a replacement.

Furthermore, Marshall is really the only team that was a dominant I-AA that left. Boise had one NC in 1980 when the division was NOTHING, and a runner up in 1994. They weren't the team you're propping them up to be. You mentioned ArkSt in one of your earlier posts... they did NOT win an NC in I-AA and in fact got whalloped in the playoffs by the likes of UNI, Montana State and Georgia Southern who are still in I-AA. LA-Monroe? please. One NC followed by a 1-3 record in the playoffs. Replacing them is EASY.

The landscape in I-AA has changed, but IMO the division as a whole is STRONGER today than it was in the 1980's.

I AM looking at the division as a whole. That is exactly my point! The Marshall/Wofford deal is just an example of how the entire SoCon became weaker as did the Big Sky with their changes. If a particular conference is weakened by a change in membership, especially one of the power leagues, doesn't it stand to reason the entire division has also suffered a blow? Yes, we don't know just how good some of the new teams are, and there are exceptions to every situation. However, the overwhelming number that come in to the FCS from D-II are nowhere close to being as good as those who left. If that is the case then the ENTIRE division is weaker. We'll just have to disagree on your last sentence. I have been involved with 1-aa / FCS since its inception and while some individual teams may be better, the division as a whole is far weaker.

[AppMan]

That's true and their program sufferred in the early days, became good in the mid-80's and great in the mid 90's.

As far as the argument that FCS is not as strong because of the teams that left, I don't buy it. Most of the teams mentioned were never consistent I-AA powers. Could they beat most FCS teams now, yesxnodx But most of the teams mentioned were good teams, but not dominant when they were in I-AA. Marshall is an example of that.

Answer one question. Is Wofford as strong (then or now) as Marshall was when they left the league? No if's, and's, or but's, just a one word answer. Yes or No.

Marshall wasn't an dominate program in the SoCon & 1-aa? You can't be serious. They only became good after making the decision to go 1-a? Better study your history fella. Marshall joined the SoCon in 1976 and at the time had the worst Division One program in the country. Marred by the tragic plane crash and NCAA violations that got them kicked out of the MAC, it too them 10 full years of play in the SoCon to become a .500 team. However, over the next ten years they became a dominate team. Wanna talk records? How about 106-33 overall and 56-17 in the SoCon during that 10 year stretch. In 1987 the Herd made their first playoff appearance and made it all the way to the championship game. Over the next 9 years they made the playoffs 7 more times and into the national championship game 5 times. Wanna talk about an impressive playoff record. While they were only 2-4 in championship games, although making it six times in 10 years is pretty darn good, how about 23-6 overall, 8-0 in the first round, 7-1 in the quarter finals, 6-1 in the semi-finals, and 2-4 in champiosnhip games. During those nine years they also won 3 SoCon championships, finished 2nd five times, and 3rd once. Oh yea, over the same period of time, Furman won 3 SoCon championships (1 of them tied with Marshall) 0 seconds, 2 thirds, 3 fourths, a fifth and a seventh. The Paladins won the 1-aa champiosnhip in 1988 and made the title game onece again in 2001.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

xconfusedx
Answer one question. Is Wofford as strong (then or now) as Marshall was when they left the league? No if's, and's, or but's, just a one word answer. Yes or No.... While they were only 2-4 in championship games, although making it six times in 10 years is pretty darn good, how about 23-6 overall, 8-0 in the first round, 7-1 in the quarter finals, 6-1 in the semi-finals, and 2-4 in champiosnhip games. During those nine years they also won 3 SoCon championships, finished 2nd five times, and 3rd once.

xrolleyesx If you already know the answer to your question, why ask it? Of course Wofford didn't win 3 SoCon championships and win two national titles. But they did make the semi's once. How is that "weakening" the subdivision? I could see your point if you said a team like Savannah State or something was replacing the Herd, but Wofford is ranked in the Top 25 in FCS this year and has had some success. Would it have been better for the SoCon if the Terriers were an independent instead? xconfusedx


However, the overwhelming number that come in to the FCS from D-II are nowhere close to being as good as those who left. If that is the case then the ENTIRE division is weaker. We'll just have to disagree on your last sentence. I have been involved with 1-aa / FCS since its inception and while some individual teams may be better, the division as a whole is far weaker.

Can I make it more clear? North Dakota State, South Dakota State. Please, I'm begging you, give me a good explanation for these two schools then.

[Tod]

xconfusedx

xrolleyesx If you already know the answer to your question, why ask it? Of course Wofford didn't win 3 SoCon championships and win two national titles. But they did make the semi's once. How is that "weakening" the subdivision? I could see your point if you said a team like Savannah State or something was replacing the Herd, but Wofford is ranked in the Top 25 in FCS this year and has had some success. Would it have been better for the SoCon if the Terriers were an independent instead? xconfusedx



Can I make it more clear? North Dakota State, South Dakota State. Please, I'm begging you, give me a good explanation for these two schools then.

UC Davis, Central Arkansas, FCS is getting good teams and constantly improving. I just wish we wouldn't lose good FCS teams so they can be bad FBS teams. :( I hate to state the obvious, but in order to get stronger, I think we need to continue acquiring the great teams we are, but stop losing solid teams as well.

xtwocentsx

[OL FU]

Answer one question. Is Wofford as strong (then or now) as Marshall was when they left the league? No if's, and's, or but's, just a one word answer. Yes or No.

