What will come of the 4-year moratorium on NCAA transitions?

[Maroons]

As usual for an offseason, everyone is speculating about teams moving to the BCS and the FCS. In all of this discussion, a key point is being overlooked in my opinion.

That point is, what will become of the 4-year NCAA moratorium on schools changing divisions?

It seems as though everyone is assuming that it will expire and teams will be free to continue moving about from division to division. I'm not sure that is the case. Wasn't the point of the moratorium to give the NCAA time to study the classifications between divisions and suggest alterations? If so, what kind of alterations couldn't that have an impact on moves?

I have corrected my gaffe on the length of the moratorium.

[aztecjim]

1)I thought it was four years. No moving until fall 2011.
2)I am suspecting there could be another shakeup of how the divisions are set up. The big boys will try,again,to limit FBS membership. Maybe some
sort of compromise on non scholarship football schools being forced in to the FCS. Way back in a college sports management course I developed a plan based on the size of a schools' budget. I can't remember my exact formula but it involved each school getting a score and the top 25 % of football playing schools were D-I,next 25% D-II,next 25% was D-III,and the bottom 25% was D-IV(yes Division IV) A school might be in two different divisions based on how many schools played a sport. You also could not move up or down on your own. The only way a Texas State or Jacksonville State could move up was to increase its score into the next higher 25%. A school could also be bumped by a school moving up.

[TexasTerror]

It is four years...

I think we're all waiting to see what the NCAA decides to do. Probably some sort of changes to the requirements of each subdivision and membership quotas of some sort as it relates to the divisions (was it Div II or Div III that was having membership issues?).

It's going to be fun to see what happens -- especially as we all acknowledge there's some sort of massive conference shakeup forthcoming...

[appst97]

hopefully the requirements will set minimum as well as maximum scholarships for schools in the divisions

[FCS Preview]

Way back in a college sports management course I developed a plan based on the size of a schools' budget. I can't remember my exact formula but it involved each school getting a score and the top 25 % of football playing schools were D-I,next 25% D-II,next 25% was D-III,and the bottom 25% was D-IV(yes Division IV) A school might be in two different divisions based on how many schools played a sport. You also could not move up or down on your own. The only way a Texas State or Jacksonville State could move up was to increase its score into the next higher 25%. A school could also be bumped by a school moving up.

That's insane. How would conferences schedule games, not knowing if teams could be moving in and out? What would happen if a D-II school in say, Georgia, moved up, and a school in say, California, moved down? Does the Georgia school have to play as an Independent because there's no room in a conference for them? Do they keep their D-II schedule while being called a D-I school?

And what if a school is moved up from D-II because of their budget, but they don't want to add 30+ scholarships? You'd have a bunch more of limited scholarship schools.

And NCAA has always had 4 classifications, at least since the mid-70s, but it was I-A, I-AA, II and III; or FBS, FCS, II and III.

[DFW HOYA]

hopefully the requirements will set minimum as well as maximum scholarships for schools in the divisions

If I-AA/FCS is considered the second of two NCAA D-I subdivisions, there still won't be a minimum.The Ivy League will see to that.

[appst97]

If I-AA/FCS is considered the second of two NCAA D-I subdivisions, there still won't be a minimum.The Ivy League will see to that.

they don't compete for the FCS trophy why do they have to be a part of the subdivision?

[DFW HOYA]

they don't compete for the FCS trophy why do they have to be a part of the subdivision?

Well, there are a number of other teams that don't "compete" for the I-AA/FCS title: Big South, SWAC, Pioneer, NEC, Pioneer....are they no longer part of the equation as well?

This is not as simple as a "scholarship" argument. There are "non-scholarship" schools spending as much as $4 million a year on football, and others getting 20,000 or more a game. By contrast, there are scholarship schools getting by with minimum NCAA standards and budgets that are not even remotely competitive in other sports.

For someone to tell six conferences that they are no longer welcome in Division I would invite any number of lawsuits which the NCAA has a poor track record in defending.

[yosef1969]

they don't compete for the FCS trophy why do they have to be a part of the subdivision?

Seriously, why do non-scholarships and non-participants have to be anything other than D-I non-scholarship or D-I B or D-I Non-Participant, insert your name here, whatever. They don't meet the minimums for FBS, what is wrong with telling them they have minimums to meet for FCS. Given that they don't participate in the playoffs what do they add to FCS?

If someone can show that a non-scholarship can actually compete I could possibly be persuaded that they belong in the FCS but I haven't see any evidence of that to this point. San Diego and Drake??? I do think Albany should be applauded for at least trying to improve their OOC schedule and see where they really stand.

[FCS Preview]

they don't compete for the FCS trophy why do they have to be a part of the subdivision?

and the non-BCS conferences don't compete for the BCS Championship, so why should they be a part of that subdivision?

[yosef1969]

Well, there are a number of other teams that don't "compete" for the I-AA/FCS title: Big South, SWAC, Pioneer, NEC, Pioneer....are they no longer part of the equation as well?

This is not as simple as a "scholarship" argument. There are "non-scholarship" schools spending as much as $4 million a year on football, and others getting 20,000 or more a game. By contrast, there are scholarship schools getting by with minimum NCAA standards and budgets that are not even remotely competitive in other sports.

For someone to tell six conferences that they are no longer welcome in Division I would invite any number of lawsuits which the NCAA has a poor track record in defending.

SWAC and IVY choose not to participate, no AQ and the selection committee keeps the others out. Big South has had a participant. No one's telling them they aren't welcome in D-I but they do not necessarily have to be put in FCS, there is always the option of separate non-scholarship, non-participant subdivision of D-I.

[yosef1969]

and the non-BCS conferences don't compete for the BCS Championship, so why should they be a part of that subdivision?

Not a choice, if they win enough and are invited they will participate, big difference.xnodx

[yosef1969]

It's been mentioned here before but many believe that the moratorium is just as much about preserving D-II as it has to do with D-I. Their is little to keep a school in division II if D-I requires no minimums, maybe that's scholarships but maybe it's seating capacity, staffing, a comibination of it all, etc. With little costs upfront an D-II can move up and go after the dollars in other sports, bball in particular because they can conceivably do so with no increase in their football budget.

IMHO committment to compete should be the goal of any minimum.

[dbackjon]

I really think that at the end of the moratorium, there will be stricter D-I standards - raising the number of required sports sponsored. This will force schools to either spend more on athletics (big schools are already over the minimum as it is), or drop down to D-II

[FCS Preview]

It's been mentioned here before but many believe that the moratorium is just as much about preserving D-II as it has to do with D-I. Their is little to keep a school in division II if D-I requires no minimums, maybe that's scholarships but maybe it's seating capacity, staffing, a comibination of it all, etc. With little costs upfront an D-II can move up and go after the dollars in other sports, bball in particular because they can conceivably do so with no increase in their football budget.

IMHO committment to compete should be the goal of any minimum.


And what schools have moved up voluntarily to FCS from D-II? And of those, how many are full scholarship or moving towards full scholarship?

[ERASU2113]

I think even after you 4 years...there's still steps that have to be done as long as a probationary period that takes a number of years on top of the 4 year hold.

I'm not sure if I worded that correctly. I was told that in early August after the ASU fan fest by Coulson. Only time I heard it mentioned.

[catdaddy2402]

With little costs upfront an D-II can move up and go after the dollars in other sports, bball in particular because they can conceivably do so with no increase in their football budget.
IMO this is the biggest reason for the moratorium. Division I as a whole wants to stem the tide of Division II schools trying to move up and get a piece of the NCAA basketball pie. There may be some small hurdles put in place to stop the move from FCS to FBS, but IMO the main goal is to cut back on the number of schools moving from Div II to Div I.

[appst97]

and the non-BCS conferences don't compete for the BCS Championship, so why should they be a part of that subdivision?

correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Boise St in a BCS bowl last year and isn't Hawaii in one tonight

[FCS Preview]

correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Boise St in a BCS bowl last year and isn't Hawaii in one tonight

And neither is competing for the BCS championship.

You need to finish #1 or #2 in the BCS regular season standings to compete for the BCS championship. Playing in the Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl is great, but it's not the same thing.

