Si.com article

[JMU1992]

I ran across this article on SI.com. This guy is typical of the national media on their knowledge of I-AA. Here is a quote.

"William & Mary-Rhode Island: The Rams score a TD but then have the extra point blocked. God bless these kids for playing college football, and I know they're having fun, but you only need to watch a PAT attempt at the I-AA level to notice the difference in speed and overall talent between I-A and I-AA. It's dramatic. Maybe that's why Stanford is playing UC-Davis today."

Does he not realize W&M almost beat Marshall two weeks ago? And nice comment on the UC-Davis/Stanford game before Davis whipped them.
I just wish I could find an e-mail address for this clown.


link:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/john_walters/09/18/campus.blitz/

[kardplayer]

There's a text box on this page that lets you email in...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/john_walters/09/18/campus.blitz/1.html

[blur2005]

On the flipside, Stewart Mandel, who is probably SI's best college football guru, gave UC Davis his team of the week honors.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/stewart_mandel/09/18/saturday.rewind/index.html

[smarterray]

In case you're not yet sick of reading words like "UC Davis," "stunned," and "Stanford," here's a good read from Dennis Dodd of CBS SportsLine: http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/8862796

[FlyBoy8]

Ha ha Mandel... your bias is front and center. Enjoy it while we laugh.

What did he say wrong? I thought Mandel's little blurb was very nice. For one thing, he didn't say "Stanford lost to UC-Davis," he said "UC-Davis beat Stanford."

Not sure I'm with him on the "most stunning I-AA win ever" part, but other than that...

[mainejeff]

The way I look at it, I-AA has way more respect than most of these college football writers buried in the bowels of the internet. Does anyone need to remind him that he isn't even in "I-AA" when it comes to his profession? Most of us could write better columns than these "professionals" :rolleyes: .

[FlyBoy8]

The article by Dodd was a little... odd. (UC-Davis is a "I-AA power?" :confused: ) But I liked this part:


The Aggies desperately needed Saturday's win. It has a streak of 35 consecutive winning seasons. It had opened with losses to a couple of real programs -- New Hampshire and Portland State.

[FlyBoy8]

Dude, he was making fun of UCD's schedule.

I didn't read it that way. I read it like he was trying to give Davis a little pat on the back while laughing at Stanford. Certainly not a I-AA expert, but I thought that last line about "real programs" was a shot at Stanford, not Davis (or UNH or PSU).

He doesn't seem like a very good writer though.

[blueballs]

MaineJeff had it right. That clown is a piss poor writer trying to have some fun at somebody else's expense because he lacks the knowledge and skills to break down a college football game and present it coherently and consisely. There are literally dozens of people on this messageboard who are smarter, better spoken, know more football, and more successful in their careers.

Forget about the used car analogy, that is just a pathetic attempt at humor by somebody with no wit. The one line that shows he has no clue about football is this: "...the immortal Buddy Teevens." Immortal Buddy Teevens? Dude, you've got to be ****ting me...

[Retro]

William & Mary-Rhode Island: The Rams score a TD but then have the extra point blocked. God bless these kids for playing college football, and I know they're having fun, but you only need to watch a PAT attempt at the I-AA level to notice the difference in speed and overall talent between I-A and I-AA. It's dramatic

This makes no sense! Is he saying that the kicker is slow or the blocker is fast... I guess he didn't notice that mcneese's true freshman kicker kicked a 51 yd field goal againest southern miss this weekend.. the longest in school history by a freshman.

[Ram Ball]

I'm trying to be excited about Rhody's 3-0 start.....God knows I deserve it after the past few years.....but everywhere I go, people are disrespecting my RAMS!!!!

:(

[tribe_pride]

This makes no sense! Is he saying that the kicker is slow or the blocker is fast... I guess he didn't notice that mcneese's true freshman kicker kicked a 51 yd field goal againest southern miss this weekend.. the longest in school history by a freshman.

My guess is he was talking about the speed of the game which in general he is right about. The speed of a I-A game is generally quicker than a I-AA game.

He didn't even have to go as far as you did for talent though. W&M's kicker kicked a 50 yarder which would have made it from at least another 5-10 yards. He later set a W&M record for most points and an A-10 record for most field goals in a career. The W&M record he broke was held by a not so bad kicker named Steve Christie.

[blueballs]

I watched the WM/URI game Saturday and was very impressed with URI's QB (wish GSU had him) and WM's kicker. The kicker will play on Sunday.

[kardplayer]

I've been exchanging emails today with Mr. Walters from SI and am officially changing my tune on him. Here's the key: despite the fact it looks like a running blog, he actually wrote the article on Sunday, well aware that UCD had knocked off Stanford - keep reading to page 2 for his conclusion...