Marshall wasn't an dominate program in the SoCon & 1-aa? You can't be serious. They only became good after making the decision to go 1-a? Better study your history fella. Marshall joined the SoCon in 1976 and at the time had the worst Division One program in the country. Marred by the tragic plane crash and NCAA violations that got them kicked out of the MAC, it too them 10 full years of play in the SoCon to become a .500 team. However, over the next ten years they became a dominate team. Wanna talk records? How about 106-33 overall and 56-17 in the SoCon during that 10 year stretch. In 1987 the Herd made their first playoff appearance and made it all the way to the championship game. Over the next 9 years they made the playoffs 7 more times and into the national championship game 5 times. Wanna talk about an impressive playoff record. While they were only 2-4 in championship games, although making it six times in 10 years is pretty darn good, how about 23-6 overall, 8-0 in the first round, 7-1 in the quarter finals, 6-1 in the semi-finals, and 2-4 in champiosnhip games. During those nine years they also won 3 SoCon championships, finished 2nd five times, and 3rd once. Oh yea, over the same period of time, Furman won 3 SoCon championships (1 of them tied with Marshall) 0 seconds, 2 thirds, 3 fourths, a fifth and a seventh. The Paladins won the 1-aa champiosnhip in 1988 and made the title game onece again in 2001.


Where is the dominancexeyebrowx

1976 East Carolina 4-1-0
1977 Chattanooga / VMI 4-1-0
1978 Furman / Chattanooga 4-1-0
1979 Chattanooga 5-1-0
1980 Furman 7-0-0
1981 Furman 5-2-0
1982 Furman 6-1-0
1983 Furman 6-0-1
1984 Chattanooga 5-1-0
1985 Furman 6-0-0
1986 Appalachian State 6-0-1
1987 Appalachian State 7-0-0
1988 Furman / Marshall 6-1-0
1989 Furman 7-0-0
1990 Furman 6-1-0
1991 Appalachian State 6-1-0
1992 The Citadel 6-1-0
1993 Georgia Southern 7-1-0
1994 Marshall 7-1-0
1995 Appalachian State 8-0-0
1996 Marshall 8-0-0

Marshall was a very good team. They did not dominate until they decided to leave. I know my history very well thank you.

Dominance is what Furman did in the 80's not what Marshal did from 86 to 96:p

[OL FU]

Answer one question. Is Wofford as strong (then or now) as Marshall was when they left the league? No if's, and's, or but's, just a one word answer. Yes or No.




I never argued that point. I only said Marshall dominated after they started acting like a I-A school. (and the proof is above) no dominance until 1994-1995 and you guys slipped in the middle of those years. To argue that they were dominate during other periods disregards the facts.

[DUPFLFan]

or maybe because they would get stomped. How'd your 2nd best team Drake do against UNI, who did not make the playoffs?

Let's see... Looks like UNI beat Drake by 41 points while San Diego beat Drake by 37.

SAN DIEGO Drake Stadium 0 - 37 (L)
NORTHERN IOWA Drake Stadium 7 - 48 (L) (http://www.godrakebulldogs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=71158&SPID=8123&DB_OEM_ID=15700&ATCLID=863149)

Never said that Drake should have been in the playoffs, but I do think San Diego should have been.

[MplsBison]

Tell them to get scholarships and they could be even better.

Probably better than San Diego State!

[AppMan]

Where is the dominancexeyebrowx


Marshall was a very good team. They did not dominate until they decided to leave. I know my history very well thank you.

Dominance is what Furman did in the 80's not what Marshal did from 86 to 96:p

Lets see.... Marshall averages 11 wins over a 10 year span, rolls up a 23-6 playoff record and makes the national championship game 5 times. But isn't considered a dominate program. Yet, during the 80's the Paladins average 9.5 wins, go 10-6 in the playoffs (granted there were no playoffs in 1980 & '81) and made it to the national championship game 2 times and are considered a dominating program. Yea, I see your point.

So, you are saying Marshall made the decision to leave the SoCon ten years prior doing so. OK. Just how did their decision to leave 1-aa make them such a power the previous 8-9 years befor the move? They still had to play by 1-aa rerquirements, could still only carry 67 scholarships, and only sign the same number of players a year. Yea, they built some very nice facilities and had a ton of support, but a lot of people have done that without moving to 1-a and had succss.

Oh well, I'm done with this.

[OL FU]

Lets see.... Marshall averages 11 wins over a 10 year span, rolls up a 23-6 playoff record and makes the national championship game 5 times. But isn't considered a dominate program. Yet, during the 80's the Paladins average 9.5 wins, go 10-6 in the playoffs (granted there were no playoffs in 1980 & '81) and made it to the national championship game 2 times and are considered a dominating program. Yea, I see your point.

So, you are saying Marshall made the decision to leave the SoCon ten years prior doing so. OK. Just how did their decision to leave 1-aa make them such a power the previous 8-9 years befor the move? They still had to play by 1-aa rerquirements, could still only carry 67 scholarships, and only sign the same number of players a year. Yea, they built some very nice facilities and had a ton of support, but a lot of people have done that without moving to 1-a and had succss.



Oh well, I'm done with this.

I am saying Marshall won the conference three times in 9 years. That is not dominance. The Paladins won the conference 8 times in 12 years.

PS, as many have stated here before, they also violated rules to achieve their shortterm dominance.

You should be done with it. You are not correct at least as far as Marshall. I really haven't argued any other point.

