Stony Brook is mid-major?

[Boogs]

I have a website I maintain for ranking FCS schools. Like the BCS, these rankings will look real good about halfway thru the season:

http://www.geocities.com/bradleyterryfootballrankings/IAA.html

Since in most years the mid major schools don't have a shot in hell of making the playoffs even with a perfect record, I indicate their mid-major status next to their name in my rankings list so those schools can have something to shoot for -- being the best mid major.

The Sports Network included Stony Brook. Don Hansen's Gazette apparently does not. This is the first year those two ranking organizations do not have identical eligibility. The mid major definition apparently is not consistent anymore.

No one from the Sports Network organization has returned my email. I'm trying to find out if Stony Brook was included in error.

Does anyone know here if Stony Brook was included in error on the Sports Network rankings?

Thanks ahead of time for your response.

[Seahawks Fan]

There is no official 'Mid Major' designation, so it is in the eye of the beholder.

Stony Brook left the Northest Conference after last season. They can give the full number of FCS schollies. They are not 'Mid Major' if you want to continue that designation. The Sports Network is wrong. But in the bigger picture, we should drop that designation entirely.

PS: How can you have Apalachian State ranked 47th in the nation? They don't get any credit for beating Michigan?

[Boogs]

There is no official 'Mid Major' designation, so it is in the eye of the beholder.

Stony Brook left the Northest Conference after last season. They can give the full number of FCS schollies. They are not 'Mid Major' if you want to continue that designation. The Sports Network is wrong. But in the bigger picture, we should drop that designation entirely.

PS: How can you have Apalachian State ranked 47th in the nation? They don't get any credit for beating Michigan?

Only games against FCS competition count.

Haven't figured out objectivity how to handle games played against teams outside of the pool of teams in question.

The teams aren't fully connected to get a good pushing of teams up and down. As soon as virtually everyone has played 5 or 6 games the rankings will look good.

Appalachian State was 0-0 before yesterday's games were played, hence they get the central mean (average) score.

The BCS releases their rankings 8 weeks from the start of the season for this same reason.

As far as the passion of getting rid of the mid-major status, I don't buy that because in most years the mid-major schools won't be in the playoffs even if they go undefeated. The Gazette and the Sports Network rankings give those schools something to look forward to.

[Seahawks Fan]

As you probably know, the NEC and the PFL have a post season Gridiron Classic, matching the winners of each league (or second place team if the winner gets an invite to the playoffs).

As for your poll, while it makes some sense not to penalize an FCS team if they lose to an FBS team, there should be some reward if they win. At least treat it as an FCS win.

[UAalum72]

As far as the passion of getting rid of the mid-major status, I don't by that because in most years the mid-major schools won't be in the playoffs even if they go undefeated. The Gazette and the Sports Network rankings give those schools something to look forward to.
If playoff participation is a factor, then why no labels for the Ivy and SWAC? - 'opt out of playoffs leagues' - they won't be in the playoffs even if undefeated - or Big South - 'unqualified for auto-bid league'. Also label the MEAC and SWAC and Savannah State as 'HBCU Black College Championship eligible'

[Seawolf97]

Stonybrook is playing as an Independent this season before moving into
the Big South Conference in 2008. They have 40 plus scholarship players on their squad for 2007. Not sure if they qualify as a Mid Major.

[Boogs]

I think mid-major is going thru a valley and it is not going to die out. The PFL leadership will open the door to some div. 1 basketball schools without football to begin programs.

I'm very disappointed Don Hansen's Gazette and the Sports Network (plus others?) don't get together before the start of each season and agree on which schools will be mid major each year to be consistent across the board. The consistentancy adds to the enjoyment of following the season.

I like the mid-major label. Not sure why the uneasy feelings against saying that. xthumbsupx Be honest with your potential recruits and don't deceive them into checking out your school if you don't have the funds to cover their schooling.

At any rate if would be great if I could get someone else to email the Sports Network website asking if Stony Brook's addition was a mistake or not.

[grizband]

I think mid-major is going thru a valley and it is not going to die out. The PFL leadership will open the door to some div. 1 basketball schools without football to begin programs.

I'm very disappointed Don Hansen's Gazette and the Sports Network (plus others?) don't get together before the start of each season and agree on which schools will be mid major each year to be consistent across the board. The consistentancy adds to the enjoyment of following the season.

I like the mid-major label. Not sure why the uneasy feelings against saying that. xthumbsupx Be honest with your potential recruits and don't deceive them into checking out your school if you don't have the funds to cover their schooling.

At any rate if would be great if I could get someone else to email the Sports Network website asking if Stony Brook's addition was a mistake or not.
The criteria for mid-major designation in I-AA football should resemble that of division I basketball. The basketball mid-majors are determined by conference affiliation, regardless of their success on the court (i.e. Gonzaga).