I think he's picking on Stanford for losing far more than he's bashing UCD's - or any other I-AA's - program. There's a certain reality here in that while our teams often play BCS (not I-A, but BCS) schools tight for a half or three quarters, eventually the additional scholarships make a difference. Look at the overall mark for BCS vs. I-AA over the past few years and it bears that out. We've had our victories - UNH, Maine, UCD to name 3 - but there are far more losses to offset them.

Lets revel in the victories!!!

[JMU1992]

There's a certain reality here in that while our teams often play BCS (not I-A, but BCS) schools tight for a half or three quarters, eventually the additional scholarships make a difference. Look at the overall mark for BCS vs. I-AA over the past few years and it bears that out. We've had our victories - UNH, Maine, UCD to name 3 - but there are far more losses to offset them.

Lets revel in the victories!!!

I would certainly agree that I-A teams are much deeper and the BCS level teams overall have more talent, but it was the tone of the statement that bothered me. He made it sound like a couple of little league teams that can barely put one foot in front of the other. And I don't agree that the difference in talent is as dramatic as he leads on.

[RadMann]

The article linked below notes that the Stanford coach has apologized for the loss... Nice how he gives credit to UC Davis for playing a good game..... right...

--------------------
Stanford coach apologizes for loss to UC Davis
By Patrick Fitzgerald
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, September 20, 2005
"With his team reeling from Saturday's loss to UC Davis, Stanford coach Walt Harris issued a public apology for the Cardinal's poor performance in its home debut.

Stanford (1-1) fell to Davis 20-17 Saturday night after Blaise Smith caught a three-yard touchdown pass from Jon Grant with eight seconds remaining.

"It was a very poor performance, especially on offense," Harris said at a press conference Monday. "We stunk it up."...."

Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/13593437p-14434234c.html)

[OrneryAggie]

Yeah, about 22 more scholarships deeper and talented. :nod:

Exactly Ralph, those 22 are so important.

I've never really understood the whole IA vs IAA scholarship arguement. UCD only dressed around 50 players for the Stanford game and, at most, around 40 actually played. Please tell me how going from 63 to 85 scholarships is really going to make a difference when you'll rarely have 63 players see game time over the whole season.

The big difference isn't scholarships, it's name recognition that gets most BCS teams the talent. Hopefully this win, along with maine and UNH last year, will start giving IAA more of the name recognition it deserves.

[OrneryAggie]

UCD has how many equivalencies this year? You don't think that matters? In I-AA you can spread them among a bunch of players. If UCD beats these "name recognition" schools you might think that players would know that and go there instead of the "name" losers. It happens already outside of your CA purgatory. :)

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. Or if I'm agreeing with you. :confused:

UCD has 37. There's definitely a difference from the 7 equiv's UCD had 3 years ago (even though the 2000 squad could've hung with the this year's). What I don't understand is why people make a big deal out of those extra 22 schollies from IA to IAA when those extra players rarely impact the game. If your best 30 players are better than the best 30 on the other team then why does the then it doesn't matter if you have 63 or 85 or 37. The best example of this is the Sun Belt. Yet all I ever read in the media, and even with many aggie fans, is about how everyone needs 100,000,000 scholarships to be competitive. Am I just going off on another rant or does this make sense?

[McUMass]

It's all relative, if you have 60 scholarships you can easily conture to different schemes week in and week out that may not be conducive to your best 30 players. Also, if you are giving out a scholarship, there is a good chance you think the kid is capable of either immediatley or eventually being a starter hence adding to the depth of the team. I agree that if your top 30 or so can play with a team with more scholarships, they have as good a chance as any to win the game. However, this is usually not the case, which is why it is such a huge "upset" when a 1-AA school defeats a 1-A. With more scholarships you can also cultivate recruiting pockets in different pipeline states.

[McUMass]

sorry about the spelling, kind of just zoomed through that post

[ucdtim17]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. Or if I'm agreeing with you. :confused:

UCD has 37. There's definitely a difference from the 7 equiv's UCD had 3 years ago (even though the 2000 squad could've hung with the this year's). What I don't understand is why people make a big deal out of those extra 22 schollies from IA to IAA when those extra players rarely impact the game. If your best 30 players are better than the best 30 on the other team then why does the then it doesn't matter if you have 63 or 85 or 37. The best example of this is the Sun Belt. Yet all I ever read in the media, and even with many aggie fans, is about how everyone needs 100,000,000 scholarships to be competitive. Am I just going off on another rant or does this make sense?