There is no doubt during the last three years of I-AA Marshall may have been the best team I-AA has seen. But that accomplishment came as they were preparing for their future mediocrity in I-A. Look at the conference championships. They did not dominate the SoCon except for their last three years.

[DUPFLFan]

Tell them to get scholarships and they could be even better.

Probably better than San Diego State!

I'll be sure to mention it when I have my weekly meeting with the presidents of the PFL...xrolleyesx

[OL FU]

Article where Garner discusses Marshall as the best I-AA football team ever and discusses their violations on the way to I-Axrolleyesx

http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=65613

Initially, I wasn’t going to allow Marshall to be crowned the best of all-time because I believed – as many I-AA aficionados do – that Marshall was not completely above-board in how they stockpiled players in preparation for their move to I-A. In fact, the NCAA looked into the matter and found several violations, but did not strip Marshall of the wins in 1996. Now, we all know that the NCAA is not always right about matters like this, but if the governing body of I-AA football is allowing the wins, then we should, too.

[AppMan]

I never argued that point. I only said Marshall dominated after they started acting like a I-A school. (and the proof is above) no dominance until 1994-1995 and you guys slipped in the middle of those years. To argue that they were dominate during other periods disregards the facts.

I hate to be one-dimensional, but Marshall's dominance lasted one to three years depending on how you interpret it.

You are only taking SoCon play into consideration and I am looking at the entire season, including playoffs. IMO, Marshall was the one of a select programs who were a constant on the National scene from 1987 thru 1996.

Marshall's record
1987: 10-5
1988: 11-2
1989: 6-5
1990: 6-5
1991: 11-4
1992: 12-3
1993: 11-4
1994: 12-2
1995: 12-3
1996: 15-0

106 total W's - 33 total L's (that's a winning % of .763)

Ave 10.6 W's & 3.3 L's - 24 W's & 5 L's in 1-aa playoffs.

[lizrdgizrd]

Let's see... Looks like UNI beat Drake by 41 points while San Diego beat Drake by 37.

SAN DIEGO Drake Stadium 0 - 37 (L)
NORTHERN IOWA Drake Stadium 7 - 48 (L) (http://www.godrakebulldogs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=71158&SPID=8123&DB_OEM_ID=15700&ATCLID=863149)

Never said that Drake should have been in the playoffs, but I do think San Diego should have been.
The committee didn't agree and most FCS fans disagreed as well. We've gone over the reasons ad nauseam before and you still refuse to follow the logic. xnonono2x

[PantherRob82]

Let's see... Looks like UNI beat Drake by 41 points while San Diego beat Drake by 37.

SAN DIEGO Drake Stadium 0 - 37 (L)
NORTHERN IOWA Drake Stadium 7 - 48 (L) (http://www.godrakebulldogs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=71158&SPID=8123&DB_OEM_ID=15700&ATCLID=863149)

Never said that Drake should have been in the playoffs, but I do think San Diego should have been.

I understand that. I was comparing a top PFL team against an auto bid league team. My other comparison on that point would be a PFL team (San Diego) against a scholarship team(UC-Davis). If San Diego had one that game, they may have had an arguement.

[DUPFLFan]

My other comparison on that point would be a PFL team (San Diego) against a scholarship team(UC-Davis). If San Diego had one that game, they may have had an arguement.

The scheduling of that one was all screwed up. Not sure why the game was later - perhaps it was the best that UC-Davis could offer.

My feeling is that San Diego, once they knew they were out of the playoffs, had a mental letdown. This is just a feeling - not substanciated by anything...

I would have rather seen them play the game with the playoffs on the line. They have them this year on November 17th - a week earlier. Let's see what happens..

[lizrdgizrd]

The scheduling of that one was all screwed up. Not sure why the game was later - perhaps it was the best that UC-Davis could offer.

My feeling is that San Diego, once they knew they were out of the playoffs, had a mental letdown. This is just a feeling - not substanciated by anything...

I would have rather seen them play the game with the playoffs on the line. They have them this year on November 17th - a week earlier. Let's see what happens..
Yep! They could make it this year. Your Drake team has a shot too with their schedule. That's why they play the games. xnodx

[OL FU]

I hate to be one-dimensional, but Marshall's dominance lasted one to three years depending on how you interpret it.

You are only taking SoCon play into consideration and I am looking at the entire season, including playoffs. IMO, Marshall was the one of a select programs who were a constant on the National scene from 1987 thru 1996.

Marshall's record
1987: 10-5
1988: 11-2
1989: 6-5
1990: 6-5
1991: 11-4
1992: 12-3
1993: 11-4
1994: 12-2
1995: 12-3
1996: 15-0

106 total W's - 33 total L's (that's a winning % of .763)

Ave 10.6 W's & 3.3 L's - 24 W's & 5 L's in 1-aa playoffs.

They certainly were on the national scene for longer than three years. No argument. However, the term was dominance which is only applicable for the last three years. If you can't dominate your own conference you can't be dominate nationally.

I am not arguing their dominance the last three years, but as most of us know they acheived that dominance by inappropriately getting ready for the jump. Unless you think cheating to obtain dominance is ok, then we should not correlate the division becoming weaker because a cheating Marshall left.

As I said I will not argue how good Marshall was the last three years. There were certainly the best team in I-AA. But it was the last three years and it was acheived with dubious tactics.

And PS if you can't tell, I am glad Marshall is gone. I would be glad any team is gone that acheived what they acheived by cheating.