[appst97]

And neither is competing for the BCS championship.

You need to finish #1 or #2 in the BCS regular season standings to compete for the BCS championship. Playing in the Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl is great, but it's not the same thing.

That is one of many problems in a flawed systems

[yosef1969]

And what schools have moved up voluntarily to FCS from D-II? And of those, how many are full scholarship or moving towards full scholarship?

I don't claim to know all the schools but I am aware of Campbell University for one, most of the NEC and Pioneer Conferences. If you read the post I did say it is not only about scholarships but about committment to compete.

Is there nothing you would change about FCS? Do you think the NCAA should leave this subdivision exactly as is. Seriously It doesn't take alot of intellect to sit back and shoot holes in proposals or suggestions. The real work involves finding ways to make to make improvements and implementing the processes. Not saying you should ignore the challenges but to allow challenges to prevent growth is lazy and will ultimately result in failure.

[appst97]

I love the I-AA playoffs, and I really like the fact that (for the most part) I can travel to all of Apps away games, but, until the overal quality of the bottom 60-70% of the subdivision is raised, then I feel we(fcs nation) have major weeknesses with our product

[Fresno St. Alum]

The moratorium was put in place to stop the moving up from D-II to D-I until 2011. You could be looking at a 1+5 or 1+6 model instead of a 1+4(1 year exploratory, 4 years provisional member) like it has been.

D-II wants to add more members. D-III has 410 schools with men's basketball(including provisional member) there was talk of D-III adding the whole NAIA and breaking off into D-III & D-IV.

[FCS Preview]

I don't claim to know all the schools but I am aware of Campbell University for one, most of the NEC and Pioneer Conferences. If you read the post I did say it is not only about scholarships but about committment to compete.

Is there nothing you would change about FCS? Do you think the NCAA should leave this subdivision exactly as is. Seriously It doesn't take alot of intellect to sit back and shoot holes in proposals or suggestions. The real work involves finding ways to make to make improvements and implementing the processes. Not saying you should ignore the challenges but to allow challenges to prevent growth is lazy and will ultimately result in failure.
If you read my post, I said "voluntarily". I believe Dayton and other schools were caught in the NCAA mandate to move your football teams up to D-I if your basketball team was D-I. And I think many of those were non-scholarship D-III teams.

Right now, the only change I would make is seeding the whole playoff field, or at least the Top 8. If leagues do not want to participate in the playoffs, I have no problem with that. If they don't want to offer scholarships, or don't want to offer the maximum, I don't have a problem with that either.

[aztecjim]

>>
That's insane. How would conferences schedule games, not knowing if teams could be moving in and out? What would happen if a D-II school in say, Georgia, moved up, and a school in say, California, moved down? Does the Georgia school have to play as an Independent because there's no room in a conference for them? Do they keep their D-II schedule while being called a D-I school?<<

Like I said I don't recall all

And what if a school is moved up from D-II because of their budget, but they don't want to add 30+ scholarships? You'd have a bunch more of limited scholarship schools.

And NCAA has always had 4 classifications, at least since the mid-70s, but it was I-A, I-AA, II and III; or FBS, FCS, II and III.

[DetroitFlyer]

Seriously, why do non-scholarships and non-participants have to be anything other than D-I non-scholarship or D-I B or D-I Non-Participant, insert your name here, whatever. They don't meet the minimums for FBS, what is wrong with telling them they have minimums to meet for FCS. Given that they don't participate in the playoffs what do they add to FCS?

If someone can show that a non-scholarship can actually compete I could possibly be persuaded that they belong in the FCS but I haven't see any evidence of that to this point. San Diego and Drake??? I do think Albany should be applauded for at least trying to improve their OOC

schedule and see where they really stand.

Applaud Albany.... Dayton 42 Albany 21. Yep Albany's schedule sure helped them against the lowly Flyers of the PFL. In 2006, if I remember right, Albany beat Delaware and did not win the NEC. The team that did, Monmouth also lost to the lowly PFL champion San Diego....

Sadly, so many of you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

[Col Hogan]

Seriously, why do non-scholarships and non-participants have to be anything other than D-I non-scholarship or D-I B or D-I Non-Participant, insert your name here, whatever. They don't meet the minimums for FBS, what is wrong with telling them they have minimums to meet for FCS. Given that they don't participate in the playoffs what do they add to FCS?

If someone can show that a non-scholarship can actually compete I could possibly be persuaded that they belong in the FCS but I haven't see any evidence of that to this point. San Diego and Drake??? I do think Albany should be applauded for at least trying to improve their OOC schedule and see where they really stand.

Where are these minimums you speak of written down?

[BEAR]

...........by the time this is fully discussed xcoffeex ......it will be over. xrulesx

[UAalum72]

Where are these minimums you speak of written down?
The NCAA Division I manual

http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2007-08/2007-08_d1_manual.pdf

Division I requirements begin on page 324. FBS requirement on page 329. Summary chart on page 334

[Col Hogan]

The NCAA Division I manual

http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2007-08/2007-08_d1_manual.pdf

Division I requirements begin on page 324. FBS requirement on page 329. Summary chart on page 334

Thank you, and CONGRATS on reaching the 1K post mark!!! xthumbsupx

[yosef1969]

If you read my post, I said "voluntarily". I believe Dayton and other schools were caught in the NCAA mandate to move your football teams up to D-I if your basketball team was D-I. And I think many of those were non-scholarship D-III teams.

Right now, the only change I would make is seeding the whole playoff field, or at least the Top 8. If leagues do not want to participate in the playoffs, I have no problem with that. If they don't want to offer scholarships, or don't want to offer the maximum, I don't have a problem with that either.

I saw voluntarily but I chose to ignore it because it is all voluntary and a perfect example of exactly what i am talking about. It's just as cheap to maintain FCS status in order to keep the other sports, mainly basketball, at D-I as it would be to drop down to D-II thus watering down FCS.

I agree on the seeding, finally one thing!

[yosef1969]

Applaud Albany.... Dayton 42 Albany 21. Yep Albany's schedule sure helped them against the lowly Flyers of the PFL. In 2006, if I remember right, Albany beat Delaware and did not win the NEC. The team that did, Monmouth also lost to the lowly PFL champion San Diego....

Sadly, so many of you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.


What's sad is you can't seem to understand that SOS matters and the point was that at least with Albany playing a better schedule the committee and the rest of the world knew exactly what they were dealing with and that Albany has work to do before being ready for the playoffs but at least they are making an attempt. Delaware was 5-6 last year and did not make the playoffs last year. They defeated only one team with a winning record. Find a better example to put me in place next time.

Your team can continue to play nobody, you can continue to bitch about it and throw around corruption allegations and the selection committee will continue to ignore your team come playoff time.

[FCS Preview]

I saw voluntarily but I chose to ignore it because it is all voluntary and a perfect example of exactly what i am talking about. It's just as cheap to maintain FCS status in order to keep the other sports, mainly basketball, at D-I as it would be to drop down to D-II thus watering down FCS.

I agree on the seeding, finally one thing!

It wasn't voluntary, it was mandatory. St. Johns, Iona, Dayton...all D-III schools (and there were more) who were forced by the NCAA to move up to D-I football in order to maintain their D-I status in other sports. SJU eventually dropped football...but a cost-containment program is one way to keep a sport alive at a school.

And don't forget -- with Title IX, it's not that simple to just add 63 men's scholarships.

[Black and Gold Express]

Applaud Albany.... Dayton 42 Albany 21. Yep Albany's schedule sure helped them against the lowly Flyers of the PFL. In 2006, if I remember right, Albany beat Delaware and did not win the NEC. The team that did, Monmouth also lost to the lowly PFL champion San Diego....

Sadly, so many of you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

Flyer, still waiting for you guys to start putting action behind words. Talking a big game, wanting respect, but doing nothing to earn it. Typical NS I-AA nonsense.

And the chance to earn respect is waiting for you in Boone in 2007. All you gotta do is have your AD call.

[DFW HOYA]

It wasn't voluntary, it was mandatory. St. Johns, Iona, Dayton...all D-III schools (and there were more) who were forced by the NCAA to move up to D-I football in order to maintain their D-I status in other sports.