[Husky Alum]

The criteria for mid-major designation in I-AA football should resemble that of division I basketball. The basketball mid-majors are determined by conference affiliation, regardless of their success on the court (i.e. Gonzaga).

There is no "official" designation for college basketball. There are some folks (like Kyle Whellison at www.midmajority.com [and also of ESPN.com] who is one of the midmajor gurus in college hoops) who has his "list" and there are others (like The Sports Network) who have their "list". Some include the WAC for hoops, some don't. Include Gonzaga, and others don't (but include the rest of the WCC).

Conferences like the Atlantic 10 in hoops don't want the mid-major monicker because they have teams like GWU, Xavier and Temple (to avoid getting smacked, I may even include Dayton ;-) )in them and they're more than mid major - however, there are teams like St. Bonnie's and Fordham and LaSalle who are more characteristically "midmajor-ish" than the others in the A-10.

I guess my definition of mid major football is much like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography - I can't give you a definition, but I know it when I see it.

[UAalum72]

I like the mid-major label. Not sure why the uneasy feelings against saying that.
Because if the NCAA says we have to play Division I, we're Division I by every bylaw in the book and don't want to be put in some out-of-the-way closet.

And you didn't say why you make the Ivies look like playoff conferences.

[CSU Girl]

SB- do you have your 2008 schedule yet?

[Boogs]

Because if the NCAA says we have to play Division I, we're Division I by every bylaw in the book and don't want to be put in some out-of-the-way closet.

And you didn't say why you make the Ivies look like playoff conferences.

Closet? PFL, NEC, and MAAC aren't legitimate programs. They were booted out because they have D1 basketball programs and their poorer D3 counterparts moaned and groaned to the NCAA and got their way.

The Ivy/SWAC leagues are eligible but they choose not to participate out of past traditions. The PFL, NEC, and MAAC are eligible but they would get humiliated on the scoreboard in MOST years.

[danefan]

Closet? PFL, NEC, and MAAC aren't legitimate programs. They were booted out because they have D1 basketball programs and their poorer D3 counterparts moaned and groaned to the NCAA and got their way.

The Ivy/SWAC leagues are eligible but they choose not to participate out of past traditions. The PFL, NEC, and MAAC are eligible but they would get humiliated on the scoreboard in MOST years.

Easy there Boogs. 4 posts deep and throwing haymakers already.
Sit back, relax and take some time to read the posts. The NEC has had some quite impressive wins in recent years and now with the max allowance of 30 rides will be as competitive as the Ivy and Patriot. That is those NEC teams that choose to implement the scholarship allowance.

"PFL, NEC, and MAAC aren't legitimate programs" - Nobody is going to argue that from top to bottom the non-scholly and limited scholly leagues can compete week in and week out with the CAA. But ask Delaware, Lehigh, Georgia Southern, Colgate, Bucknell, Yale and the others who have lost to NEC, PFL and MAAC teams, whether there are legitimate programs in each of the three leagues.

[TheValleyRaider]

Closet? PFL, NEC, and MAAC aren't legitimate programs. They were booted out because they have D1 basketball programs and their poorer D3 counterparts moaned and groaned to the NCAA and got their way.

The Ivy/SWAC leagues are eligible but they choose not to participate out of past traditions. The PFL, NEC, and MAAC are eligible but they would get humiliated on the scoreboard in MOST years.

Umm, not to make this a "bash the SWAC" thread, but the SWAC got knocked around quite a bit during their tenure in the playoffs to the tune of 0-19. There are also a number of D-II schools, capped at 36 scholarships (just like the NEC), that would be more than competitive in the FCS playoffs.

Competitiveness and Legitimacy are two different things. While the majority of NEC/PFL/MAAC teams are not very good, that does not affect their standing at Division I programs. The circumstances of their arrival to the Division is irrelevant to the fact that they are here, they have met at least the minimum requirements, and are fully recognized programs at the Division I level. If the inability to field a quality team is the standard for "legitimate" D-I programs, what are Indiana State, Northern Colorado, Rhode Island and others doing at this level?

[Boogs]

Easy there Boogs. 4 posts deep and throwing haymakers already.
Sit back, relax and take some time to read the posts. The NEC has had some quite impressive wins in recent years and now with the max allowance of 30 rides will be as competitive as the Ivy and Patriot. That is those NEC teams that choose to implement the scholarship allowance.

"PFL, NEC, and MAAC aren't legitimate programs" - Nobody is going to argue that from top to bottom the non-scholly and limited scholly leagues can compete week in and week out with the CAA. But ask Delaware, Lehigh, Georgia Southern, Colgate, Bucknell, Yale and the others who have lost to NEC, PFL and MAAC teams, whether there are legitimate programs in each of the three leagues.

I did say in MOST years. Meaning, you'll get some wins here and there.

Don't read any more into it.