[g-webb1994]

And PS if you can't tell, I am glad Marshall is gone. I would be glad any team is gone that acheived what they acheived by cheating.


Preach on OL!xthumbsupx

Marshall was crooked before the plane crash and after, and probably still are. I mean, c'mon, how in the heck do you recruit anyone to Huntington, WV for any purpose??? By comparision, at least Boiling Springs has Charlotte nearby, Furman has Greenville nearby....even Statesboro for example has Savannah nearby?

I've only been through Huntington once in my lifetime, and a well-used rest area urinal has better looks!xlolx

[DetroitFlyer]

The game was scheduled because going into the season, both programs knew that they would not be invited to the playoffs. USD knew because no PFL team has ever been invited even though they are TECHNICALLY eligible, and UC Davis is in transition and therefore not eligible. Let's talk about not following logic a moment, shall we? UC Davis was one of the highest ranked teams in FCS according to the GPI. The conference they play in was the highest ranked conference in all of FCS again according to the GPI. UC Davis demolished playoff team Montana State, a team that won their first playoff game if I remember right. UC Davis was lucky to defeat USD at home. USD did not win that game, but if anything, that game proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that USD was a playoff caliber team last season!!!!! Oh yeah, did I mention that USD was UNDEFEATED in their FCS, let me say that again for you folks in Delaware and Boone, FCS, FCS, FCS, conference. A conference that IS TECHNICALLY eligible for the FCS playoffs!!!!! You can take the SOS nonsense anywhere you like, but that is absolutely not the reason USD sat home!

[Model Citizen]

That GPI everyone here likes so much had USD top 16. That takes into account SOS.

So either that GPI is worthless as an indicator of playoff worthiness or the committee doesn't walk its talk.

[OL FU]

That GPI everyone here likes so much had USD top 16. That takes into account SOS.

So either that GPI is worthless as an indicator of playoff worthiness or the committee doesn't walk its talk.

16 is not necesarily good enough. If one of the AQs is rated lower than 16, then 16 should be one to few.

[Model Citizen]

16 is not necesarily good enough. If one of the AQs is rated lower than 16, then 16 should be one to few.

I see at least one lower rated team in the bracket that was taken at-large.

[OL FU]

I see at least one lower rated team in the bracket that was taken at-large.

That would be enough. xnodx

Of Course UNI didn't get in and they were rated much higher than 16

[Model Citizen]

Huh? Look at the brackets and ratings before you comment.

[OL FU]

Huh? Look at the brackets and ratings before you comment.

You mean change my entire posting stylexnonox xlolx

I obviously don't understand your point.
If there were rated 16, but an AQ was lower than them then 16 would not get in the playoffs.

Sorry I read "at-large" wrong

[DUPFLFan]

Your Drake team has a shot too with their schedule. That's why they play the games. xnodx

You are right.. Although with Drake's coaching situation, no one knows what to expect...xconfusedx

[BigApp]

That GPI everyone here likes so much had USD top 16. That takes into account SOS.

It does?? I thought it uses rankings across 12 polls/ratings...don't recall it using Strength of Schedule. Is SOS a new component for 2007?



So either that GPI is worthless as an indicator of playoff worthiness or the committee doesn't walk its talk.

man, you can get a whole bunch panties wadded up with this type of talk!

[OL FU]

It does?? I thought it uses rankings across 12 polls/ratings...don't recall it using Strength of Schedule. Is SOS a new component for 2007?




man, you can get a whole bunch panties wadded up with this type of talk!


Yea I don't think last year was such a good year for the GPIxnodx

[GannonFan]

That GPI everyone here likes so much had USD top 16. That takes into account SOS.

So either that GPI is worthless as an indicator of playoff worthiness or the committee doesn't walk its talk.


Yea I don't think last year was such a good year for the GPIxnodx

Trying...not....to.....comment....

Darn it, just couldn't do it!! I've never lost to the GPI in terms of picking playoff teams - most of the time we tie, last year I trounced it. It does take into account SOS, but not very well. Too many flaws in the system for it to do so.

The committee walks its talk just fine - they do take SOS into account - they just don't use the GPI as much (if at all) as much as backers of the system here think they do, apparently at least. xthumbsupx

[lizrdgizrd]

The game was scheduled because going into the season, both programs knew that they would not be invited to the playoffs. USD knew because no PFL team has ever been invited even though they are TECHNICALLY eligible, and UC Davis is in transition and therefore not eligible. Let's talk about not following logic a moment, shall we? UC Davis was one of the highest ranked teams in FCS according to the GPI. The conference they play in was the highest ranked conference in all of FCS again according to the GPI. UC Davis demolished playoff team Montana State, a team that won their first playoff game if I remember right. UC Davis was lucky to defeat USD at home. USD did not win that game, but if anything, that game proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that USD was a playoff caliber team last season!!!!! Oh yeah, did I mention that USD was UNDEFEATED in their FCS, let me say that again for you folks in Delaware and Boone, FCS, FCS, FCS, conference. A conference that IS TECHNICALLY eligible for the FCS playoffs!!!!! You can take the SOS nonsense anywhere you like, but that is absolutely not the reason USD sat home!
We've gone around and around with this before. USD LOST the one game they played against a team that was possibly "playoff caliber". Winning out the PFL is not sufficient to warrant a playoff spot. It's a good start, but not enough. Look at Drake's schedule this season as a template to follow in the future. xrolleyesx

