FCS non scholarship football teams to DII?

[MplsBison]

I just want everyone's offical opinion on this:


if the NCAA said that to be in the FCS you must sponsor at least 90% of 63 equivalencies (not scholarships), otherwise your team would have to play in DII.

Note that this rule would allow the athletic department (IE, basketball, volleyball, soccer, baseball, etc.) to stay DI while having the football team play in DII.


Would you guys support that?




My opinion is yes.

It establishes a minimum competitive standard in FCS and it doesn't hurt the DII schools like it hurt the DIII schools when Dayton, etc. were playing DIII.

[TexasTerror]

Not going to happen...

I don't see why you would support it considering you want NDSU to have all home games in OOC play and if these schools moved down, it would not be beneficial for your program...you'd end up having to buy out of games all the time... ;)

[MplsBison]

I'm sure both AP and CCSU could get 90% of 63 if they don't already have them.

[OL FU]

Wouldn't 90% of 63 scholarships be way above the DII limitxconfusedx

[catbob]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to have full scholarship amounts in FBS, right? So why not for FCS?

90% might be a bit harsh, I could see a 75% minimum being a little more fair for our level. Basically, if you can't offer 47 schollies, you would have to go DII.

[dgreco]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to have full scholarship amounts in FBS, right? So why not for FCS?

90% might be a bit harsh, I could see a 75% minimum being a little more fair for our level. Basically, if you can't offer 47 schollies, you would have to go DII.

it would have to be the DII max. Because you could offer just over the DII max and under the DI FCS max and win NC's every year in theory.

The max in DII is 36. So there should a be a 36 minimum no?

[catbob]

How could you offer over the DII max and under the FCS min? That would be impossible. You wouldn't qualify for either division.

I think the minimum has to be high enough over the DII max, otherwise why wouldn't a DII school just offer one more scholly to be FCS?

[UAalum72]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to have full scholarship amounts in FBS, right? So why not for FCS?
No, it's 90% of maximum (76.5) averaged over two years. However FBS cannot give partials.

If you're saying don't allow partials for FCS, that would further reduce depth on the bench, since you'd have only 63 scholly players and 22 or more walkons.

[MplsBison]

If you can't offer the FCS minimum equivalencies, whatever that is (75% is not a horrible number I guess), then you are automatically subject to the rules of DII and whatever equivalency maximums they have.


Also, the rules about partial equivalencies would not change. You would be able to offer up to 63 equivalencies to a maximum of 85 players, as it is now.

[UAalum72]

I think the minimum has to be high enough over the DII max, otherwise why wouldn't a DII school just offer one more scholly to be FCS?
Because they'd have to move up the whole program, not just football.

Division I requires 14 sports, not 10. 13 scholarships per basketball team, not 10. At least 75 scholarships for the entire athletic department. Additional academic supervision requirements. Plus there's that pesky waiting period.

[MplsBison]

How about 45? Is a minimum of 45 equivalencies low enough?

[Ruler]

I love the idea. Whether it works logistically is another story. I would love every FCS team to have at least 50 equivalencies.

[Dane96]

Well, I know the NEC is having a vote on increasing schollys to some of the limits previously expressed on this board. Clearly we know how part of the conference stands (Monmouth, Albany, CCSU...we just need two more).

[MplsBison]

But how do you feel about forcing teams who choose not to meet the minimum down to DII?

[andy7171]

But how do you feel about forcing teams who choose not to meet the minimum down to DII?

I think it would cause a lot of schools to question whether or not funding a football team is worth it. I would think more than a fair share of the schools at the bottom level would just kill the program rather than move the entire athletic department down a division.

[JDC325]

110% support that idea. Time to get the fakers, who only have an FCS level football team due March Madness money, out of this division.

[OL FU]

I personally don't have a problem with schools not giving a minimum number of scholarships and remaining FCS. However, I do think the NCAA could simplify the issue by giving an exemption on football to remain D-I. Simply let a school decide ( not every year of course) whether they want to participate at a level that is more applicable to their scholarship level in football and then allow them to remain D-I for everything else.