[DetroitFlyer]

Just what we need.... Another football genius to put down the PFL, NEC and MAAC. Please take your poll, website, and ill informed knowledge of the NEC, PFL and MAAC and crawl back into whatever hole you escaped from.... I will put this in such simple terms that MAYBE even you will understand it.... THERE IS NO "MID MAJOR" THERE IS ONLY FCS!!!!!!!!!!!

[Seawolf97]

SB- do you have your 2008 schedule yet?



I wish we did. From the little I know we have non conference home games against Colgate, Hofstra and Elon and then probably 2 Big South games on Long Island. On the road I know we have a game at Maine and another non conference game TBA -plus Big South games.
Colgate pretty much has the next few seasons mapped out already which is pretty neat.

[Pageoner]

good luck on stepping your game
all i know last time you played CAA teams you let up around 115 points in two games
and didnt score a TD
maybe the program has changed

[Seawolf97]

good luck on stepping your game
all i know last time you played CAA teams you let up around 115 points in two games
and didnt score a TD
maybe the program has changed


You wouldnt know it after the beating we took last week at Youngstown St. But we have 3 CAA teams to play this year Hofstra and Richmond on the road and Maine for our Homecoming game in October. Should be interesting.

[aceinthehole]

I wish we did. From the little I know we have non conference home games against Colgate, Hofstra and Elon and then probably 2 Big South games on Long Island. On the road I know we have a game at Maine and another non conference game TBA -plus Big South games.
Colgate pretty much has the next few seasons mapped out already which is pretty neat.

Didn't you guys sign 2-year deals with the 3 NEC teams for non-conference games?

Won't Albany, CCSU, and Monmouth be on the schedule for 2008?

I had assume CCSU and Monmouth would want a return trip for their visit to SBU this year, unless we got paid or get a return game in another season.

[Seawolf97]

Didn't you guys sign 2-year deals with the 3 NEC teams for non-conference games?

Won't Albany, CCSU, and Monmouth be on the schedule for 2008?

I had assume CCSU and Monmouth would want a return trip for their visit to SBU this year, unless we got paid or get a return game in another season.



Im not sure but it would be good to play you guys again. I know we open against Colgate next year and have Elon the end of September and we alternate home and aways with Hofstra. There might be return games in 2009.

[footballisking]

where is the gridiron classic being played this year?

[Model Citizen]

San Diego.

[DUPFLFan]

San Diego.

Hold on there mc...xnonono2x

[Boogs]

Just what we need.... Another football genius to put down the PFL, NEC and MAAC. Please take your poll, website, and ill informed knowledge of the NEC, PFL and MAAC and crawl back into whatever hole you escaped from.... I will put this in such simple terms that MAYBE even you will understand it.... THERE IS NO "MID MAJOR" THERE IS ONLY FCS!!!!!!!!!!!

The requirements for FCS are too liberal unlike FBS, and Div. II. There is a mid-major category.

St. Peter's was FCS too until they dropped out and they were like a lowly Div. III team as you could get.xhomerx

[UAalum72]

The requirements for FCS are too liberal unlike FBS, and Div. II. There is a mid-major category.

St. Peter's was FCS too until they dropped out and they were like a lowly Div. III team as you could get.
The mid-major category exists only in the small minds of those who feel they must segregate someone out.

And St. Peter's DID beat Florida Atlantic once.

Do you really think SAVANNAH STATE is going to get into the playoffs any time soon?

[Seahawks Fan]

I don't think he listens.

[Boogs]

The mid-major category exists only in the small minds of those who feel they must segregate someone out.

That's not very nice to say about Don Hansen and the Sports Network people who publish mid-major rankings.

The rankings exist to provide excitement for teams that don't have a shot in hell of making the playoffs (in most years) because of limited funding for their players' use (team has no depth due to fewer scholarships).

Segregation? I can be ridiculous too.

Dude, this isn't anything like busing kids to another end of town. This is more like a group of people inflicted with mental retardation (PFL/NEC/MAAC) that have to have their own classes and separate standards.

Keep the emotion and ridiculous analogies out of a debate, UAalum72.


And St. Peter's DID beat Florida Atlantic once.

They sure did...when funding wasn't an issue.

Things went south and the only criteria keeping them in FCS/I-AA was their basketball team's D1 status -- no spring practice, ridiculously low roster size, no money for gas to fuel a bus to spring practice, Thursday night home games because they weren't first on the list for the stadium they play in, and the list goes on.


Do you really think SAVANNAH STATE is going to get into the playoffs any time soon?

I assume Savannah State offers more scholarships to their players than the NEC/PFL/MAAC. If they did not they would appear in the mid-major category I would think. Maybe their coaching staff flatout can't recruit?

UAalum72, the mid-major category exists with its sole criteria being the athletic scholarship total (or their equivalencies) being offered for the team. That should be the SOLE criteria for categorizing teams in FBS, FCS, FCS-MM, D2, and D3.