[GannonFan]

The game was scheduled because going into the season, both programs knew that they would not be invited to the playoffs. USD knew because no PFL team has ever been invited even though they are TECHNICALLY eligible, and UC Davis is in transition and therefore not eligible. Let's talk about not following logic a moment, shall we? UC Davis was one of the highest ranked teams in FCS according to the GPI. The conference they play in was the highest ranked conference in all of FCS again according to the GPI. UC Davis demolished playoff team Montana State, a team that won their first playoff game if I remember right. UC Davis was lucky to defeat USD at home. USD did not win that game, but if anything, that game proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that USD was a playoff caliber team last season!!!!! Oh yeah, did I mention that USD was UNDEFEATED in their FCS, let me say that again for you folks in Delaware and Boone, FCS, FCS, FCS, conference. A conference that IS TECHNICALLY eligible for the FCS playoffs!!!!! You can take the SOS nonsense anywhere you like, but that is absolutely not the reason USD sat home!


Nope, still not true - no matter how often you say it, trying to imagine that SOS doesn't matter and that it didn't have any effect on USD's failed bid to make the playoffs last just doesn't make it true. Just saying something over and over again doesn't change the facts - USD only played 8 games before the playoffs last year (two against non-FCS teams) and that, along with playing their best opponent after the playoffs began were the biggest reasons they didn't play in the playoffs, a playoff system that would invite them like it's invited tons of non-auto conference teams (Georgia Southern, Youngstown, Delaware, Hofstra, Coastal Carolina, Cal Poly, etc) in the past. USD had only themselves to blame - trying to blame it on bogeymen from message boards just ignores reality. xthumbsupx

[DetroitFlyer]

Let's not let facts get in the way, shall we? Apparently, the Ivy League Co-Champion is not playoff worthy either? Strange how so many AGS's pine for the Ivy League to participate in the playoffs.... By the way, just how badly did USD spank Yale, at Yale last season?

[lizrdgizrd]

Let's not let facts get in the way, shall we? Apparently, the Ivy League Co-Champion is not playoff worthy either? Strange how so many AGS's pine for the Ivy League to participate in the playoffs.... By the way, just how badly did USD spank Yale, at Yale last season?
The first game of the season. Nice win, won't deny that, and Yale was a good team last season. Since some people around here seem to think GPI is worth something:

FINAL GPI 2006
18 UC Davis
23 Yale

Note that neither of these teams are in the top 16. Yale playoff worthy last season? I dunno.

[Model Citizen]

Yale playoff worthy last season? I dunno.

I dunno either. But some people on this board have said the Ivy would be worthy of an automatic bid...which technically would have gone to Princeton last year. Yale and Princeton shared the championship.

[AppMan]

Preach on OL!xthumbsupx
I mean, c'mon, how in the heck do you recruit anyone to Huntington, WV for any purpose???

WOW!! A GW fan talking smack on Marshall! That's pretty good. I seriously hope you are kidding, but if not, the ability to recruit may have something to with this.... I know its only seats 30,000 more than Spangler Stadium, but....

[g-webb1994]

WOW!! A GW fan talking smack on Marshall! That's pretty good. I seriously hope you are kidding, but if not, the ability to recruit may have something to with this.... I know its only seats 30,000 more than Spangler Stadium, but....

Also the ability to pay athletes and not allow them to attend class may be a factor....hmmm. Remember, Criminole Bowden wouldn't even let thug Randy Moss play at FSU, but Marshall opened their arms to him.xnonono2x

And hey, Spangler will get to 30,000 seats someday....maybe around the year 2150 or so.xlolx

[PantherRob82]

My feeling is that San Diego, once they knew they were out of the playoffs, had a mental letdown. This is just a feeling - not substanciated by anything...

That could be true. Maybe we just aren't giving them enough credit. They did beat Monmouth pretty solidly.

[PantherRob82]

The game was scheduled because going into the season, both programs knew that they would not be invited to the playoffs. USD knew because no PFL team has ever been invited even though they are TECHNICALLY eligible, and UC Davis is in transition and therefore not eligible. Let's talk about not following logic a moment, shall we? UC Davis was one of the highest ranked teams in FCS according to the GPI. The conference they play in was the highest ranked conference in all of FCS again according to the GPI. UC Davis demolished playoff team Montana State, a team that won their first playoff game if I remember right. UC Davis was lucky to defeat USD at home. USD did not win that game, but if anything, that game proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that USD was a playoff caliber team last season!!!!! Oh yeah, did I mention that USD was UNDEFEATED in their FCS, let me say that again for you folks in Delaware and Boone, FCS, FCS, FCS, conference. A conference that IS TECHNICALLY eligible for the FCS playoffs!!!!! You can take the SOS nonsense anywhere you like, but that is absolutely not the reason USD sat home!

xbawlingx xbawlingx xbawlingx

Had USD won that game the PFL would be in better shape than ever to get a bid. When you're not an autobid conference, you have to prove you belong. USD didn't get a chance to during the season with their schedule, and when they had a chance for a statement game against UC-Davis, they lost.

[PantherRob82]

That GPI everyone here likes so much had USD top 16. That takes into account SOS.

So either that GPI is worthless as an indicator of playoff worthiness or the committee doesn't walk its talk.

We didn't make the playoffs either and we were right around that number. Top 16 don't make playoffs because autobids can take a bid away from a better team.