I agree. I don't know why people act like the important and #1 difference is the 22 extra scholarships. The difference is one team is Stanford and plays in the Pac-10 against the best teams in the country and the other plays schools in I-AA, which is D2 for most people, except the few dedicated fans. The difference between the NFL and the CFL isn't the salaries, it's that one is the premier league in the world and the other is minor leagues. Same thing

[Tod]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. Or if I'm agreeing with you. :confused:

UCD has 37. There's definitely a difference from the 7 equiv's UCD had 3 years ago (even though the 2000 squad could've hung with the this year's). What I don't understand is why people make a big deal out of those extra 22 schollies from IA to IAA when those extra players rarely impact the game. If your best 30 players are better than the best 30 on the other team then why does the then it doesn't matter if you have 63 or 85 or 37. The best example of this is the Sun Belt. Yet all I ever read in the media, and even with many aggie fans, is about how everyone needs 100,000,000 scholarships to be competitive. Am I just going off on another rant or does this make sense?

Actually, the difference in scholarships is huge, all else being equal. If UCD has 37 schollies, they can give scholarships to about nine players each recruiting class. There are 24 starters. Which positions are you NOT going to recruit this year? The answer: MOST of them. With 85 schollies, you can almost refill every position every year. There's more competition for a starting spot, there's a much, much deeper bench, etc. And the difference works between I-A and I-AA as well, it might not be so dramatic, but image with 63 schollies if you could recruit five or six more people EVERY single year! Yeah, it's a big deal.

[ucdtim17]

Actually, the difference in scholarships is huge, all else being equal. If UCD has 37 schollies, they can give scholarships to about nine players each recruiting class. There are 24 starters. Which positions are you NOT going to recruit this year? The answer: MOST of them. With 85 schollies, you can almost refill every position every year. There's more competition for a starting spot, there's a much, much deeper bench, etc. And the difference works between I-A and I-AA as well, it might not be so dramatic, but image with 63 schollies if you could recruit five or six more people EVERY single year! Yeah, it's a big deal.


UCD doesn't have 37 every year, it is increasing to 63 when we're playoff eligible in '07 (although I've heard it may take until '08). The schollies are mostly going to each class of freshmen

[OrneryAggie]

Actually, the difference in scholarships is huge, all else being equal. If UCD has 37 schollies, they can give scholarships to about nine players each recruiting class. There are 24 starters. Which positions are you NOT going to recruit this year? The answer: MOST of them. With 85 schollies, you can almost refill every position every year. There's more competition for a starting spot, there's a much, much deeper bench, etc. And the difference works between I-A and I-AA as well, it might not be so dramatic, but image with 63 schollies if you could recruit five or six more people EVERY single year! Yeah, it's a big deal.

Yeah, this was the one place I thought the extra schollies would come in handy, replenishing the ranks. I got stuck on just thinking about what's on the field and not what's waiting on the sideline.

I guess I was just seeing things thru my 'Rudy' colored glasses where heart and determination were as important as free rides. We aggies were spoiled from years of our non-schollie or low-schollie teams beating up on full schollie programs such as Suc St and Cal Poly. It's easy to forget that football is a completely different beast in the south and midwest than here on the left coast.

[Tod]

UCD doesn't have 37 every year, it is increasing to 63 when we're playoff eligible in '07 (although I've heard it may take until '08). The schollies are mostly going to each class of freshmen

Right, I get that. UC-Davis was just an example. How scholarships are spent is up to each college or university, sometimes they have a lot to give, sometimes not too many.

Unless you're I-A. ;) :D :)

[rufus]

The NCAA should allow 85 scholarships for I-AA. We would still play for the same I-AA championship, but it would level the playing field a lot in games against I-A, which are becoming much more common. I know some will point to "cost containment" and claim that such a move would increase the disparity between the haves and have nots in I-AA, but we already play in a division with teams that have anywhere from 0 to 63 scholarships. Is 0 to 85 really that much worse?

[colgate13]

I'm NOT for 85 scholarships. Do that, and there is no point to I-AA anymore IMHO.

[rufus]

I think 85 scholarships would help reduce the stigma associated with I-AA to some extent. I-AA could possibly be seen less as a "reduced scholarship" or "cost containment" division, and more as divison that chooses to play for a championship rather than bowls.

[colgate13]

I think 85 scholarships would help reduce the stigma associated with I-AA to some extent.

Sure it would, because then it would be no different than I-A. All of I-AA would become just more non BCS I-A conferences.

63 scholarships is a defining feature of I-AA. If that's not enough for a school, then perhaps they should be chasing the bright lights of I-A.

[rufus]

It would most definitely be different than I-A. The top teams from the Sun Belt, MAC, etc will go play in a no-name bowl, while the top teams in I-AA will play for a national championship.

63 scholarships is ONE defining feature of I-AA. The chance to play for a national championship is the other.

[colgate13]

What you are essentially asking for is all schools to be Division I and some opting for the playoffs and some opting for bowls. In that scenario, IMO, the playoffs would be diluted into a meaningless activity that would ultimately spell their doom.

For the top programs in I-AA, if you're now at 85 scholarships, why in the heck would you opt for the playoffs when the big money and recognition is in the bowls?