Not exactly. The 27 affected schools were not going to lose Division I status, only that their football programs were no longer able to play outside the Division I structure. The choice wasn't Div. I vs. III, it was Division I or no NCAA football at all.

Not all were D-III football schools, either. A smaller number of schools were bumped up from D-II at the time of the decision, incl. Butler and Evansville.

And not all are still in I-AA/FCS. Alabama-Birmingham was bumped up in 1993 and it is now in C-USA.

[FCS Preview]

Not exactly. The 27 affected schools were not going to lose Division I status, only that their football programs were no longer able to play outside the Division I structure. The choice wasn't Div. I vs. III, it was Division I or no NCAA football at all..
Or IIRC, move everything down to D-III or D-II. I believe the choices were:

1) Move FB to D-I
2) Drop FB
3) Move all other programs down to the same level as FB (D-II or D-III)

I don't think anyone picked #3.

Do you have a list of all 27 schools affected?



And not all are still in I-AA/FCS. Alabama-Birmingham was bumped up in 1993 and it is now in C-USA.

And some have dropped FB completely.

[DFW HOYA]

Do you have a list of all 27 schools affected?

Here's the 27 I was aware of:

Alabama Birmingham (D-III to I-AA Independent, now C-USA)
Butler (D-II to Pioneer)
Southern Utah (D-II to I-AA independent to Great West)
CSU-Sacramento (D-II to I-AA independent, now Big Sky)
Canisius (D-III to MAAC, dropped sport)
Central Conn. St. (D-II to I-AA independent, now NEC)
Charleston Southern (D-III to I-AA independent to Big South)
Davidson (D-III to Pioneer)
Dayton (D-III to Pioneer)
Drake (D-III to Pioneer)
Duquesne (D-III to MAAC, now NEC)
Evansville (D-II to Pioneer, dropped sport)
Georgetown (D-III to MAAC, now Patriot)
Hofstra (D-III to I-AA independent to A-10/CAA)
Iona (D-III to MAAC, now I-AA independent)
Marist (D-III to I-AA independent to MAAC, now I-AA indepenent)
Portland St. (D-II to I-AA independent, now Big Sky)
San Diego (D-III to Pioneer)
Santa Clara (D-II, dropped sport before upgrade)
St. Francis (D-III to I-AA independent to NEC)
St. John's (D-II to MAAC to NEC to MAAC, dropped sport)
St. Mary's (D-II to I-AA independent, dropped sport)
St. Peter's (D-III to MAAC, dropped sport)
Siena (D-III to MAAC, dropped sport)
Southern Utah (D-II to I-AA independent to Great West)
Valparaiso (D-II to Pioneer)
Wagner (D-III to I-AA independent to NEC)

[FCS Preview]

Here's the 27 I was aware of:

Alabama Birmingham (D-III to I-AA Independent, now C-USA)
Butler (D-II to Pioneer)
Southern Utah (D-II to I-AA independent to Great West)
CSU-Sacramento (D-II to I-AA independent, now Big Sky)
Canisius (D-III to MAAC, dropped sport)
Central Conn. St. (D-II to I-AA independent, now NEC)
Charleston Southern (D-III to I-AA independent to Big South)
Davidson (D-III to Pioneer)
Dayton (D-III to Pioneer)
Drake (D-III to Pioneer)
Duquesne (D-III to MAAC, now NEC)
Evansville (D-II to Pioneer, dropped sport)
Georgetown (D-III to MAAC, now Patriot)
Hofstra (D-III to I-AA independent to A-10/CAA)
Iona (D-III to MAAC, now I-AA independent)
Marist (D-III to I-AA independent to MAAC, now I-AA indepenent)
Portland St. (D-II to I-AA independent, now Big Sky)
San Diego (D-III to Pioneer)
Santa Clara (D-II, dropped sport before upgrade)
St. Francis (D-III to I-AA independent to NEC)
St. John's (D-II to MAAC to NEC to MAAC, dropped sport)
St. Mary's (D-II to I-AA independent, dropped sport)
St. Peter's (D-III to MAAC, dropped sport)
Siena (D-III to MAAC, dropped sport)
Southern Utah (D-II to I-AA independent to Great West)
Valparaiso (D-II to Pioneer)
Wagner (D-III to I-AA independent to NEC)

Hofstra is not part of that list. The Flying Dutchmen began the process of moving up prior to the NCAA mandate. St. John's was D-III not D-II. I know because in 1989 Hofstra knocked the Johnnies out of a D-III playoff berth with a huge win at their stadium.

But looking at the list, regardless of what division they were the 26 (not counting Hofstra):

7 of the 26 dropped the sport completely. (27%)
8 of the 26 are playing non-scholarship FB (31%)
4 of the 26 are playing limited-scholarship FB (15%)
6 of the 26 are playing scholarship FB. (23%)
1 of the 26 eventually moved up to I-A/FBS (4%)

[walliver]

Getting back to the origian question "What will come of the 4-year moratorium on NCAA transitions?", my answer is "not a lot".

Some people would like to see more (sub-)divisions like high school football. Georgia goes (A,AA,AAA,AAAA,AAAAA), some states go to AAAAAA, and South Carolina goes (A division 2, A division 1, AA, AAA, AAAA division 2, AAAA division 1). I personally disagree with creating more subdivisions. It might increase that chances of Wofford winning the NCAA Division I FCS subdivision small private sub-sub-division Methodist neighboorhood National Championship, however.:D

The sticky points for the NCAA are FCS and D-II. FBS is what it is and will always be the football big dance. Non-scholarship athletics is simple. FCS and D-II are limited scholarship options, and both classifications have the same problem - a broad range of funding options.

My solution would be to eliminate D-II altogether and create "Scholarship" and "Non-scholarship" Divisions. For football and basketball, cost-containment subdivisions could be created. For example, football could be 65-85 scholarships (current FBS structure) - some things never change
45-64 scholarships - Football Championship sub-Division I
1-45 scholarships - Football Championship sub-Division II
0 scholarships - Football Championship sub-division III

Similar divisions could be created for basketball (probably two). Deciding how to divide the basketball championship tournament windfall could be problematic - but this could be overcome.

Allow each scholarship school to decide how to fund their football and basketball teams.

I doubt the NCAA would go for my simple solution and will probably create a complicated structure desugned for job protection for NCAA employees. Unfortunately for the NCAA, it represents a virtual monopoly, and is not on firm legal footing when trying to force teams to move down or prevent teams from moving up.

In the end, a think the 4 year moratorium will accomplish next to nothing.

[FCS Preview]

Similar divisions could be created for basketball (probably two). Deciding how to divide the basketball championship tournament windfall could be problematic - but this could be overcome.

Allow each scholarship school to decide how to fund their football and basketball teams

Why would we need a similar structure for Basketball? There are no D-I schools that don't offer the maximum (13) scholarships.

[walliver]

Why would we need a similar structure for Basketball? There are no D-I schools that don't offer the maximum (13) scholarships.

My proposal involved merging D-I and D-II into a "Scholarship division". Splitting basket into two divisions would exist primarily to help the current D-II schools.

[FCS Preview]

My proposal involved merging D-I and D-II into a "Scholarship division". Splitting basket into two divisions would exist primarily to help the current D-II schools.
I understand a football split. But there are around 320 D-I basketball schools, and 280 D-II basketball schools. The current split is about right, I think.

[DFW HOYA]

My solution would be to eliminate D-II altogether and create "Scholarship" and "Non-scholarship" Divisions. For football and basketball, cost-containment subdivisions could be created. For example, football could be 65-85 scholarships (current FBS structure) - some things never change
45-64 scholarships - Football Championship sub-Division I
1-45 scholarships - Football Championship sub-Division II
0 scholarships - Football Championship sub-division III

...Allow each scholarship school to decide how to fund their football and basketball teams.


Three questions:

1. How do you define "scholarship"? Is the Patriot League I, II, or III?
2. How does a school define it? If 64 players at Iona get a $1000 scholarship to attend, are they counted as "scholarship" athletes?
3. What is the status of schools offering mixed (aid and merit) grants? If Richmond wants to give a kid a one-third scholarship and cover the rest with financial aid, where does that stand?