Personally, I think the NCAA has lost their minds on the football requirement to remain D-I.

[DFW HOYA]

110% support that idea. Time to get the fakers, who only have an FCS level football team due March Madness money, out of this division.

The Ivy League are not "fakers". Nor, by association, is Georgetown, whose budget is closer to Penn's than Lafayette's.

These schools (some of whom founded the NCAA) are not in it for March Madness and any assertion to that is beyiond groundless.

[MplsBison]

I would think more than a fair share of the schools at the bottom level would just kill the program rather than move the entire athletic department down a division.


This rule would allow a DI athletic department to have a DII football team without requiring them to move the entire athletic department to DII.



So NOW what do you think?

[DFW HOYA]

This rule would allow a DI athletic department to have a DII football team without requiring them to move the entire athletic department to DII. So NOW what do you think?

Ourtside of the PSAC, whose schedules are almost entirely inconference by rule, there are only eight Division II schools left in the Northeast.

Not only is this an idea with no foothold in reality, it's a scheduling impossibility.

[catbob]

Yea, nothing like having to go between Montana, Utah, Arizona, California, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon in our conference. Don't talk to me about scheduling problems. :P

[MplsBison]

Ourtside of the PSAC, whose schedules are almost entirely inconference by rule, there are only eight Division II schools left in the Northeast.

Not only is this an idea with no foothold in reality, it's a scheduling impossibility.

I guess you should have thought of that before you decided to not give your football players any athletic merit aid.

[UAalum72]

I guess you should have thought of that before you decided to not give your football players any athletic merit aid.
There are lots of D-III teams in the Northeast. The only thing nobody thought of were proposals that might come from Minneapolis.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So schools like NJIT then drop to Division III in all sports except for men's basketball and spend something like $100,000 on all those sports.

But NJIT then elects to pump multi-millions into their basketball programs. NJIT wins national titles, and gets known as a basketball powerhouse, beating schools like Syracuse, West Virginia, and UNC that sponsor FBS football programs.

That is why allowing schools to span divisions won't work in big money sports like men's basketball and football. For some non-revenue sports like wrestling, lacrosse, ice hockey or the like as of right now nobody cares (though that might be changing). But for big-revenue sports? Nobody in the "big" conferences wants that.

That why there's a moratorium right now on D-I moves, since too many schools are forming "shell" athletic departments that intend to only field competitive men's basketball programs. What you're proposing institutionalizes it.

[bluehenbillk]

I'd support the initial idea. There are a number of schools that aren't interested now or in the near future at competing at the level of the "power" leagues, like the CAA, Big Sky, Southern, Southland and Gateway.

I realize there are some schools, the Albany's, the Stony Brook's, the Coastal's that are on their way & have plans which is great. But for every school like that there's half a dozen that don't belong.

Show them the door. Honestly it wouldn't be too long until the D-II folks started complaining too, they'd get pounded by the Grand Valley's & NW Missouri's of the world.

[MplsBison]

So schools like NJIT then drop to Division III in all sports except for men's basketball and spend something like $100,000 on all those sports.


Why are you pulling DIII into this when it has not been mentioned in my OP?


The rules of DI state that if you have a DI basketball team then you have to have 14 DI sports and a bunch of other things.

That would not change.




The only change is that football would be allowed to go down to DII (that's TWO (2), not three).



IE, nothing would change for NJIT. If they started a football team, they would be allowed to play DII as long as they didn't have more than 36 equivalencies.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Why are you pulling DIII into this when it has not been mentioned in my OP?


The rules of DI state that if you have a DI basketball team then you have to have 14 DI sports and a bunch of other things.

That would not change.




The only change is that football would be allowed to go down to DII.

If you have a DI basketball team, you still have to have 14 sports that are DI and the whole bit.


IE, nothing would change for NJIT. If they started a football team, they would be allowed to play DII as long as they didn't have more than 36 equivalencies.