[rufus]

Do you honestly think it is the funding of 22 additional scholarships that holds schools like Delaware, Montana, JMU, App State, etc in I-AA? Those schools could easily fund the additional scholarships. There are a number of other issues that prevent these teams from jumping to I-A: stadium improvement costs, conference affiliation, lack of desirable bowl games for non-BCS conferences, potential increase in travel expenses. I believe the school must also participate in a greater total number of sports to be I-A.

[HensRock]

Do you honestly think it is the funding of 22 additional scholarships that holds schools like Delaware, Montana, JMU, App State, etc in I-AA? Those schools could easily fund the additional scholarships. There are a number of other issues that prevent these teams from jumping to I-A: stadium improvement costs, conference affiliation, lack of desirable bowl games for non-BCS conferences, potential increase in travel expenses. I believe the school must also participate in a greater total number of sports to be I-A.


And how about the desire of the school to run a fiscally responsible football program? A lot of people will say that football is #1 at Delaware, but that is only among sports. Football is clearly not #1 for the University administration. The emphasis has always been and will always be on academics first as IMHO it should be. I beleive UD could quite easily go I-A today if they wanted to. They just don't see a good reason to do so. I happen to agree.

[colgate13]

I don't think 22 scholarships is what is holding back the UDs, Montanas, GSU's etc. of the world from going I-A. But I do think that is one serious erosion of the I-AA difference. This is the scenario I see:

Those three teams go to 85 scholarships. They stay in I-AA which IMO doesn't really exist anymore then, it would have to be some BCS/PCS set up. So UD, Montana, GSU and maybe 20 other PCS teams are fully funded at 85 scholarships. The gaps between former I-AA schools widen to more haves and have nots. Mid majors drop programs, the Ivy and PL stay lower and conferences have disparities, like how much URI wants to spend vs. Delaware.

Those 20 PCS teams win a bunch of the playoffs. They also start winning against non BCS conference schools more often. After a while, I think those schools wonder why they are playing with the 'little' boys when they can play with the 'big' boys. Those 20 teams are then gone. Former I-AA loses the top and the bottom. What is left? I-AA would look very different IMO.

I'll say it again, if a I-AA team really thinks they need 85 scholarships, why are they in a division that has a limit of 63? Apparently they have larger aspirations. There is more to a I-A program than 22 more scholarships, but why isn't the maximum for I-AA good enough? You want to play more/closer/better games with I-A schools? Going to 85 scholarships but sticking with I-AA would make I-AA the half ass division and not the cost containment/smaller Division I school division that I see it to be. Just my opinion.

Oh, and # of sports needed is for Division I. No difference between I-A and I-AA.

[henfan]

Football is clearly not #1 for the University administration.

Agreed. UD gives the outward appearance, especially lately, that athletics may not even be #2, 3, 4, or 5 on the list. Not sure I necessarily agree with that. :mad:

[Slammer50111]

I also think there is an added cost of more then 22 scholarships because of Tittle IX. For every scholarship that is added to football there is the added cost of a scholarship for a womans sport. So if you added 22 for football you would also have to either add a woman's sport or increase scholarships for them also. This could be where some people believe there are more sports at DI schools.

[blukeys]

I don't think 22 scholarships is what is holding back the UDs, Montanas, GSU's etc. of the world from going I-A. But I do think that is one serious erosion of the I-AA difference. This is the scenario I see:

Those three teams go to 85 scholarships. They stay in I-AA which IMO doesn't really exist anymore then, it would have to be some BCS/PCS set up. So UD, Montana, GSU and maybe 20 other PCS teams are fully funded at 85 scholarships. The gaps between former I-AA schools widen to more haves and have nots. Mid majors drop programs, the Ivy and PL stay lower and conferences have disparities, like how much URI wants to spend vs. Delaware.

Those 20 PCS teams win a bunch of the playoffs. They also start winning against non BCS conference schools more often. After a while, I think those schools wonder why they are playing with the 'little' boys when they can play with the 'big' boys. Those 20 teams are then gone. Former I-AA loses the top and the bottom. What is left? I-AA would look very different IMO.

I'll say it again, if a I-AA team really thinks they need 85 scholarships, why are they in a division that has a limit of 63? Apparently they have larger aspirations. There is more to a I-A program than 22 more scholarships, but why isn't the maximum for I-AA good enough? You want to play more/closer/better games with I-A schools? Going to 85 scholarships but sticking with I-AA would make I-AA the half ass division and not the cost containment/smaller Division I school division that I see it to be. Just my opinion.

Oh, and # of sports needed is for Division I. No difference between I-A and I-AA.

Don't worry 13 UD is not going I-A anytime soon regardless of any speculation you may have seen on certain message boards! :) UD would make a move to I-A if forced to but currently UD is one of the few non BCS programs to actually make money on football. I could see a UD move in the future if they went with JMU and W&M. There are also other combinations that might work but I see no overall plan nor do I see serious planning at UM or GSU.