Try to have an open mind.

[DetroitFlyer]

Please just go away. You appear to know next to nothing about the PFL, NEC or MAAC. You sir, and believe me I use the term very loosely, are about as close minded as they come. Please just go play with your little website and quit talking about the NEC, PFL and MAAC like you have a clue.

[Boogs]

Please just go away. You appear to know next to nothing about the PFL, NEC or MAAC. You sir, and believe me I use the term very loosely, are about as close minded as they come. Please just go play with your little website and quit talking about the NEC, PFL and MAAC like you have a clue.

I guess I don't understand. I offered specific examples to support my assertion. You on the other hand provided no defense other than a "go away" comment.

Let's debate and leave emotion out of the process.

A team with fewer athletic scholarships (significant differences) can never achieve long-term parity. If a mid-major can keep their 22 players healthy and never have to dip into their reserves during the season they'll get their wins against the better funded schools...at the beginning of the year before conference play begins.

The NCAA has a ridiculous overriding backdoor rule of having a D1 basketball team automatically makes you FCS. Nothing else matters if you have D1 basketball.

Stick to the facts and let's debate. That's why forums like this exist. Support your assertions.xcoffeex

My assertion: D1 basketball alone is not enough to qualify a school as FCS.

Let's get a counter response as the next comment...please.xcoffeex

[TheValleyRaider]

A team with fewer athletic scholarships (significant differences) can never achieve long-term parity. If a mid-major can keep their 22 players healthy and never have to dip into their reserves during the season they'll get their wins against the better funded schools...at the beginning of the year before conference play begins.

Who cares? It's not about long-term parity, it's about being competitive in the moment. Very few teams are truly competitive long-term, everyone has their ups and downs.


The NCAA has a ridiculous overriding backdoor rule of having a D1 basketball team automatically makes you FCS. Nothing else matters if you have D1 basketball.

My assertion: D1 basketball alone is not enough to qualify a school as FCS.

To be perfectly frank, your assertion doesn't matter. Your belief that Division I basketball shouldn't be a requirement for Division I football is truthfully rather silly. It is. Division I is Division I. You can't just pretend that these schools don't exist at the Division I level because they don't fit your ideal of a Division I school. Either they are or they aren't. The NCAA says they are and they have to be.

I'm really not sure why it's such a big deal to people that not every school in FCS doesn't spend as much money as possible on as many players and the finest facilities possible. If anything, you ought to be enjoying the fact that there are fewer schools eating into your potential recruit and victory pools. I just don't get it.

[Boogs]

Ok, since you won't reply back I'll say the NCAA would have a better situation if the criteria was as follows:

Proposal: Any school with D1 men's basketball shall be classified as Div. II in football if the school does not offer football scholarships or less than the stated amount for FCS.

That would make for more suitable competition for all parties involved.

[Boogs]

Who cares? It's not about long-term parity, it's about being competitive in the moment. Very few teams are truly competitive long-term, everyone has their ups and downs.



To be perfectly frank, your assertion doesn't matter. Your belief that Division I basketball shouldn't be a requirement for Division I football is truthfully rather silly. It is. Division I is Division I. You can't just pretend that these schools don't exist at the Division I level because they don't fit your ideal of a Division I school. Either they are or they aren't. The NCAA says they are and they have to be.

I'm really not sure why it's such a big deal to people that not every school in FCS doesn't spend as much money as possible on as many players and the finest facilities possible. If anything, you ought to be enjoying the fact that there are fewer schools eating into your potential recruit and victory pools. I just don't get it.

I don't know why you are getting involved. Colgate is not FCS-MM.

[TheValleyRaider]

I don't know why you are getting involved. Colgate is not FCS-MM.

I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to have an opinion xeyebrowx

Colgate is a non-scholarship program. I will also point out that I am a fan of FCS in general, and all it's forms.

I just really don't get the need some people seem to have of taking potshots at these "mid-majors" just because it doesn't conform to their "vision" of what Division I should be about. They don't get to make that call. They like being able to say they compete at the Division I level, they meet the NCAA's requirement, what's the problem?

[UAalum72]

Ok, since you won't reply back I'll say the NCAA would have a better situation if the criteria was as follows:

Proposal: Any school with D1 men's basketball shall be classified as Div. II in football if the school does not offer football scholarships or less than the stated amount for FCS.
Well, you don't make the rules, the NCAA does. There is no minimum. What minimum would you propose? And why that number, don't pull a number out of your...air.

And I wouldn't assume Savannah St. has more schollies than NEC teams. If you're some kind of expert, look it up. If there's no place to look it up, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other teams are a long way from the max too.

[Boogs]

Well, you don't make the rules, the NCAA does.

The point of this debate was the NCAA is doing a poor job and the criteria needs to be overhauled.