[appfan2008]

would be very hard to figure all of that out...

[yosef1969]

Three questions:

1. How do you define "scholarship"? Is the Patriot League I, II, or III?
2. How does a school define it? If 64 players at Iona get a $1000 scholarship to attend, are they counted as "scholarship" athletes?
3. What is the status of schools offering mixed (aid and merit) grants? If Richmond wants to give a kid a one-third scholarship and cover the rest with financial aid, where does that stand?

I don't want to speak for anyone else but for discussion purposes here I would say that "Scholarship" would be any funding that the school provides and the student does not have to pay back. I know it's not that simple and perhaps terms should be changed to fully funded or something similar to encompass traditional athletic scholarships, grants in aid, etc.

The minimum wouldn't be related to how many students share the scholarships, it would be the total value of the minimum scholarships. If I'm not mistaken that's how FBS operates now. The 85 scholarships can be dispersed over, say for example, 100 players with particial awards.

[Keeper]

august 7, 2007 newswire:
The (NCAA)board (of directors) also approved a four-year moratorium on adding more Division I schools.
Next year, there will be 331 schools competing at the Division I level and (Division I Vice-President David) Berst said 23 more are being grandfathered in. But the board wants a committee to establish new Division I standards before approving any more applicants.
"We've seen a continuing desire to move to Division I and we just think it's time to stop and vette that process and take a look at the impact of growth,'' Berst said.


xtwocentsx This statement seems to be nothing but about the size of
Division I, and about Division II schools moving up. Nothing about division
reclassification or in-division standards. The main question of what
will come of the moratorium is what new standards will be introduced?
Probably nothing along the lines of minimum attendance or scholarship
lines, more likely the minimum number of sports programs competing and/or
total number of particpants, the latter likely affecting football.

The new standards will likely not affect programs currently in or have
announced move to Division I. They are already "in". FBS standard is
another issue and is being addressed by the attendance mandate.
Schools are still free to move FBS from FCS, no moratoriam there.

The D-I basketball tourney is largest revenue entity still under NCAA
control, and the dispersal is more and more diluted with new members.
Other than stemming the flow of institutions INTO Division I, not much
will change. Major division reclassification is overdue, and until there
is any significant discussion of that by the NCAA, any speculation of
that by us is futile.

[Fresno St. Alum]

D-I basketball 347, fbs 120, fcs 126 (includes all move ups) S.Alabama not part of the fb schools until 2011

D-II basketball 281, football 152 (includes all move ups, newbies)
Lewis not part of fb schools. They should announce they are starting it this month

D-III basketball 410, football 243 (includes all move ups, newbies)

NAIA basketball D-I 109, D-II 140 (includes all newbies, D-I includes the whole conference moving to D-I in 08-09) football 91

[yosef1969]

august 7, 2007 newswire:
The (NCAA)board (of directors) also approved a four-year moratorium on adding more Division I schools.
Next year, there will be 331 schools competing at the Division I level and (Division I Vice-President David) Berst said 23 more are being grandfathered in. But the board wants a committee to establish new Division I standards before approving any more applicants.
"We've seen a continuing desire to move to Division I and we just think it's time to stop and vette that process and take a look at the impact of growth,'' Berst said.


xtwocentsx This statement seems to be nothing but about the size of
Division I, and about Division II schools moving up. Nothing about division
reclassification or in-division standards. The main question of what
will come of the moratorium is what new standards will be introduced?
Probably nothing along the lines of minimum attendance or scholarship
lines, more likely the minimum number of sports programs competing and/or
total number of particpants, the latter likely affecting football.

The new standards will likely not affect programs currently in or have
announced move to Division I. They are already "in". FBS standard is
another issue and is being addressed by the attendance mandate.
Schools are still free to move FBS from FCS, no moratoriam there.

The D-I basketball tourney is largest revenue entity still under NCAA
control, and the dispersal is more and more diluted with new members.
Other than stemming the flow of institutions INTO Division I, not much
will change. Major division reclassification is overdue, and until there
is any significant discussion of that by the NCAA, any speculation of
that by us is futile.

Good Post.
Futile? Appsolutely but it's January 2nd and we're 9 mos from kickoff, signing day is more than a month off, all the coaching vacancies have been filled so there's just not much else to talk about!xnodx

You are right, probably not much real change. Probably more wishful thinking on the part of some, including myself, than anything else.

[McTailGator]

hopefully the requirements will set minimum as well as maximum scholarships for schools in the divisions

xthumbsupx

Ixthumbsupx

I'm with you on that!

63 Max and 55 Minimum over a 3 year average.

I actually would like to see FCS be able to either raise our scholarship max to about 70, OR allow FCS ONLY players to play for 5 years instead of just 4 of 5. This, along with our abilities to offer partial scholarships would put us on an even playing field with the Bottom half of FBS. We could also tell a HS recruit that they will play as freshmen if they come to an FCS school.

Beating their asses more often would give us a leg up on recruiting the players that go to the Sun Belch and MAC and lose 70% of their games in 4 years.

[MplsBison]

I understand a football split. But there are around 320 D-I basketball schools, and 280 D-II basketball schools. The current split is about right, I think.

And when NAIA collapses a lot of those will be DII.

[DFW HOYA]

These issues are not unique to Division I.

There is an extensive (77 pages) thread over at DIIISports.com asking if that division is going in two directions, with a faction seeking more competition, and another group (what is being called Division IV) seeking to deemphasize Division III even more, along the lines of the UAA and NESCAC.

http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.0

(For those who think Ivy League football doesn't play well in the sandbox, consider the NESCAC. That league not only prohibits teams playing in the post season, it prohibits its teams from non-conference games. That's right--no more than eight games a year are allowed, all league games, and out of season practices and workouts are banned.)

[yosef1969]

These issues are not unique to Division I.

There is an extensive (77 pages) thread over at DIIISports.com asking if that division is going in two directions, with a faction seeking more competition, and another group (what is being called Division IV) seeking to deemphasize Division III even more, along the lines of the UAA and NESCAC.

http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.0

(For those who think Ivy League football doesn't play well in the sandbox, consider the NESCAC. That league not only prohibits teams playing in the post season, it prohibits its teams from non-conference games. That's right--no more than eight games a year are allowed, all league games, and out of season practices and workouts are banned.)

Thanks for posting! It's remarkable to see the same arguments being made for entirely different concerns in an entirely different division.

[FCS Preview]

(For those who think Ivy League football doesn't play well in the sandbox, consider the NESCAC. That league not only prohibits teams playing in the post season, it prohibits its teams from non-conference games. That's right--no more than eight games a year are allowed, all league games, and out of season practices and workouts are banned.)
Funny thing is there are 10 teams, so there's no reason why they shouldn't play at least 9 games...

[roberb7]

And when NAIA collapses a lot of those will be DII.

Is this really the way things are going?

The way I figure it, the NCAA can absorb any NAIA team that it wants. Most of the current NAIA members wouldn't bring anything to the table in terms of television revenue. Wouldn't the NCAA be better off by leaving the current NAIA members (with obvious exceptions such as Carroll and Oklahoma City) where they are?

[roberb7]

I've spent some time thinking about this, and here's what I came up with.

I think that the moratorium was a good idea on the NCAA's part. The "problem" (for lack of a better word) is that the Division I men's basketball tournament is starting to rival World Cup Soccer as the biggest sports event on the planet. Everybody wants to be in on it, and it helps that pretty much any school with more than 400 male students can put together a basketball team. And any school with significant financial backing can come up with 12 scholarships, making it possible to come up with a competitive basketball team.

I think that the NCAA's concern is that they are attracting members in D-I that might be able to field competitive basketball teams, but uncompetitive teams in all other sports. I'll give Birmingham Southern as an example, but I'm sure that there are others.

So, I have a couple of suggestions, along the lines of recognizing that basketball should have a special status among NCAA sports.