Keep in mind that UD waited for 2 years (1978-1979) to join I-AA so as to assure that I-AA would be viable. They could have easily competed at this level as they were beating I-AA teams left and right. But, they wanted to make sure there was a division established before jumping in. I believe that UD will also hedge their bets on any move to I-A.

I believe that I-AA will first have to fail or be eliminated before UD makes the decision to go I-A. And Yes UD could afford the $'s for the extra scollies and the women's sports equivalents. Actually the women's coaches would probably welcome the move as they would get extra scollies for their progams. :) :)

[rufus]

This is the scenario I see:

Those three teams go to 85 scholarships. They stay in I-AA which IMO doesn't really exist anymore then, it would have to be some BCS/PCS set up. So UD, Montana, GSU and maybe 20 other PCS teams are fully funded at 85 scholarships. The gaps between former I-AA schools widen to more haves and have nots. Mid majors drop programs, the Ivy and PL stay lower and conferences have disparities, like how much URI wants to spend vs. Delaware.

Those 20 PCS teams win a bunch of the playoffs. They also start winning against non BCS conference schools more often. After a while, I think those schools wonder why they are playing with the 'little' boys when they can play with the 'big' boys. Those 20 teams are then gone.

Isn't the BCS/PCS thing exactly what we are going to already? I-AA could improve its image by marketing itself as the Playoff Championship Division, rather than the division with the extra "A".

Those top 20 programs that you worry about losing are mostly going to be gone in the long run anyway if nothing is changed. I-AA has been losing an average of about one team per year to I-A. If anything, I feel like going to 85 scholarships could appease some of these schools that are going to end up leaving. Let them raise their profile, compete on a higher level, and challenge their I-A opponents, or lose them to I-A.

[colgate13]

The BCS/PCS issue is mostly a marketing thing. Nothing would change but names. But the real issue here is 85 scholarships dilutes the I-A/I-AA difference, IMO to the point where it makes no difference to some schools - so why opt for the lower designation?

Ah, the dream of I-A. Of those teams leaving at say one a year, how many are successful? 10% is a stretch. More like a handful. It will take time, but one of two things could happen IMO.

1 - Schools see the light (wasn't there a great article about a team out west, Nevada was it?) or drop their programs all together (Temple is a great candidate here). It doesn't take a genius to realize that throwing money down the I-A drain isn't in a universities best interest. All it takes is a change of leadership with some gonads. Some presidents, trustees, boosters, etc. have hung their hats and reputations on the I-A dream. Take them out of place and some more sensible heads could prevail.

2 - BCS schools further distinguish themselves from I-A to keep out the rif-raf. BCS/Non-BCS differences are already fairly great. They will not decrease over time. If I-A schools try and leech off of them more for cash or recognition, I can see them playing their own brand of football and leaving non BCS and I-AA to fend for themselves and/or reorganize Division I. Face it, the NCAA needs the BCS conferences more than the BCS needs the NCAA.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Ah, the dream of I-A. Of those teams leaving at say one a year, how many are successful? 10% is a stretch. More like a handful. It will take time, but one of two things could happen IMO.

1 - Schools see the light (wasn't there a great article about a team out west, Nevada was it?) or drop their programs all together (Temple is a great candidate here). It doesn't take a genius to realize that throwing money down the I-A drain isn't in a universities best interest. All it takes is a change of leadership with some gonads. Some presidents, trustees, boosters, etc. have hung their hats and reputations on the I-A dream. Take them out of place and some more sensible heads could prevail.

2 - BCS schools further distinguish themselves from I-A to keep out the rif-raf. BCS/Non-BCS differences are already fairly great. They will not decrease over time. If I-A schools try and leech off of them more for cash or recognition, I can see them playing their own brand of football and leaving non BCS and I-AA to fend for themselves and/or reorganize Division I. Face it, the NCAA needs the BCS conferences more than the BCS needs the NCAA.

Many college and universities' self-worth are tied up in their football or basketball teams. There is a school of thought that says "big-time football or basketball program means big-time university", which appears to be driven almost entirely by testosterone. And they have convinced themselves that that means I-A football, not I-AA football. That's why you will never see Rice, San Jose St., UL-Monroe, Temple, or a litany of other schools reclassify to I-AA voluntarily.

I feel the barriers between I-AA and I-A need to be specific and difficult to hurdle. Increasing I-AA schollies to 85 will continue to blur the distinctions between the two divisions and will serve neither one very well. I-A will be pressured heavily to have a playoff, and I-AA will be pressured to become more like BCS I-A in terms of stadium size, etc. - which was never the intent of I-AA. I-AA and I-A are different, vive le difference.

[IaaScribe]

The Nevada instance was a columnist spouting off. Nothing will happen there, mostly because the WAC will boot UNR if it tries to drop to I-AA in football. The WAC is too good for Nevada in other sports, especially for basketball, for that to happen.