There is no minimum. What minimum would you propose? And why that number, don't pull a number out of your...air.

Suffice it to say there should be minimums (or better yet a range). The exact range is beyond the point of the debate.


And I wouldn't assume Savannah St. has more schollies than NEC teams. If you're some kind of expert, look it up. If there's no place to look it up, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other teams are a long way from the max too.

Nevertheless Don Hansen and the Sports Network don't have them classified as mid-major. Someone is doing research. I don't have to be personally doing it to arrive at reasonable conclusions.

I don't have a personal/emotionally based agenda like you exude to keep things as-is. xcoffeex

I'm not happy with the status quo. Like I said before let's keep the emotion out of the debate.

[Boogs]

Who cares? It's not about long-term parity, it's about being competitive in the moment. Very few teams are truly competitive long-term, everyone has their ups and downs.

Everyone will be competitive against suitable/like competition.


To be perfectly frank, your assertion doesn't matter.

It does matter because getting rid of mid-major polls takes away the fun of seeing teams battle for that number 1 MM spot when the playoffs are out of the question.


Your belief that Division I basketball shouldn't be a requirement for Division I football is truthfully rather silly. It is. Division I is Division I. You can't just pretend that these schools don't exist at the Division I level because they don't fit your ideal of a Division I school. Either they are or they aren't. The NCAA says they are and they have to be.

The point of the debate is the NCAA is doing a poor job of categorizing teams.


I'm really not sure why it's such a big deal to people that not every school in FCS doesn't spend as much money as possible on as many players and the finest facilities possible. If anything, you ought to be enjoying the fact that there are fewer schools eating into your potential recruit and victory pools. I just don't get it.

The categories are blurred right now. It's like having a separate men's and women's basketball team with both sexes allowed to play for either team.

We have dumb criteria in place.

Twenty-two guys that were hardly recruited who walk out onto a football field are categorized as Div. 1 if their school fields a men's D1 basketball program. If those same athletes walk onto the field and their fellow basketball counterparts are Div. 3, the team is categorized as D3. Please tell me how that is logical and good way to categorized who is D1 (FBS/FCS), D2 and D3?

Does the NCAA think those athletic scholarship basketball players are extremely good football players who will be playing both football and basketball at the school? The basketball guys rarely play football.

I thought height/weight/speed/agility (the quantity of athletic scholarships or equivalencies like we have at Colgate, etc.) determine which teams are FBS, FCS, D2 and D3. That's the way it use to be and the way it should be. xcoffeex

[Dane96]

Gotta love Boogs; 11 posts and pissing people off already. Note to Boogs: Don't refer to yourself in the third person (read your Don Hansen post). It isn't flattering.

[UAalum72]

NCAA Proposal 2006-110 (minimum of 50 grants-in-aid or $1.25 million for a conference to qualify for an autobid) was proposed in June 2006, passed the Football Competition Committee by a 6-5 vote in September, and was withdrawn on Jan. 7, 2007, the day of the Management Council's first review. There's no such proposal in the pipeline now.

I would have thought a conference that beat Lehigh, Delaware, Colgate, and Georgia Southern in the same season wouldn't have to put up with this crap. FCS is supposed to pride itself in 'deciding it on the field'.

[Boogs]

Gotta love Boogs; 11 posts and pissing people off already. Note to Boogs: Don't refer to yourself in the third person (read your Don Hansen post). It isn't flattering.

My goal was to cause a stir.xcoffeex

[aceinthehole]

The point of this debate was the NCAA is doing a poor job and the criteria needs to be overhauled.



Suffice it to say there should be minimums (or better yet a range). The exact range is beyond the point of the debate.



Nevertheless Don Hansen and the Sports Network don't have them classified as mid-major. Someone is doing research. I don't have to be personally doing it to arrive at reasonable conclusions.

I don't have a personal/emotionally based agenda like you exude to keep things as-is. xcoffeex

I'm not happy with the status quo. Like I said before let's keep the emotion out of the debate.

1. The NCAA doesn't define "mid-major," the media (Don Hansen, TSN, etc) does. The NCAA certifies college ATHLETIC PROGRAMS into three DIVISIONS (I, II, and III). Division I football has two SUBDIVISIONS (FBS and FCS), based on postseason participation and scholarship LIMITS.

2. The number and definition is the point. PL and Ivy League teams DO NOT award athletic scholarships, they award grants-in-aid (equivaliences). NEC teams offer up to 30 scholarships. All AQ-conference TEAMS DO NOT offer 65 scholarships.

3. Don Hansen annd Sports Network do not have any critera for "mid-major" other than to single out three FCS conferences (NEC, MAAC, and PFL) that happen to offer CONFERENCE IMPOSED aid limits and do not have an AQ to the NCAA playoffs. Don't assume they have done any research on the budget/equivalences the individual teams provided for football.