[TheValleyRaider]

The GPI and Committee are two different things. The GPI is an collection of polls and rankings that tries to rank all of FCS and predict the playoff selections. Whether it does this well or not is a seperate question and one I'm not getting involved with now.

The Committee is set up by the NCAA, is run by ADs and gathers in the last weekend of the Regular Season to select the playoff field as they qualify using the Committee's stated requirements. I believe there's even been mention of the Committee having their own poll as to who is most deserving of the postseason. "Best" team is a rather subjective measurement, especially when it comes to picking a set group of teams, like 16.

As it stands, if you do not play in one of the 8 conferences given autobids, or do not win said autobid, you have to present your case to the committee as to why you should be selected. Teams in auto-bid conferences (which are considered the best conferences) do get more easily considered because they've played a number of games that are demonstrably tough. Is that fair? Maybe not, but neither is life. If you aren't in one of those conferences (Coastal Carolina, San Diego, Drake, whomever), you've got to go out of your way to schedule a tougher OOC slate and win those games.

This cost CCU in 2004, so they stepped up, and were duly rewarded in 2006. This cost San Diego in 2006, as a schedule with 2 sub D-I opponents and one team that's never going to the playoffs (Yale) is not demonstrably tough when put together with a Pioneer schedule which is, like it or not, weak. Now, in retrospect we can say, "Oh, USD played UC-Davis tough and beat a Monmouth team. Maybe they were pretty good." That's all fine and good, but none of those things were known when the Committee got together to pick the playoff teams.

People here tend to be making two different arguments when comparing the merits of conferences like the Pioneer League getting into the postseason, and of individual teams like San Diego and Drake doing so. As regards the conference, you have to A) apply for an autobid, and probably B) have a conference that is demonstrably better than others that are getting the autobid you want. Unless/until the playoffs expand, there's only 8, so you've got to be better than one of those 8. As for individual teams, they've got to do as illustrated above. Schedule tough, win those tough OOC games and perform as before in your conference, and you will be rewarded. CCU got the idea, Drake is on the right track, and San Diego still has work to do.

Sorry for the long post, and hopefully it wasn't too patronizing (I know you all know how the field is selected), but I'm just trying to get contending arguments to stop talking past one another, which is what I see people doing. xpeacex

[Seawolf97]

Excellent post.!

[AppMan]

Also the ability to pay athletes and not allow them to attend class may be a factor....hmmm. Remember, Criminole Bowden wouldn't even let thug Randy Moss play at FSU, but Marshall opened their arms to him.xnonono2x

You know very well their only intention was to rehabilitate the wayward young man!

[AppMan]

And PS if you can't tell, I am glad Marshall is gone. I would be glad any team is gone that acheived what they acheived by cheating.

Not me. I miss our games with those guys. They had a great fan base and the games always had an electric atmosphere about them. Those folks were rowdy and vocal and that was something the SoCon wasn't accustomed to. A lot of people talked about how bad their fans were, but the vast majority I ever met were extremely nice and cordial. The Southern Conference is deep rooted in small, mostly private institutions with good manners and a country club atmosphere. Back in the 1970's with Furman, The Citadel, VMI. Richmond, William & Mary, and Davidson in the fold I referred to the conference as the Southern Ivy League. With the recent additions of Wofford, Elon, & Samford it appears that is the direction the league is headed back to. I often refer to the SoCon as the "Polite Conference". After all, how may conferences request a Spectator Code of Conduct be read prior to each home game? As tough as the NCAA is these days I seriously doubt Marshall got by with anything earth shattering. Had the infractions been too severe they would have gotten tagged. I have heard all the stories about Marshall's cheating, I've also spoken with school & SoCon officials who said most of it was blown way out of proportion. IMO, Marshall was good for the SoCon. They brought a lot of publicity to the league and made a lot of schools work harder to get better. I'd love to have 'em on the schedule every year.

[OL FU]

Not me. I miss our games with those guys. They had a great fan base and the games always had an electric atmosphere about them. Those folks were rowdy and vocal and that was something the SoCon wasn't accustomed to. A lot of people talked about how bad their fans were, but the vast majority I ever met were extremely nice and cordial. The Southern Conference is deep rooted in small, mostly private institutions with good manners and a country club atmosphere. Back in the 1970's with Furman, The Citadel, VMI. Richmond, William & Mary, and Davidson in the fold I referred to the conference as the Southern Ivy League. With the recent additions of Wofford, Elon, & Samford it appears that is the direction the league is headed back to. I often refer to the SoCon as the "Polite Conference". After all, how may conferences request a Spectator Code of Conduct be read prior to each home game? As tough as the NCAA is these days I seriously doubt Marshall got by with anything earth shattering. Had the infractions been too severe they would have gotten tagged. I have heard all the stories about Marshall's cheating, I've also spoken with school & SoCon officials who said most of it was blown way out of proportion. IMO, Marshall was good for the SoCon. They brought a lot of publicity to the league and made a lot of schools work harder to get better. I'd love to have 'em on the schedule every year.


I am glad you enjoyed your experience there. Truly. I had a different one.

But my biggest concern was not their fans, it was their scruples. Their wonderful basket ball team of the 80's that ran through the SoCon was put on probation. Their 90's football team was found by the NCAA to have cheated and the same thing happened in 2000. Sorry but I don't want to be the conference where the best cheater wins.