[colgate13]

RE: Nevada

Very true, it was a newspaper columnist. However I take it as a early warning sign. Are columnists always rah-rah I-A and put down I-AA? The fact that a member of the media is pointing it out to an administration that can't see the writing on the wall is a good starting point IMO.

[rufus]

The BCS/PCS issue is mostly a marketing thing. Nothing would change but names. But the real issue here is 85 scholarships dilutes the I-A/I-AA difference, IMO to the point where it makes no difference to some schools - so why opt for the lower designation?.

Because as I said before, there is more to going I-A than giving out 85 scholarships. If it were that simple most the major I-AA programs would already be playing I-A. There are other factors.


Ah, the dream of I-A. Of those teams leaving at say one a year, how many are successful? 10% is a stretch. More like a handful. It will take time, but one of two things could happen IMO..

I would actually say that your 10% figure seems way too low. In the past 20 years, 18 I-AA teams have moved to I-A. I would say that it is far to early to evaluate the success of Troy, FAU, or FIU, so that brings us down to a population of 15. Of those 15, I would say that UConn, USF, Marshall, and Boise State can all be considered successful. UAB and Louisiana Tech have at least enjoyed marginal success. And UCF, although TERRIBLE on the field has grown its athletic program tremendously. I doubt their AD regrets the move. There are many ways to define "success", but it is likely that these 7 programs are doing better than when they were in I-AA.


2 - BCS schools further distinguish themselves from I-A to keep out the rif-raf. BCS/Non-BCS differences are already fairly great. They will not decrease over time. If I-A schools try and leech off of them more for cash or recognition, I can see them playing their own brand of football and leaving non BCS and I-AA to fend for themselves and/or reorganize Division I. Face it, the NCAA needs the BCS conferences more than the BCS needs the NCAA.

The BCS will not use its nuclear option of breaking away from the NCAA, and the NCAA not use its nuclear option of taking away March Madness from the BCS schools. Several state legislatures have already passed resolutions stating their displeasure the BCS and its lack of a playoff. The states are not likely to allow their flagship universities to leave the NCAA.

[IaaScribe]

RE: Nevada

Very true, it was a newspaper columnist. However I take it as a early warning sign. Are columnists always rah-rah I-A and put down I-AA? The fact that a member of the media is pointing it out to an administration that can't see the writing on the wall is a good starting point IMO.

No, I wouldn't think columnists are always that way. Not ones that are any good, anyway. He made excellent points in the story. Football is a waste at every school in the WAC save for Fresno and Boise. No one else seems to put enough money in their programs to compete for the Top 25.

In a perfect world, Nevada would find a way to play as a Big Sky associate and stay in the WAC for other sports. But there's no way that could happen. Too many logistical problems.

[colgate13]

Because as I said before, there is more to going I-A than giving out 85 scholarships. If it were that simple most the major I-AA programs would already be playing I-A. There are other factors.

OK, for UD, Montana, GSU, Florida A&M, Southern, Youngstown, App. St, WIU, UNI, JMU, WKU, etc. What are the factors holding them back besides 44 scholarships (includes the necessary Title IX bump)? And are they really that significant that after four years of being 85 scholarships, they'd stick around in a lesser division that consists of schools that decided not to go to 85 scholarships? For the sake of a lesser spotlight National Champion? No way. If they committed to 85 scholarships, they're bolting to I-A eventually. Especially when I-A isn't willing to enforce its own standards for attendance.


I would actually say that your 10% figure seems way too low. In the past 20 years, 18 I-AA teams have moved to I-A. I would say that it is far to early to evaluate the success of Troy, FAU, or FIU, so that brings us down to a population of 15. Of those 15, I would say that UConn, USF, Marshall, and Boise State can all be considered successful. UAB and Louisiana Tech have at least enjoyed marginal success. And UCF, although TERRIBLE on the field has grown its athletic program tremendously. I doubt their AD regrets the move. There are many ways to define "success", but it is likely that these 7 programs are doing better than when they were in I-AA.

Troy, FAU, FIU, UConn, USF, Marshall, Boise State, UAB, the Louisiana Schools, UCF, Buffalo, etc... What programs are making money on football? What programs are winning? What programs could have a shot at a BCS bowl? UConn is the huge exception to the rule. Marshall and Boise have had success in winning but are outside of the party looking in. I don't know much about USF.

Every other program I would say is losing money, not winning or hanging around in obscurity. One needs to define "doing better" but when I look at those programs I don't see them doing better.


The BCS will not use its nuclear option of breaking away from the NCAA, and the NCAA not use its nuclear option of taking away March Madness from the BCS schools. Several state legislatures have already passed resolutions stating their displeasure the BCS and its lack of a playoff. The states are not likely to allow their flagship universities to leave the NCAA.