[TheValleyRaider]

It does matter because getting rid of mid-major polls takes away the fun of seeing teams battle for that number 1 MM spot when the playoffs are out of the question.

Playoffs are only out of the question if teams let them get out of the question. The criteria for the postseason is clear, and every one of those programs is eligible.


The categories are blurred right now. It's like having a separate men's and women's basketball team with both sexes allowed to play for either team.

That doesn't even make sense. You saying San Diego, Drake, CCSU, Albany, etc. don't have real football players?



Many of those football guys don't even know the guys personally on the basketball team!

...and? xeyebrowx


I thought height/weight/speed/agility (the quantity of athletic scholarships) determine which teams are FBS, FCS, D2 and D3. That's the way it use to be and the way it SHOULD be!

You're confusing Divisions and Subdivisions. Divisions (I, II, III) are broken down by the number of sports, the size of a school's athletic budget, and the maximum number of scholarships given.

The Subdivisions (FBS and FCS) are football only. There is no such thing as FBS baseball or anything like that. The differences include scholarship maximums, size of coaching staff, and others.

Schools are allowed to have individual teams 'play-up' in sports, including sports like hockey, lacrosse, and soccer. Football and basketball are (rightly) exempted from those waivers because they are high-profile, high-visibility sports which affect athletic departments in ways that the rest simply cannot. Schools like Dayton and others were accused of gaining an unfair advantage in their D-III football team because of the strength of their D-I basketball team.

You still haven't answered though, why does it matter if a school chooses not to meet the maximums?

[Boogs]

NCAA Proposal 2006-110 (minimum of 50 grants-in-aid or $1.25 million for a conference to qualify for an autobid) was proposed in June 2006, passed the Football Competition Committee by a 6-5 vote in September, and was withdrawn on Jan. 7, 2007, the day of the Management Council's first review. There's no such proposal in the pipeline now.

I would have thought a conference that beat Lehigh, Delaware, Colgate, and Georgia Southern in the same season wouldn't have to put up with this crap. FCS is supposed to pride itself in 'deciding it on the field'.

I don't care for the current criteria. Nothing personal against you. xcoffeex

[Boogs]

"You still haven't answered though, why does it matter if a school chooses not to meet the maximums?"

Not the issue we are debating.

The NCAA has too many wildcard criteria to allow D3 programs to be FCS.

The carpet of the basketball lounge $$$ should have no bearing on the categorizing of football programs if those same football student athletes still have to pay their own way like a regular student.xcoffeex

A highly skilled football player will go to a school that picks up the tab. The amount of carpet in the basketball concourse area and flashy arena lights has no bearing on changing that decision...unless the student-athlete is overly stupid. Looking at an extremely attractive basketball arena (taking a tour of the basketball arena) doesn't make the student-athlete football player faster, stronger, quicker. Working out with weights and cardiovascular exercise makes for a better football athlete, not basketball visualizations. xcoffeex

[TheValleyRaider]

"You still haven't answered though, why does it matter if a school chooses not to meet the maximums?"

Not the issue we are debating.

The NCAA has too many wildcard criteria to allow D3 programs to be FCS.

The carpet of the basketball lounge $$$ should have no bearing on the categorizing of football programs if those same football student athletes still have to pay their own way like a regular student.xcoffeex

A highly skilled football player will go to a school that picks up the tab. The amount of carpet in the basketball concourse area and flashy arena lights has no bearing on changing that decision...unless the student-athlete is stupid.

That's absolutely the issue we're debating. You don't think these schools should be D-I because they don't fund their football programs, I ask why does it matter.

A highly skilled recruit will go to the best program for him, which includes factors beyond whether or not his time in school is fully paid for.

[Boogs]

That's absolutely the issue we're debating. You don't think these schools should be D-I because they don't fund their football programs, I ask why does it matter.

A highly skilled recruit will go to the best program for him, which includes factors beyond whether or not his time in school is fully paid for.

Not true by way of correlation. FBS dominates over FCS because FBS has 85 rides.

There is a direct correlation between number of rides (or equivalencies) and the power of the team. The power of the team should be virtually the only criteria to say who is FBS, FCS, D2, and D3. It's objective and easy to track -- a range of rides for example:

75-85 = FBS
65-74 = FCS
1-64 = D2
0 = D3

The above is just an example of making ranges of rides for determing which schools are in which category.

The scenario you propose does happen, but not to the extent of changing the correlation. I never want to see NEC/MAAC schools like St. Peter's ever categorized as FCS ever again. xcoffeex

[TheValleyRaider]

Not true by way of correlation. FBS dominates over FCS because FBS has 85 rides.

There is a direct correlation between number of rides (or equivalencies) and the power of the team.

Sagarin disagrees with you


I never want to see...St. Peter's ever categorized as FCS ever again.