1. Open up March Madness to all NCAA members. Reserve four of the 65 spots (actually, it should be cut to 64) for the top four finishers in a special qualifying tournament that would take place in late February. The field of this qualifying tournament would consist of D-II and D-III teams, and the field of this tournament would be determined by computer rankings or some sort of selection committee.

2. Establish a European-style of promotion/relegation system to determine the makeup of vertical divisions for basketball only. Each year, a set of playoffs would take place between the bottom 16 D-I teams, and the top 16 D-II teams. The top 16 teams in this competition would play in D-I the following season, and the bottom 16 would play in D-II. A similar playoff would take place between D-II and D-III.

The obvious problem with #2 is that it would make conferences obsolete as far basketball is concerned. Instead, some sort of regional division would be drawn up each season. Say nine teams in each region, and each team would play the other teams in the region home-and-home during January and February.

Traditional basketball conferences like the Big East and ACC would obviously howl very loudly at this, but if you look at the big picture, every other sport (baseball, tennis, wrestling, lacrosse, you name it) would be better off, because the teams that are in D-I would have big enough student bodies and enough financial support to be competitive. That's because the "we're throwing everything into basketball" schools could drop to a lower division, but still compete in top-level basketball, if they are good enough.

[DFW HOYA]

Relegation is not a realistic option. So what are some options? Each of the three below will help some schools and hurt others.

1. Scholarship minimums. Good for state schools with low tuition, bad for private schools where a single schoalrship might be eight times that of the state school down the road. This still doesn't address the issue of schools which support football without them, since Division I won't subdivide further. A compromise: minimum financial aid requirements.

2. Sport minimums: Good for schools with broad-based programs, bad for Div. I upstarts that get by with the minimum number of men's sports (six) to stay compliant. Bumping the 14 team overall minimum to 18 or 20 broadens participation, but the money (and support) has to come from somewhere. A compromise: 16 teams by 2012 (18 if no football), 18 (20 w/o football) by 2016.

3. Attendance minimums: Unpopular in many quarters, particularly by urban schools competing with NFL and I-A teams for support. Tried unsucessfully at the I-A level, it nonetheless got teams to ramp up promotional efforts. A compromise: maintain minimum of 5,000 attendance or 70&#37; of capacity for stadiums below 8,000 seats.

Or is the answer to let I-AA/FCS be what it is, knowing that teams will always move in and out?

Comments welcome.

[UAalum72]

What is the purpose of minimum financial aid requirements? If they don't buy you enough players, then there's no argument for minimum scholarships to make a team competitive either.

Not just upstarts, there are a lot of established Division I programs with the minimum number of sports, many of them underfinanced. Non-revenue sports like wrestling or baseball continue to be dropped, and you can't keep blaming it on Title IX, which has been around for 35 years now.

A 70&#37; of capacity minimum will result in closing sections of stadiums to reduce listed capacity. Siena College does this now in basketball, covering 7,000 seats with green baggies to create 'atmosphere' and ticket demand in the 8,000 remaining seats in Albany county's arena (except when they play Albany and open up all the seats).

Minimums for Divsion I membership is one thing, but the calls here for minimum FCS standards are really only trying to affect less than 20 schools. If FCS has an 'image' problem, it's not with those - they don't get any nationwide publicity anyway - but with the ones who take a payday for 55-point beating from an FBS school, which DOES make the news ticker.

[FCS Preview]

Bumping the 14 team overall minimum to 18 or 20 broadens participation, but the money (and support) has to come from somewhere. A compromise: 16 teams by 2012 (18 if no football), 18 (20 w/o football) by 2016.
The interest has to come from somewhere too. How can a school add teams if there is no interest from the student body in the sport?

What are the top 14 sports? A guess would be:

Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Track, Tennis, wrestling

Softball, W BB, W Soc, W Track, W Tennis, Field Hockey, Volleyball

What schools are going to add things like golf, ice hockey, gymnastics, lacrosse, etc if there is no interest or no place to play?

[UAalum72]

What are the top 14 sports? A guess would be:

Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Track, Tennis, wrestling

Softball, W BB, W Soc, W Track, W Tennis, Field Hockey, Volleyball

What schools are going to add things like golf, ice hockey, gymnastics, lacrosse, etc if there is no interest or no place to play?
Don't forget that outdoor track, indoor track, and cross-country can count for three separate sports for each gender with many of the same athletes and coaches.

Golf should be one of the easier sports to get interest, and there are courses everywhere.

Swimming is another sport that's been losing ground (water?) but if you've got a pool you can use it for water polo too.

[DFW HOYA]

The interest has to come from somewhere too. How can a school add teams if there is no interest from the student body in the sport?

A school can add a team to bring interested students to the school, i.e., adding lacrosse brings more students interested in lacrosse, just as adding football can bring more applicants who want to play football.

Harvard has 43 intercollegiate teams. Not all have the same level of student interest, but there are certainly students active on all the teams.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I like two ideas here the best: the "sub-D-I" playoff for access to the tournament and "sport minimums". Specifically, I think having a football team should be a requirement for being a Division I school. The problems start to occur when schools like Birmingham Southern, Gonzaga, etc. are pooling all their resources towards basketball to the exclusion of what makes a Division I institution (and to me, that's football).

I think the "Dayton rule" is fine - let folks sponsor non-scholarship football or super low-cost football if they want - even make it it's own subdivision like "Division I FNS" if necessary. But make a school like Gonzaga offer at least have to act like a Division I school and offer football. Call it: 17 sports by 2009, including football.

If that ever happened, you'd see the NJIT's and SIU-E and Seattle University crawl back in a hurry.

[FCS Preview]

I like two ideas here the best: the "sub-D-I" playoff for access to the tournament and "sport minimums". Specifically, I think having a football team should be a requirement for being a Division I school. The problems start to occur when schools like Birmingham Southern, Gonzaga, etc. are pooling all their resources towards basketball to the exclusion of what makes a Division I institution (and to me, that's football).

I think the "Dayton rule" is fine - let folks sponsor non-scholarship football or super low-cost football if they want - even make it it's own subdivision like "Division I FNS" if necessary. But make a school like Gonzaga offer at least have to act like a Division I school and offer football. Call it: 17 sports by 2009, including football.

If that ever happened, you'd see the NJIT's and SIU-E and Seattle University crawl back in a hurry.

Theres still a lot of costs with NS football -- coaches, uniforms, insurance, travel...

This would also affect schools like St. John's, George Washington, Seton Hall...I don't see it ever passing. And if those schools add NS football, and there's no new classification like FNS, I think it further dilutes FCS football.

[DFW HOYA]

I think the "Dayton rule" is fine - let folks sponsor non-scholarship football or super low-cost football if they want - even make it it's own subdivision like "Division I FNS" if necessary. But make a school like Gonzaga offer at least have to act like a Division I school and offer football. Call it: 17 sports by 2009, including football.


That's the "daisy cutter" of Division I proposals--you must sponsor football and some defined list of sports to be in Division I. Seventy or 80 schools would have some big decisions ahead of them.

[MplsBison]

consider the NESCAC

...

no more than eight games a year are allowed, all league games, and out of season practices and workouts are banned


Sounds like the dream conference for Saint John's MN.

[MplsBison]

The way I figure it, the NCAA can absorb any NAIA team that it wants. Most of the current NAIA members wouldn't bring anything to the table in terms of television revenue. Wouldn't the NCAA be better off by leaving the current NAIA members (with obvious exceptions such as Carroll and Oklahoma City) where they are?

The NAIA teams want to leave the NAIA for the NCAA.

Not the NCAA plucking teams away from the NAIA.

[MplsBison]

1. Scholarship minimums.

...

still doesn't address the issue of schools which support football without them, since Division I won't subdivide further.

Yes it does address them.


They can still have a nonscholarship football team. Simply, it won't be an NCAA sport.

We're not going to allow them to have a DII or DIII football team while having a DI basketball team and at the same time we're not going to allow them to be in FCS without sponsoring a minimum amout of scholarships.



I really don't see it as that big of a deal. Lots of schools have club teams.