BCS football - why not? They stay in the NCAA for everything else, including hoops. You think the NCAA would try and bar them from competing in order to make them stay? The hoops tournament without the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Pac-10 or Big 10 would be a joke. Again, the NCAA needs the BCS more than the BCS schools need the NCAA.

If the BCS schools really did break away, then I bet they actually would have a playoff set up, appeasing any concerns there. 5 Autobids, 7 at large. BCS bowls are the semis. One huge bowl to rival the Super Bowl to win it all. And lastly, money talks. Can you imagine the contracts that the BCS could negotiate and not have to deal with the NCAA? The extra revenue of a championship game? This is all about money and the haves will not let the have nots have a slice of their pie. Why should they?

[rufus]

OK, for UD, Montana, GSU, Florida A&M, Southern, Youngstown, App. St, WIU, UNI, JMU, WKU, etc. What are the factors holding them back besides 44 scholarships (includes the necessary Title IX bump)? And are they really that significant that after four years of being 85 scholarships, they'd stick around in a lesser division that consists of schools that decided not to go to 85 scholarships? For the sake of a lesser spotlight National Champion? No way. If they committed to 85 scholarships, they're bolting to I-A eventually. Especially when I-A isn't willing to enforce its own standards for attendance.
Factors holding them back besides 44 scholarships:
1. Stadium expansion costs: You have to have a "big time" stadium
2. Attendance requirements: The NCAA will revisit its attendance requirements sooner or later
3. Conference affiliation: It can be tough to find a conference, particularly in the northeast where there is no non-BCS I-A.
4. Travel costs: Playing in a widely dispersed Sun Belt type league isn't cheap.
5. Scheduling: Can a new I-A get decent home games without a conference?
6. No playoffs

They may bolt for I-A if you allowed them 85 scholarships, but most of them will do it eventually anyway. Allowing them to play at a higher level could possibly appease them.


BCS football - why not? They stay in the NCAA for everything else, including hoops. You think the NCAA would try and bar them from competing in order to make them stay? The hoops tournament without the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Pac-10 or Big 10 would be a joke. Again, the NCAA needs the BCS more than the BCS schools need the NCAA.

If the BCS schools really did break away, then I bet they actually would have a playoff set up, appeasing any concerns there. 5 Autobids, 7 at large. BCS bowls are the semis. One huge bowl to rival the Super Bowl to win it all. And lastly, money talks. Can you imagine the contracts that the BCS could negotiate and not have to deal with the NCAA? The extra revenue of a championship game? This is all about money and the haves will not let the have nots have a slice of their pie. Why should they?
Let's say your right and the BCS decided to break away from the NCAA for football. What would the teams currently playing I-AA lose from that? What was left of the NCAA would have to form a single Division I, which would basically be the equivalent of current I-AA. The difference is we would then get to play in a more competitive division with all of the current non-BCS teams. It sounds like I-AA has more to gain than lose from that scenario.

[rufus]

I-AA has gained more teams than it has lost.
I did a little study in February http://i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=53435 on classification. Since I-AA is cost containment let's look at how the schools that moved to I-A fared money-wise in football:

(Division I-A Schools: 2003 - 2004 College Sports Revenues and Expenses)

Marshall made $1.1 mil
Troy St. made $900K
Nevada made $800K
Connecticut made $700K
Idaho made $700K
Louisiana Tech made $400K
South Fla. made $200K
UAB made $50K
Ohio made $15K
Middle Tenn. said they broke even

UCF lost $3.2K
Ball St. lost $2.7 mil
Kent St. lost $2.4 mil
Bowling Green lost $2.3 mil
Buffalo lost $2 mil
Akron lost $1.8 mil
Northern Ill. lost $1.8 mil
North Texas lost $1.6 mil
Arkansas St. lost $1.5 mil
Eastern Mich. lost $700K
Boise St. lost $500K
La.-Monroe lost $300K

SOURCE: 2003-04 Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act reports

I'm not sure how well these schools did financially in I-AA but more of them are losing money now than making money, even with I-A BCS money.
I'm not really sure which of those I-A teams was receiving BCS money in the 2003 season. For comparison, I used your same numbers for the A10. Now who's containing costs?

Delaware made $1.4 mil
JMU made $542K
Hofstra made $33K
Northeastern said they broke even

Maine lost $130K
URI lost $169K
W&M lost $424K
UNH lost $1.1 mil
Towson lost $1.2 mil
Richmond lost $1.4 mil
Villanova lost $2.6 mil
UMass lost $3.1 mil

Also, half of your teams that are losing money only played in I-AA for one year (1982) and moved up together. It looks like the teams that have made the move in more recent years are doing better than the ones who made the move early.

[ChickenMan]

Hofstra made $33,000...??? how... they get very little revenue from ticket sales.

[GannonFan]

Hofstra made $33,000...??? how... they get very little revenue from ticket sales.