Unfortunately, we may never see St. Peter's football classified at any level every again :(

[UAalum72]

I never want to see NEC/MAAC schools like St. Peter's ever categorized as FCS ever again. xcoffeex
Putting the NEC and St. Peter's in the same sentence shows how out of touch you are.

[aceinthehole]

"You still haven't answered though, why does it matter if a school chooses not to meet the maximums?"

Not the issue we are debating.

The NCAA has too many wildcard criteria to allow D3 programs to be FCS.

The carpet of the basketball lounge $$$ should have no bearing on the categorizing of football programs if those same football student athletes still have to pay their own way like a regular student.xcoffeex

A highly skilled football player will go to a school that picks up the tab. The amount of carpet in the basketball concourse area and flashy arena lights has no bearing on changing that decision...unless the student-athlete is overly stupid. Looking at an extremely attractive basketball arena (taking a tour of the basketball arena) doesn't make the student-athlete football player faster, stronger, quicker. Working out with weights and cardiovascular exercise makes for a better football athlete, not basketball visualizations. xcoffeex

Wrong. The NCAA has clear critera regarding DIVISION classification, and football SUBDIVISIONS. All FCS football teams are from DIVISION I schools.

I don't get your point with basketball, its not related to football in any way.

You realize that Marist, an FCS football program which you may choose to define as "mid-major" reached the 2nd round of the NIT last year by beating Oklahoma State (FBS). Also, CCSU and Albany, two more FCS programs who some wish to classify as "mid-major", reached the NCAA tourney last year. (BTW - it was the Danes 2nd trip to the tourney in as many years, and CCSU's 3rd trip in the past 7 years)

You clearly have a reading problem. ALL FCS teams are D-I schools.

[Go...gate]

Closet? PFL, NEC, and MAAC aren't legitimate programs. They were booted out because they have D1 basketball programs and their poorer D3 counterparts moaned and groaned to the NCAA and got their way.

The Ivy/SWAC leagues are eligible but they choose not to participate out of past traditions. The PFL, NEC, and MAAC are eligible but they would get humiliated on the scoreboard in MOST years.

Just saw this. While the MAAC is struggling, I believe the PFL and NEC have had some notable wins in this and recent years. For example, NEC teams have defeated Georgia Southern, Delaware and Colgate - all recent FCS champions or finalists. Drake's win over ISU has also made a strong statement for progress in that conference, which may absorb one of more of the present MAAC teams.

[Go...gate]

Wrong. The NCAA has clear critera regarding DIVISION classification, and football SUBDIVISIONS. All FCS football teams are from DIVISION I schools.

I don't get your point with basketball, its not related to football in any way.

You realize that Marist, an FCS football program which you may choose to define as "mid-major" reached the 2nd round of the NIT last year by beating Oklahoma State (FBS). Also, CCSU and Albany, two more FCS programs who some wish to classify as "mid-major", reached the NCAA tourney last year. (BTW - it was the Danes 2nd trip to the tourney in as many years, and CCSU's 3rd trip in the past 7 years)

You clearly have a reading problem. ALL FCS teams are D-I schools.

Not to mention Marist's women's program, which was in the Sweet Sixteen!

[hebmskebm]

I think what Boogs is trying to say is that simply having a non-scholly football program for the sake of boosting ther number tuition-paying students at your college is not a Division I value, its a Division III value. Division I is supposed to mean a committment (financial and physical) to putting the best collegiate athletics on the field. Im not saying all the mid-majors run their programs like that, and i dont think teams should be forced into giving x number of schlorships or even giving schlorships at all, but there are at least half a dozen teams skating by doing the "bare minimum" and calling themselves Division I, when they really are a Div III in sheeps clothing, and theyre really in a way kind of abusing the Div I system.

[TheValleyRaider]

I think what Boogs is trying to say is that simply having a non-scholly football program for the sake of boosting ther number tuition-paying students at your college is not a Division I value, its a Division III value. Division I is supposed to mean a committment (financial and physical) to putting the best collegiate athletics on the field. Im not saying all the mid-majors run their programs like that, and i dont think teams should be forced into giving x number of schlorships or even giving schlorships at all, but there are at least half a dozen teams skating by doing the "bare minimum" and calling themselves Division I, when they really are a Div III in sheeps clothing, and theyre really in a way kind of abusing the Div I system.

I guess I just don't really see how this is "abusing" the D-I system. If these schools want more students, they don't need football teams to do it. It's as much a philosophical decision not to have scholarships as it is a financial one, and that philosophy isn't "how many ways can we cut corners on this"

[hebmskebm]

I guess I just don't really see how this is "abusing" the D-I system. If these schools want more students, they don't need football teams to do it. It's as much a philosophical decision not to have scholarships as it is a financial one, and that philosophy isn't "how many ways can we cut corners on this"

i agree a good portion of nonscholly schools do not run their programs like that, and do make concerted efforts to suceed at the D1 level. But the LaSalles and Valpos of the world just seem content to run their programs like a D3, bring in D3 talent, but still be able to advertise themselves as D1 and that isnt right.