So Dayton would have D-I weight rooms for their D-II football players and their state-of-the-art athletics facilities? And they would spend even less money on football than they already do - and that money could be funneled to basketball?

How is this fair when (say) Delaware spends money supporting football and men's basketball at the D-I level? Dayton has a competitive advantage.

If you think the competitive advantages are bad now, imagine what they will be when teams funnel their money from football to basketball.

[DetroitFlyer]

Absolute rubbish. The reason for the current situation is the Dayton Flyers! Last season, we finished ranked in the top 25 in some FCS polls and were rumored to be in the playoff discussions, ( although I seriously doubt that rumor ). We defeated the PL champion, on their home field. Is there anyone who can clearly demonstrate that our program is not a legitimate, FCS program? Ask Fordham or Albany if we were a legitimate FCS team. Yeah, that Albany that prides itself in playing so many "real" FCS teams.... 2007 is also not the first time the Flyers have been ranked in FCS at the end of the season. We also did it in 1996 and 1997!

This is just more FBS wannabee talk. If you do not wish to be part of a diverse division, man up and provide 85 full athletic scholarships, get 15K fans to each home game and join your fantasy world of FBS. Pretty simple if you ask me, otherwise, quit your moaning! This division would be worlds better if all of the FBS wannabees and pretenders, ( and you know who you are ), would get off the pot and move to FBS.

[401ks]

"ANY GIVEN SATURDAY"

Yeah, right! xrolleyesx

As long as you give X amount of money to X number of guys out of the SPECIFIC "Football Pot of Money" in order to bribe them to come to your school, you deserve to call yourself "FCS".

I'm with the folks who call for programs to upgrade their schedules. It appears this will be happening over the next few years. (Schedules can't get changed overnight.) Be careful what you wish for. There will be many a "scholarship football" program that will have to be explaining why their mighty, talent-rich program lost to a lowly bunch of cast-offs who obviously weren't good enough to get a football scholarship somewhere. xrolleyesx

There seems to be this idea that "non-scholarship" football is inherently inferior to the chosen-by-god brand of football that is played by those receiving payment to do so.

It is the same idea that "FCS" football is inherently inferior to the chosen-by-god brand of football that is played by "FBS" programs.

It is the same idea that "non-BCS" football is inherently inferior to the chosen-by-god brand of football that is played by "BCS" programs.

Why is it that human nature leads people to attempt to find someone "beneath" them in order to validate their own self-worth???

I naively expected more from the people here on the "ANY GIVEN SATURDAY" board. I thought that a bunch of folks who are regularly looked down upon by FBS people (if the FCS people are given any notice at all by the FBS crowd!) would think twice before making the VERY SAME mistake as their elitist FBS brethren. :(

Full Disclosure (for those of you who may not know): My son (a 2-Star rated recruit) turned down athletic scholarship offers to attend, and play football for, "non-scholarship" Butler University.

[BisonBacker]

No matter what division you are in this kind of talk will happen. There will be the have's and have not's in all divisions and this talk will never go away. It does have some merit in that some schools are only in it for the money from BBall but they will never admit to it. Instead they will go on putting out a football team that will get crushed by any legit FCS team and the talk will continue.

[catbob]

Absolute rubbish. The reason for the current situation is the Dayton Flyers! Last season, we finished ranked in the top 25 in some FCS polls and were rumored to be in the playoff discussions, ( although I seriously doubt that rumor ). We defeated the PL champion, on their home field. Is there anyone who can clearly demonstrate that our program is not a legitimate, FCS program? Ask Fordham or Albany if we were a legitimate FCS team. Yeah, that Albany that prides itself in playing so many "real" FCS teams.... 2007 is also not the first time the Flyers have been ranked in FCS at the end of the season. We also did it in 1996 and 1997!