This was before they changed their logo - maybe previously they were getting advertisement money from Visa to have a logo that looked like an upside-down credit card?

[arkstfan]

Arkansas St. lost $1.5 mil

I'm not sure how well these schools did financially in I-AA but more of them are losing money now than making money, even with I-A BCS money.

Can't speak to the others. What I can say is that ASU during its runs to the I-AA playoffs had athletic budget losses ranging from a low of $800,000 to a high of $1.5 million. The median was in the $1.3 million range. That's in 1980's dollars and that is with (then) 25 fewer grants in football, no women's golf team, no women's soccer team, and no women's bowling team.

I think the Federal report numbers are a bit massaged and that is low for the number I've been able to get from internal contacts. Adjusted for general inflation based (which has been lower than education inflation) on the numbers I've seen Arkansas State is financially very slightly ahead of the I-AA days yet awarding more grants and sponsoring more sports. That to me is a positive.

As to awarding more grants in I-AA or the PCS, that defeats the purpose of I-AA in providing a cost-containment venue for Division I football.

As to some of the post Stanford-UCD comments, well statistically I-AA and the remainder of I-A don't win too dang often when facing teams from the rich six leagues. If not for UL Monroe, Idaho, and Middle Tennessee season openers the winning percentage for I-AA vs. I-A as a whole isn't great. When a I-AA newcomer comes in and doesn't just win but could have won by a fairly wide margin with some better placekicking it is very notable and few who depend on the interest of the masses in the members of the six rich leagues for their living are going to be inclined to take it as a case of a good team beating a good team, especially when the I-AA school isn't likely to be named #1 in the group and certainly won't win the playoff.

[UAalum72]

Oh, and # of sports needed is for Division I. No difference between I-A and I-AA.
I-A requires 16 sports, I-AA 14



20.9.6 Division I-A Football Requirements. [I-A] An institution classified in Division I-A shall meet the additional requirements listed below.






20.9.6.1 Sports Sponsorship. The institution shall sponsor a minimum of 16 varsity intercollegiate sports, including football, based on the minimum sports-sponsorship and scheduling requirements set forth in Bylaw 20, including a minimum of six sports involving all-male teams or mixed teams of males and females, and a minimum of eight varsity intercollegiate sports (of which a maximum of two emerging sports per Bylaw 20.02.5 may be utilized) based on the minimum sportssponsorship and scheduling requirements set forth in Bylaw 20 and involving all-female teams,

[henfan]

Rufus, a couple of things you're not considering:

1) By and large, I-AA programs who lose money on football lose less than I-A money losers.

2) Looking at football revenues/expenses does not tell the full story of how much money I-As are losing compared with their I-AA counterparts. Remember that each of the 22 extra football equivalancies must be matched by 22 additional equivalancies to satisfy gender equity requirements. In nearly all of those cases, the 22 additional equivalancies are going to non-revenue women's sports. I-A programs 'hide' those expenses in other EADA line items.

By comparison, I-AA football programs, even those that lose $1M per year due to lack of support, are still coming out financially ahead of their I-A counterparts.

[rufus]

This topic has turned into a debate over moving to I-A, which isn't really the point. I-AA fans always want more respect for their division, but this will not happen if its top conferences continue to play with one hand tied behind their back. There are many I-AA schools that could easily absorb the cost of 44 additional scholarships, and allowing them to add those scholarships would let them become more competitive with the other half of Division I.

Allowing 85 may even slow the flow of teams to I-A. Sure I-AA has gained more teams than it has lost, but just ask a Montana fan if they prefer the current Big Sky or the Big Sky from 10-15 years ago.

[AZGrizFan]

Allowing 85 may even slow the flow of teams to I-A. Sure I-AA has gained more teams than it has lost, but just ask a Montana fan if they prefer the current Big Sky or the Big Sky from 10-15 years ago.

Loaded question, rufus. You can't look at Boise, Nevada or Idaho and say "Man, I wish they were back in the BSC." If they were, they'd be back down to the 63 schollies, and it'd be a moot point--they wouldn't be the same teams they are now (ok, maybe Idaho isn't a good example :) ). Now, there's no doubt the conference was DEEPER in the 80's than now (although this year looks pretty good!), but I don't mind the conference as it exists. PSU was a good addition...I'd like to see Sac State go, and be replaced by some team like Cal Poly or NDSU...

I'm on record as saying I hope Montana NEVER goes I-A. I graduated from Idaho, and while I love to watch them struggle in every sport, I've always said they made a huge mistake moving up to meet the requirements of I-A.

I'll take my 2 NC's, 5 NC appearances, 12 straight playoff appearances, etc. and be VERY happy! If the Griz went I-A and were, say, in the WAC, and went 5-6 or 4-7 every year, it'd be a depressing sight to see a half empty Washington-Grizzly Stadium every week!