2. Sport minimums: Good for schools with broad-based programs, bad for Div. I upstarts that get by with the minimum number of men's sports (six) to stay compliant. Bumping the 14 team overall minimum to 18 or 20 broadens participation, but the money (and support) has to come from somewhere. A compromise: 16 teams by 2012 (18 if no football), 18 (20 w/o football) by 2016.


Absolutely not.


If anything, minimum sports should be lowered.



Why the hell should we force schools in the upper midwest to have water polo?

Why the hell should we force schools in the southwest to have field hockey?

Why the hell should we force schools in the southeast to have ice hockey?


It's a load of pig manure.




You want to be in the country club and have 90 programs like Harvard? Good for you.





IMO, there should be no minimum sports requirements above what title IX requires.


3. Attendance minimums: Unpopular in many quarters, particularly by urban schools competing with NFL and I-A teams for support. Tried unsucessfully at the I-A level, it nonetheless got teams to ramp up promotional efforts. A compromise: maintain minimum of 5,000 attendance or 70% of capacity for stadiums below 8,000 seats.



Again, absolutely not.



If a school wants to spend 10 million on football, and a corresponding 10 million for title IX on woman sport, who the hell are you to tell them that they're not good enough because they don't meet some arbitrary attendance number?

Pig manure.

[DFW HOYA]

IMO, there should be no minimum sports requirements above what title IX requires.

Title IX has no minimum requirements, only that money is distributed proportionately.

Clearly, though, a hypothetical school with one football team and three women's teams totalling 100 students is not Division I.

[MplsBison]

a hypothetical school with one football team and three women's teams totalling 100 students is not Division I.


Because it's not some east coast private schools with 95 programs?



Don't try to shovel your wheelbarrow full of pig manure on my front lawn.

I won't allow that.

[FCS Preview]

They can still have a nonscholarship football team. Simply, it won't be an NCAA sport.

We're not going to allow them to have a DII or DIII football team while having a DI basketball team and at the same time we're not going to allow them to be in FCS without sponsoring a minimum amout of scholarships.

I really don't see it as that big of a deal. Lots of schools have club teams.


Either you need to allow schools to call themselves D-I at a non-scholarship level, OR you need to allow them to play D-III football while maintaining D-I status in other sports. You can't force teams to offer scholarships without running into serious Title IX issues.

Many of those schools didn't want to move up at the time -- they were happy at the D-III level. Now you want to tell them either cough up over $500,000 a year in scholarships -- maybe over $1,000,000 -- or drop football altogether?

Get real.

[danefan]

Title IX has no minimum requirements, only that money is distributed proportionately.

Clearly, though, a hypothetical school with one football team and three women's teams totalling 100 students is not Division I.

Actually Title IX has no money requirements either. It only requires that students have equal access to educational opportunities regardless of sex. Athletics is considered an educational opportunity. There is no real money requirement. However, showing equal spending is the most common and easiest way to show Title IX compliance.


A "good" read on the Title IX Three-Part test:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title9guidanceadditional.html

[FCS Preview]

Actually Title IX has not money requirements either. It only requires that students have equal access to educational opportunities regardless of sex. Athletics is considered an educational opportunity. There is no real money requirement. However, showing equal spending is the most common and easiest way to show Title IX compliance.


A "good" read on the Title IX Three-Part test:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title9guidanceadditional.html

It's not equal spending. It's equal athletes to the proportion of gender at the school. So if your school is 60/40 (M/F) you are allowed to have 60% of your athletes be male.


(1) the percent of male and female athletes is substantially proportionate to the percent of male and female students enrolled at the school;

[DFW HOYA]

Because it's not some east coast private schools with 95 programs?


Schools like UCLA, Air Force, Cal, and Michigan each field well over 25 intercollegiate teams. It's not a regional or "east coast private schools" thing, it's a matter of institutional commitment...which many schools avoid in order to get by minimum standards on sport sponsorship.

[MplsBison]

Now you want to tell them either cough up over $500,000 a year in scholarships -- maybe over $1,000,000 -- or drop football altogether?




No.



All I'm saying is that a school who has a DI basketball team and sponsors less than 90% of the maximum allowed scholarships for their football team shouldn't be allowed to have their football team in DII, DIII or the FCS.


Like I said, that doesn't mean they have to cut the team.

[MplsBison]

It's not equal spending. It's equal athletes to the proportion of gender at the school. So if your school is 60/40 (M/F) you are allowed to have 60&#37; of your athletes be male.



As he said, there are three ways to prove title IX compliance to the federal government.


One of the ways is proportionality, as you've shown, and aparantly it's the least preferred way of the three to do it.

[MplsBison]

Schools like UCLA, Air Force, Cal, and Michigan each field well over 25 intercollegiate teams.

Good for them.


Not all schools have 50-100 million to spend each year.



And no school should be forced to spend that much.



If a school only wants to have a DI football team and the accompanying DI female teams for title IX, then that should be allowed by the NCAA.





In fact, how did the minimum sports requirement even come to be?


How could a person dream such a phony, Jim Crow requirement up? Obviously rich schools trying to keep the poor schools out of their division.

[citdog]

FEMALES SHOULDN'T PLAY SPORTS. IT'S SO UNLADYLIKE.

[FCS Preview]

FEMALES SHOULDN'T PLAY SPORTS. IT'S SO UNLADYLIKE.
What about hot oil wrestling?

[citdog]

What about hot oil wrestling?


THAT'S LIKE PRO WRESTLING, ENTERTAINING!xlolx

[FCS Preview]

No.



All I'm saying is that a school who has a DI basketball team and sponsors less than 90% of the maximum allowed scholarships for their football team shouldn't be allowed to have their football team in DII, DIII or the FCS.


Like I said, that doesn't mean they have to cut the team.

No, your solution is to drop to club level. xrolleyesx

[MplsBison]

Not necessarily.



What you would choose to do with your football programs would be up to the school.



Simply, the Dayton rule is not going to allow a DI basketball school to have a DII or DIII football team.


The FBS has minimum scholarship requirements (90&#37; of the maximum), so you can't play there.



And I want the FCS to have minimum scholarship requirements, so you couldn't play here either.

[FCS Preview]

Not necessarily.

What you would choose to do with your football programs would be up to the school.

Simply, the Dayton rule is not going to allow a DI basketball school to have a DII or DIII football team.

The FBS has minimum scholarship requirements (90&#37; of the maximum), so you can't play there.

And I want the FCS to have minimum scholarship requirements, so you couldn't play here either.

So your solution is to drop to club level or eliminate football altogether for a D-I school that wants to play Non-Scholarship FB. Scholarships might not be an option at schools due to budgetary or Title IX considerations...

[MplsBison]

Why do you keep trying to present a false dilemma?


There are a million different things that might happen. Maybe the NCAA creates a new non scholarship division. Maybe you guys create your own affiliation. Maybe you strike a deal with the NAIA.

Maybe this. Maybe that. There are endless possibilities.

I'm only telling you what you can't do.

[Col Hogan]

Not necessarily.



What you would choose to do with your football programs would be up to the school.



Simply, the Dayton rule is not going to allow a DI basketball school to have a DII or DIII football team.


The FBS has minimum scholarship requirements (90% of the maximum), so you can't play there.



And I want the FCS to have minimum scholarship requirements, so you couldn't play here either.

Thank goodness what you want is not worth the electrons it took to transmit the post with...

[Col Hogan]

Why do you keep trying to present a false dilemma?


There are a million different things that might happen. Maybe the NCAA creates a new non scholarship division. Maybe you guys create your own affiliation. Maybe you strike a deal with the NAIA.

Maybe this. Maybe that. There are endless possibilities.

I'm only telling you what I don't want you to do.

This is what you are really saying...

[Cocky]

I think that the NCAA's concern is that they are attracting members in D-I that might be able to field competitive basketball teams, but uncompetitive teams in all other sports. I'll give Birmingham Southern as an example, but I'm sure that there are others.



Birmingham Southern is D III and they do play football.

[FCS Preview]

Why do you keep trying to present a false dilemma?

There are a million different things that might happen. Maybe the NCAA creates a new non scholarship division. Maybe you guys create your own affiliation. Maybe you strike a deal with the NAIA.

Maybe this. Maybe that. There are endless possibilities.