[hebmskebm]

Furthermore, I think raising the minimum number of D1 games a team plays in a season to 10 (especially with the 12 game season coming up) would go a long way in weeding out the "philosophy" non-schollies from the "cheapie" non-schollies. all im saying is, if youre D1, step up and act like it. You dont have to be appy state, but you cant get shut out by D3 teams and still call yourself a D1 program with a straight face.

[TheValleyRaider]

i agree a good portion of nonscholly schools do not run their programs like that, and do make concerted efforts to suceed at the D1 level. But the LaSalles and Valpos of the world just seem content to run their programs like a D3, bring in D3 talent, but still be able to advertise themselves as D1 and that isnt right.

But why is that not right? What is so wrong with that? Does it really affect the rest of Division I if LaSalle loses all of their games, including a bunch to D-IIIs?

[Boogs]

I think what Boogs is trying to say is that simply having a non-scholly football program for the sake of boosting ther number tuition-paying students at your college is not a Division I value, its a Division III value. Division I is supposed to mean a committment (financial and physical) to putting the best collegiate athletics on the field. Im not saying all the mid-majors run their programs like that, and i dont think teams should be forced into giving x number of schlorships or even giving schlorships at all, but there are at least half a dozen teams skating by doing the "bare minimum" and calling themselves Division I, when they really are a Div III in sheeps clothing, and theyre really in a way kind of abusing the Div I system.

Could not have said it any better myself.

The current criteria for categorizing schools into divisions is all wrong.
The formula should be based on the number of free rides (and equilvalencies), and the general population of boys in grades 14 (soph) thru 16th (senior) for football. Those two variables are highly correlated with team strength.

[UAalum72]

Furthermore, I think raising the minimum number of D1 games a team plays in a season to 10 (especially with the 12 game season coming up) would go a long way in weeding out the "philosophy" non-schollies from the "cheapie" non-schollies. all im saying is, if youre D1, step up and act like it. You dont have to be appy state, but you cant get shut out by D3 teams and still call yourself a D1 program with a straight face.
All of the Northeast Conference teams meet this criteria already, except for CCSU this year, which took Merrimack as a late replacement so they only have nine, but is also playing Bowl Subdivision Western Mich. The league didn't get shut out either, winning the four sub-div. I games by a combined 162-68. That's better than some so-called power conferences.

[Seahawks Fan]

My goal was to cause a stir.xcoffeex


Is that why you have Iona at 4 and Appalachian State at 27? This is silly.

xeekx

[aceinthehole]

Could not have said it any better myself.

The current criteria for categorizing schools into divisions is all wrong.
The formula should be based on the number of free rides (and equilvalencies), and the general population of boys in grades 14 (soph) thru 16th (senior) for football. Those two variables are highly correlated with team strength.

The NCAA governs intercollegic athletics, football "criteria" doesn't govern Divisions.

As others have also indicated to you multiple times, the NCAA classifies schools into 3 divisions based on the ENTIRE ATHLETIC PROGRAM, not based on student population.

We know there are many FCS programs that hve a larger enrollment than some FBS programs. How many I-AA teams have a bigger enrollment than Rice? A: a lot!

This is not HS football, based on student enrollment, that is just silly.

[rmutv]

Dude, this isn't anything like busing kids to another end of town. This is more like a group of people inflicted with mental retardation (PFL/NEC/MAAC) that have to have their own classes and separate standards.

Keep the emotion and ridiculous analogies out of a debate, UAalum72.


The fact that anyone on this message board is still trying to argue rationally with Boogs following the above comment is baffling.

Don't waste your time, folks.

[Seahawks Fan]

The fact that anyone on this message board is still trying to argue rationally with Boogs following the above comment is baffling.

Don't waste your time, folks.


Agreed. I'm out of this thread. Enjoy.

xoopsx xoopsx

[Boogs]

aceinthehole, you keep bringing up current NCAA bylaws.

The point of the conversation was refining the criteria. If you could tie-in your points in support of a statement in opposition to my "basketball isn't enough to put teams in FCS" that would be great.

You aren't making sense.

[Boogs]

The NCAA governs intercollegic athletics, football "criteria" doesn't govern Divisions.

As others have also indicated to you multiple times, the NCAA classifies schools into 3 divisions based on the ENTIRE ATHLETIC PROGRAM, not based on student population.

We know there are many FCS programs that hve a larger enrollment than some FBS programs. How many I-AA teams have a bigger enrollment than Rice? A: a lot!

This is not HS football, based on student enrollment, that is just silly.

Basing the football category (or any sport for that matter) based on the ENTIRE ATHLETIC PROGRAM is dumb!