[89Hen]

If a particular conference is weakened by a change in membership, especially one of the power leagues, doesn't it stand to reason the entire division has also suffered a blow?
No. If one of my stocks goes does, does it stand to reason that my entire portfolio will be lower at some future point of time? xcoffeex

[89Hen]

I am not going to go that far. Suffice it to say that they are roughly equal among the top teams and equally should have access to the playoffs.


The point is that the top teams in both conferences are roughly equal. Yet the same people who want the Ivy's in the playoffs don't want the PFL.

Why?


Never said that Drake should have been in the playoffs, but I do think San Diego should have been.

xnonox xnonox xnonox xnonox

[89Hen]

Let's not let facts get in the way, shall we? Apparently, the Ivy League Co-Champion is not playoff worthy either? Strange how so many AGS's pine for the Ivy League to participate in the playoffs.... By the way, just how badly did USD spank Yale, at Yale last season?
The only fact you have is the team that slaughtered the rest of the PFL (read - far and away the best PFL team) beat the co-champion of the Ivy. One team.

[JDC325]

The obvious solution to me is to make FCS have scholarship minimums, as they do in FBS, and create a 3rd subdivision for the cost containment crowd.

Perhaps the FCCS, Football Cost Containment Subdivision.

Naturally, there's be no playoff. Too expensive to send teams on extra travel just to determine a champion.



I believe the rule in FBS is you must have a minimum of 90% of the max of 85 which works out to 76.5 (but rounds to 77 since you can only have fulls in FBS).

That seems very reasonable to me, so the FCS minimum should be 90% of 63 which is 56.7.


If you aren't going to give 56.7 scholarships for football, get out of our subdivision.

Holy crap I agree with you....sign of the apocalypse???? It is a joke that we have school in our division who do not or can not offer 90% of the allowed scholarships. One of the main reasons I think the rest of the college football world does not take the FCS seriously. Lets have some kind of standard in our subdivsion please.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Holy crap I agree with you....sign of the apocalypse???? It is a joke that we have school in our division who do not or can not offer 90% of the allowed scholarships. One of the main reasons I think the rest of the college football world does not take the FCS seriously. Lets have some kind of standard in our subdivsion please.

xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx


"Let's not schedule Delaware - after all, they share a division with Dayton, who (horror) doesn't offer scholarships!"

[OL FU]

xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx


"Let's not schedule Delaware - after all, they share a division with Dayton, who (horror) doesn't offer scholarships!"

I agree. If we are not taken seriously by the fans of I-A it is because their are multiple millions of them that incorrectly think if you don't have 60,000 in your stadium you don't play real football. Nothing we have discussed about scholarships is going to change that perception.

[GannonFan]

I agree. If we are not taken seriously by the fans of I-A it is because their are multiple millions of them that incorrectly think if you don't have 60,000 in your stadium you don't play real football. Nothing we have discussed about scholarships is going to change that perception.

Amen to that - to actually think that fans of FBS football who don't care about FCS football do so because they are turned off because some teams fund less than the 63 schollies available at this level is just giving way too much credit to some football fans. I'd wager only a tiny percentage of college football fans know anything about scholarships and funding at the FCS level - face it, most don't know anything about FCS football, let alone a complicated detail like that. Every one of the FCS schools could max out with 63 scholarships and there wouldn't be even a tiny increase in attractibility of FCS football to most people. I'm okay with that, it doesn't take away from my enjoyment on a Saturday afternoon watching a game. xthumbsupx

[DetroitFlyer]

I'm all for it. We would play to see who is the "real" "UD". Actually, I have always wondered how that works. Dayton's "UD" is trademarked. Is Delaware's "UD" trademarked? When I buy anything that has Dayton's logo, I always try to find things that spell out "University of Dayton". If the school is spelled out, then I do not mind having the "UD" on the shirt, hat, window sticker, etc. I sure would not want some East Coaster mistaking me for a Delaware fan....xlolx

As to how FCS is viewed in the general football world.... I can tell you, and I think you all know, ( although many will not care to admit to it ), if you are not FBS you are nothing.... The only "advantage" for national recognition being FCS brings over Division II, III and NAIA is that we get our scores scrolled across ESPN. I would bet a tidy sum that a fan of Florida, and only Florida, would have no idea how many scholarships Delaware offers for football players versus Dayton versus Indiana University of PA, vesus Urbana versus Grove City College. To the Florida fan, all five are simply small college football.

AGS members probably know more about college football that almost anyone. We all probably follow some FBS teams, our schools play FBS teams, our schools play Division II, Division III, NAIA, and on very rare occasions, maybe even club teams.... Step outside the world of AGS, however, and you are probably lucky if the guy on the street even knows your school has a football team. The guy on the street certainly has ZERO insight into how various FCS teams or conferences fund their programs.

[GannonFan]

I'm all for it. We would play to see who is the "real" "UD". Actually, I have always wondered how that works. Dayton's "UD" is trademarked. Is Delaware's "UD" trademarked? When I buy anything that has Dayton's logo, I always try to find things that spell out "University of Dayton". If the school is spelled out, then I do not mind having the "UD" on the shirt, hat, window sticker, etc. I sure would not want some East Coaster mistaking me for a Delaware fan....xlolx



Delaware's older by quite a bit - 1743 versus Dayton's 1850. No one owns a trademark on just the letters "U" and "D" though, I'm sure the trademark takes into account the font and the alignment as well. Dayton's UD has the two letters side by side whereas Delaware's UD is an interlocking UD. I'm sure that's difference enough. xthumbsupx

[MplsBison]

Nothing we have discussed about scholarships is going to change that perception.