I'm only telling you what you can't do.

And if the NCAA creates a new division, would that be considered Division I? Because you still have the same rule about D-I basketball and D-I football.

Besides, you already ruled that out:


They can still have a nonscholarship football team. Simply, it won't be an NCAA sport.

Create your own affiliation? What?

Join the NAIA? Be real.

[FCS Preview]

Birmingham Southern is D III and they do play football.

Correct :D

[MplsBison]

This is what you are really saying...

UMass has 63 scholarships.


You have no dog in this race, so stay out.

[roberb7]

Birmingham Southern is D III and they do play football.

They are now. They moved from the NAIA to D-I, then had to drop to D-III because of a financial crunch.

My point was, they were over-committed when they went to D-I.

[Col Hogan]

UMass has 63 scholarships.


You have no dog in this race, so stay out.

And the Bison have how many???????

[MplsBison]

And if the NCAA creates a new division, would that be considered Division I?

Sure, DI Non Scholarship Subdivision.



Create your own affiliation?

Sure, call it the American Football Association.

For DI schools that don't want to sponsor at least 90% of the FCS minimum.

[MplsBison]

And the Bison have how many???????


63.


But I'm the one that's calling for minimum scholarships in FCS.

It's me vs. them.



And you have to stay out because you're not a non scholarship team fan.

[Col Hogan]

UMass has 63 scholarships.


You have no dog in this race, so stay out.

Pretty pompous...and I don't take direction from you...

I have a dog in this fight if it is about FCS football, which I care deeply about...

It is my opinion that non-scholarship teams have a place in FCS...and that scholarships are not the only way to measure financial support...

As has been pointed out to you many times (but you ignore it) some schools that don't give football scholarships pay out as much in financial aid to football players as my school pays in scholarships...

Each and every person on this board who cares about FCS has a dog in this fight, so crawl back into your hole and stop giving orders you can't enforce...

[FCS Preview]

Sure, DI Non Scholarship Subdivision.

So even though you already said it wouldn't be NCAA, now you say they can be NCAA, Division I, Non-Scholarship.

And create a division with 19-27 teams. Wow. What a division...

[Col Hogan]

63.


But I'm the one that's calling for minimum scholarships in FCS.

It's me vs. them.



And you have to stay out because you're not a non scholarship team fan.

HAVE TO....I HAVE TO STAY OUT...

MplsBison, you just invited me in with both feet.....

[MplsBison]

some schools that don't give football scholarships pay out as much in financial aid to football players as my school pays in scholarships...



The only schools that do that do so on a need-based basis.


That's just not acceptable for DI.


DI should stand for giving aid based only on athletic ability.

[Col Hogan]

The only schools that do that do so on a need-based basis.


That's just not acceptable for DI.


DI should stand for giving aid based only on athletic ability.

Says who...the great and might OZ???

Of course, it's acceptable...this is a free country...if a school decided to hand out financial aid in the form of scholarships...or grants...or blocks of cheese...if it's acceptable to the student/athlete, it's acceptable...

[MplsBison]

So even though you already said it wouldn't be NCAA

I only said that in the context of DFWHoya's post, where he assumed the NCAA wouldn't create a new subdivision.



The NCAA can do whatever it wants.



And create a division with 19-27 teams. Wow. What a division...

Perhaps the better proposal is something like this:




DI: 85 schol max, 77 schol min, must have football


DII: 63 schol max, no min, don't have to have football


DIII: 36 schol max, no min, don't have to have football


DIV: no schol allowed, don't have to have football

[MplsBison]

this is a free country....

But it ain't a free NCAA.


The NCAA is a private club. It has nothing to do with the government.



And if the NCAA says jump, you're midway in the air asking "how much higher?" or you get out.

[Col Hogan]

Or is your ulterior motive to make DI football nothing more than a minor league for the NFL...

After all, these are students.....

[MplsBison]

DI football is a minor league for the NFL.

What are you talking about?

[FCS Preview]

Perhaps the better proposal is something like this:


DI: 85 schol max, 77 schol min, must have football
DII: 63 schol max, no min, don't have to have football
DIII: 36 schol max, no min, don't have to have football
DIV: no schol allowed, don't have to have football

So again....you're forcing teams to either add scholarships -- 77 in this case instead of 63 -- or drop their entire athletic program to Division II.

I guess St. Johns, Seton Hall, George Washington, Gonzaga, Providence, and others are all in trouble and must drop all their programs to D-II because they don't even have football teams.

[Col Hogan]

You really need to keep track of your posts in the thread...in one post, you appear to support the Dayton Rule that started the whole movement to DI


They can still have a nonscholarship football team. Simply, it won't be an NCAA sport.

We're not going to allow them to have a DII or DIII football team while having a DI basketball team and at the same time we're not going to allow them to be in FCS without sponsoring a minimum amout of scholarships.

Then you come out and basically propose that all FCS schools would drop DI basketball...UMass, for example, will remain FCS, but has a top-flight basketball team too...



Perhaps the better proposal is something like this:




DI: 85 schol max, 77 schol min, must have football


DII: 63 schol max, no min, don't have to have football


DIII: 36 schol max, no min, don't have to have football


DIV: no schol allowed, don't have to have football

Since we can't have a DI Basketball team and a DII football team...WHAT ARE YOU REALLY PROPOSING, MR COMMISSIONER.....

[Col Hogan]

FCS...let me know...

[MplsBison]

The DI label should be for the cream of the crop.


I'm sorry that schools who can't afford to have a football team and have 1000 seat gyms for their home basketball games won't get to be DI anymore, I truly am.



If UMass couldn't afford to add 14 more scholarships to the football team, which would be the only requirement to move back up to DI, then you don't deserve it.




As for schools like Creighton, Dayton, Gtown, etc.

There might a provision for DII schools that want to move their MBB programs up to DI, perhaps if they're in the top 30 in average attendance, something like that.



In actuality, this protects the MBB tournament from schools like LaSalle and Saint Francis, who are really DIII schools that are DI for no other reason than to leech off the MBB tournament.

[FCS Preview]

The DI label should be for the cream of the crop.

I'm sorry that schools who can't afford to have a football team and have 1000 seat gyms for their home basketball games won't get to be DI anymore, I truly am.

Look at the schools I listed. They are some of the top BBall programs in the country. They have much better than 1000 seat gyms for hoops.


If UMass couldn't afford to add 14 more scholarships to the football team, which would be the only requirement to move back up to DI, then you don't deserve it.

There might a provision for DII schools that want to move their MBB programs up to DI, perhaps if they're in the top 30 in average attendance, something like that.

And what about schools that want to be FCS -- that is not compete in stupid bowls, but in the playoffs. Do they have to drop to D-II or would there be some sort of split in D-I...you know, some for bowls and some for playoffs?

And letting D-II schools play D-I hoops? That's not allowed...I guess you just want to throw out the entire structure of NCAA sports and start over with your own little world...

[Col Hogan]

The DI label should be for the cream of the crop.


I'm sorry that schools who can't afford to have a football team and have 1000 seat gyms for their home basketball games won't get to be DI anymore, I truly am.



If UMass couldn't afford to add 14 more scholarships to the football team, which would be the only requirement to move back up to DI, then you don't deserve it.




As for schools like Creighton, Dayton, Gtown, etc.

There might a provision for DII schools that want to move their MBB programs up to DI, perhaps if they're in the top 30 in average attendance, something like that.



In actuality, this protects the MBB tournament from schools like LaSalle and Saint Francis, who are really DIII schools that are DI for no other reason than to leech off the MBB tournament.

Well, if we're going to make a provision for DII schools to move their basketball teams up...we demand a provision to keep our basketball team up without having to fund the extra scholarships for football.....

Once you start making exceptions...and your proposal is in dire need of exceptions...you can't stop...it's a slippery slope...xnonono2x xnonono2x

[Col Hogan]

The DI label should be for the cream of the crop.

Please define cream of the crop...is WKU cream of the crop...Troy...

Georgetown sure is cream of the crop in Basketball...is their football team cream of the crop...



I'm sorry that schools who can't afford to have a football team and have 1000 seat gyms for their home basketball games won't get to be DI anymore, I truly am.

UMass, NDSU...can afford to have a football team...but have chosen to have one at the FCS level...63 scholarships max...UMass also choses to have a DI basketball program, and we are just fine where we are thank you...

Besides, basketball drives this train...you ought to know this...not football



If UMass couldn't afford to add 14 more scholarships to the football team, which would be the only requirement to move back up to DI, then you don't deserve it.

Again with the holier than thou attitude...who are you to tell UMass what they deserve or don't deserve...Is NDSU ready to stand up and pay the extra scholarships?

[yosef1969]

I strongly support minimum scholarship requirements in FCS. The NCAA should work to prevent it from becoming a dumping ground for anyone that just doesn't fit or from programs that just want to play D-I basketball and not drop football altogether. However I also believe that with title XI compliance that football is such a financial burden that the NCAA would be wise to reconsider the Dayton Rule. The other option is to create a Non-Scholly Division. I'd honesty prefer allowing them to play football in lower division and maintain D-I status in all other sports with a sport team minimum but both options would work for me.

I am generally of the put up or shut up school. The fact of the matter is that all of the D-I requirements are elitist. But given the vast number of tradition rich basketball programs that would be adversely affected, the NCAA would do itself no favors by alienating those fan bases.

NCAA D-I in general should be the top division and the requirements should be stingent. That being said considerations for long term members that would be overly burdened by new requirements should be made.

[MplsBison]

We can't take the Dayton rule back, it's just not fair to DIII teams.


Why should a DIII team have to compete with Dayton's DI basketball revenue?






And making a new DI subdivision for even 40 teams (say the NEC, PFL, SWAC and Ivy) is not going to happen either.




But I still want scholarship minimums for FCS.

Even a 45 scholarship minimum would be better than what we currently have.





And for those schools who refuse or can't to sponsor 45 scholarships in football but also refuse to drop their basketball programs out of DI?




Maybe the Dayton rule can be modified to allow DI teams with less than 45 schol to play in DII?

[WUTNDITWAA]

But I still want scholarship minimums for FCS.

Even a 45 scholarship minimum would be better than what we currently have.
And for those schools who refuse or can't to sponsor 45 scholarships in football but also refuse to drop their basketball programs out of DI?
Maybe the Dayton rule can be modified to allow DI teams with less than 45schol to play in DII?

I think you might be onto something there. Let the low scholly teams play Division II in football only. Chances are, even as DII teams those schools will find out that they don't have to offer the 45 maximum to compete.

[MplsBison]

Perhaps the minimum for FCS should be the maximum for DII?


That way, if you're from zero schol to 36 schol, you're DII, and if you're above 36 schol to 63 schol, you're FCS.



But we can't let non scholarship FCS back in DIII. That's just unacceptable.

[WUTNDITWAA]

You are correct about letting N/S FCS back into Division III. It's not fair to them, and D-III is quite large right now anyway. Division II is shrinking, and will probably do some creative things to stem the tide to Division I. Letting low and non-scholarship FCS schools compete for the Division II title isn't that far-fetched of an idea.

[FCS Preview]

Perhaps the minimum for FCS should be the maximum for DII?


That way, if you're from zero schol to 36 schol, you're DII, and if you're above 36 schol to 63 schol, you're FCS.



But we can't let non scholarship FCS back in DIII. That's just unacceptable.

So then you're either completely throwing out the Dayton Rule?

[MplsBison]

I believe the current Dayton rule says that if you have DI basketball you must have DI football.


If we amended that to allow DI football teams with 36 or less scholarships to play in DII but not DIII, then those programs would have somewhere to go once the minimum schol for FCS goes into effect.

[yosef1969]

Perhaps the minimum for FCS should be the maximum for DII?


That way, if you're from zero schol to 36 schol, you're DII, and if you're above 36 schol to 63 schol, you're FCS.



But we can't let non scholarship FCS back in DIII. That's just unacceptable.

That's not a bad idea, D-II or D-III works for me don't really care which one. But for the record I never said it had to be D-III and you're still calling for the revocation of the Dayton rule, which I agree is the right thing to do but you said the NCAA would never do.xrotatehx

Just wondering if you're one of those people that disagree at first just because that your natural tendency but you eventually come around to sound logic and reason!xnodx

[MplsBison]

I'm not for the revocation, just the modification of the Dayton rule.


Currently it says that if you have DI basketball your football team can't be DII or DIII.


I want to change that to just DIII.

[Col Hogan]

Do you remember why the Dayton Rule was developed/implemented???

Do you think those forces will now bend and allow a change???

[JBB]

If you are going to be division 1 you should have to qualify in all sports. I can understand "Grandfathering" some programs in but I am against extending the concept.

Some may remember the UND presidents "Modest Proposal" to the NCAA. This is what he was talking about and it was soundly rejected. Its an idea whose time will never come unless the entire NCAA structure, and revenue sharing, is going to be changed.

If you are going to allow every school to compete divisionally in a sport by sport basis there will be a huge number of schools playing D1 basketball because of the money.

What will happen in other sports is unknown but you can probably expect a growth in lower or no scholarship participation. It would be similar to splitting the basketball money between all NCAA schools.

Having huge spreads in scholarships is a bad idea. It produces too many mismatches. That is a problem in D2 right now. Minimums may be positive but the maximums, as they are now, are good and shouldn't be abandoned. In my mind keeping the scholarship spread to a minimum in football is a good idea if you want to keep the games competitive.

[Col Hogan]

If you are going to be division 1 you should have to qualify in all sports. I can understand "Grandfathering" some programs in but I am against extending the concept.

Some may remember the UND presidents "Modest Proposal" to the NCAA. This is what he was talking about and it was soundly rejected. Its an idea whose time will never come unless the entire NCAA structure, and revenue sharing, is going to be changed.

If you are going to allow every school to compete divisionally in a sport by sport basis there will be a huge number of schools playing D1 basketball because of the money.

What will happen in other sports is unknown but you can probably expect a growth in lower or no scholarship participation. It would be similar to splitting the basketball money between all NCAA schools.

Having huge spreads in scholarships is a bad idea. It produces too many mismatches. That is a problem in D2 right now. Minimums may be positive but the maximums, as they are now, are good and shouldn't be abandoned. In my mind keeping the scholarship spread to a minimum in football is a good idea if you want to keep the games competitive.

BINGO!!!!!!!

[dbackjon]

Do you remember why the Dayton Rule was developed/implemented???

Do you think those forces will now bend and allow a change???


No - they won't change.

Dayton dominated D-III football. Real D-III schools rightfully complained that they did not have the resources to compete with a Division school.

Earlier, DaytonFlyer was boasting about the tens of millions Dayton was spending on athletic facilities - weightrooms, practice facilities, etc - nothing a D-III school can match. This gives D-I schools an unfair advantage playing D-III schools.

[MplsBison]

Do you remember why the Dayton Rule was developed/implemented???





Because DIII schools bitched and complained that Dayton was using DI basketball money to fund their DIII football program and win DIII national titles.


It's a legitimate claim in DIII.



However, I think they would be more evenly matched in DII, esp against 36 scholarship teams in the GLIAC.

[MplsBison]

If you are going to allow every school to compete divisionally in a sport by sport basis there will be a huge number of schools playing D1 basketball because of the money.



But that's not what's being proposed.



Here is the new proposal:


if you have DI MBB you must have 14 DI sports.


If you have a football team, in order for it to be counted as one of the 14 it must have more than 36 scholarships.



Otherwise, it will be forced into DII and won't count as one of the 14.




Football is different enough than the rest of the sports that it should get special rules.

[DFW HOYA]

And what about D-II nonscholarship teams? Are you moving them down or out as well?

More than likely, little or nothing is going to become of this four year hiatus other than slowing down the pace of movement. In 2011, the conversation starts all over again.

[MplsBison]

Nothing happens to teams already in DII.

This would only have an effect on teams in DI.

[AppMan]

and the non-BCS conferences don't compete for the BCS Championship, so why should they be a part of that subdivision?

At least they do have to fund a minimum number of scholarships.