Talk about red herring!


Since when was the point ever proving ourselves to FBS?


The point was making our division more competitive and simpler.

[Model Citizen]

Nah, most people don't care about scholarships or the I-AA playoffs.

Who is the most visible in FCS?

Black Colleges. About half don't participate in the playoffs.

Ivy League. Neither playoffs nor scholarships.

[GannonFan]

Talk about red herring!


Since when was the point ever proving ourselves to FBS?


The point was making our division more competitive and simpler.

Competitive with whom? And how are you measuring competitiveness? And simpler? For whom? I think it's current configuration is pretty easy and simple to understand. What's the criteria for simpleness? xcoffeex

[OL FU]

Talk about red herring!


Since when was the point ever proving ourselves to FBS?


The point was making our division more competitive and simpler.

The point was in response to a direct representation of that by another poster. It had absolutley nothing to do with any thing you have ever said at any time on any board on any subjectxrolleyesx

A

[andy7171]

Is FCS not competitive now? How would giving 10-60 scholarships to everyone on a FCS team make them better and more competitive. They are still the same players. The cream of the crop is going to go FBS, the same number will fall down to FCS and on down through it D.III.
A very small minority of football fans follow FCS, most follow FBS as well. Its hard not to. Making all the FCS school have 63 full rides isn't going to bring more fans to the game because 63 compared to 85 is still a step down. You are basically looking down on the non-scholarship schools the way FBS fans do to FCS fans.

[JDC325]

I agree. If we are not taken seriously by the fans of I-A it is because their are multiple millions of them that incorrectly think if you don't have 60,000 in your stadium you don't play real football. Nothing we have discussed about scholarships is going to change that perception.


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.

[89Hen]

I'm all for it. We would play to see who is the "real" "UD". Actually, I have always wondered how that works. Dayton's "UD" is trademarked. Is Delaware's "UD" trademarked? When I buy anything that has Dayton's logo, I always try to find things that spell out "University of Dayton". If the school is spelled out, then I do not mind having the "UD" on the shirt, hat, window sticker, etc. I sure would not want some East Coaster mistaking me for a Delaware fan....xlolx
FWIW, although we do use an interlocking UD on a lot of merchandise, most people don't refer to Delaware as UD in the way other schools use the letter nomenclature. Matter of fact, I'd say as many people say U of D as say UD, but even more simply say Delaware. xtwocentsx

[already123]

what is the deal with the scholarships anyways?

[Franks Tanks]

Amen to that - to actually think that fans of FBS football who don't care about FCS football do so because they are turned off because some teams fund less than the 63 schollies available at this level is just giving way too much credit to some football fans. I'd wager only a tiny percentage of college football fans know anything about scholarships and funding at the FCS level - face it, most don't know anything about FCS football, let alone a complicated detail like that. Every one of the FCS schools could max out with 63 scholarships and there wouldn't be even a tiny increase in attractibility of FCS football to most people. I'm okay with that, it doesn't take away from my enjoyment on a Saturday afternoon watching a game. xthumbsupx

Not only do only a small percentage of football fans know anything about scholarship and funding at the FCS level, most "football fans" dont know the difference between a 4-3 and a 3-4- most people are dumb. We are spolied on this board to have plenty of knowledgeable fans.

[MplsBison]

Competitive with whom?

Teams that don't give scholarships are not competitive.

Giving scholarships would make them competitive.


I think it's current configuration is pretty easy and simple to understand.

It's not at all, as the thread has proved.

[MplsBison]

How would giving 10-60 scholarships to everyone on a FCS team make them better and more competitive. They are still the same players.

Giving scholarships would allow them to recruit players that would allow them to be competitive with other scholarship FCS teams.


Making all the FCS school have 63 full rides isn't going to bring more fans to the game because 63 compared to 85 is still a step down.

Again not about fans.

It's about simplifying and strengthening the subdivision. Every school having 56.7-63 scholarships does that with one stroke.

[Seawolf97]

I think JDC325 hit the nail on the head. Our division has the elite that can play and beat FBS teams and others that can barely get a win over a D-2 opponent. Maybe we are headed toward a competitive standard with more schools going the scholarship route.

[Franks Tanks]

Teams that don't give scholarships are not competitive.

Giving scholarships would make them competitive.



It's not at all, as the thread has proved.

Yup Colgate wasnt competitive is 2003 and Lehigh wasnt competitive from 99-01. Lafayette also wasnt competitive giving eventually champ App state everything they could handle in the first round of the 2005 playoffs.

[MplsBison]

Must be why all those PFL teams make the payoffs so often.

Also must be why the PL teams that aren't Colgate, Lehigh, and Lafayette make the playoffs so often.

[Franks Tanks]

Must be why all those PFL teams make the payoffs so often.

Also must be why the PL teams that aren't Colgate, Lehigh, and Lafayette make the playoffs so often.

That is not a logical reply, how does one formulate a response to that. 3 examples over a number of years isnt an abberation, its a trend. Also Fordham made the playoffs is 2002 and BEAT Northeastern in the first round. So that leaves only 3 PL teams that havent made the playoffs, and 4 that have. So i will explain this slowly but more PL teams have made the playoffs than those who havent. That sounds like a "non-Schorarship" conference that can compete, not just a handful of teams.

[MplsBison]

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.