This is just more FBS wannabee talk. If you do not wish to be part of a diverse division, man up and provide 85 full athletic scholarships, get 15K fans to each home game and join your fantasy world of FBS. Pretty simple if you ask me, otherwise, quit your moaning! This division would be worlds better if all of the FBS wannabees and pretenders, ( and you know who you are ), would get off the pot and move to FBS.

Sure non-scholly teams can field a good, maybe even great team now and again. But there is a reason San Diego didn't make the playoffs, and they had arguably one of the bet non-scholly teams in the last several years. The fact is, if you put a non-scholly team into one of the power conferences, things are going to change. I mean the Bobcats beat CU a few years ago, I'm not naive enough to think we would be a decent team in the Big XII.

Face it, non-scholly teams are always looking to prove themselves, which makes them dangerous when they play a big time FCS opponent. Same thing when FCS teams play FBS teams.

I don't see whats wrong with not wanting a division of football that runs the gambit from the full allotment of scholarships to absolutely zero scholarships.

[MplsBison]

So Dayton would have D-I weight rooms for their D-II football players and their state-of-the-art athletics facilities?

That argument only works for DI schools playing DIII football.

Most DII football schools would compete just fine with schools like Dayton. And powerhouse DII teams (GVSU, for exmaple) would crush them.



And they would spend even less money on football than they already do - and that money could be funneled to basketball?

As long as they stayed title IX compliant, yes.



How is this fair when (say) Delaware spends money supporting football and men's basketball at the D-I level?


Dayton is allowed to drop football right now if they wanted to.


That would give Dayton and even bigger advantage over Delaware in basketball. Yet you are not saying anything about that.


If you think the competitive advantages are bad now, imagine what they will be when teams funnel their money from football to basketball.


They're going to funnel money from their DII football teams to their DI basketball teams?

[MplsBison]

Absolute rubbish. The reason for the current situation is the Dayton Flyers! Last season, we finished ranked in the top 25 in some FCS polls and were rumored to be in the playoff discussions, ( although I seriously doubt that rumor ). We defeated the PL champion, on their home field. Is there anyone who can clearly demonstrate that our program is not a legitimate, FCS program? Ask Fordham or Albany if we were a legitimate FCS team. Yeah, that Albany that prides itself in playing so many "real" FCS teams.... 2007 is also not the first time the Flyers have been ranked in FCS at the end of the season. We also did it in 1996 and 1997!

This is just more FBS wannabee talk. If you do not wish to be part of a diverse division, man up and provide 85 full athletic scholarships, get 15K fans to each home game and join your fantasy world of FBS. Pretty simple if you ask me, otherwise, quit your moaning! This division would be worlds better if all of the FBS wannabees and pretenders, ( and you know who you are ), would get off the pot and move to FBS.



If you can not afford to give 45 equivalencies, you are not a FCS football team.

You are DII.

[MplsBison]

As long as you give X amount of money to X number of guys out of the SPECIFIC "Football Pot of Money" in order to bribe them to come to your school, you deserve to call yourself "FCS".


Putting it bluntly, yes.




My son (a 2-Star rated recruit) turned down athletic scholarship offers to attend, and play football for, "non-scholarship" Butler University.


Butler does not deserve to be in the FCS division unless it gives at least 45 (or some other arbitrary number) of equivalcies.

[USDFAN_55]

I've said this a thousand times.... How does having scholarships make you a better or more worthy team? If a team can compete, then there should be no problem. We can list a lot of teams that offer scholarships that are horrible, but because they have scholarships they are worthy FCS teams. The issue I see is that if a non-scholarship team can beat up on a scholarship team, then what is the justification for spending all that money on scholarships? Having non-scholarship football teams isn't hurting anyone. If anything the schools success at basketball can bring a little more attention to FCS football (Just from the PFL there was San Diego, Drake, Buttler, and Davidson) from fans that don't know much about that level, but recognize the school name from their basketball success.

So tell me this: What is so negative about having non-scholarship football at the FCS level? How does having scholarships make you a better team? Why not address the issue of having teams in the FCS that offer scholrships, but are not competetive. Those teams make the FCS look like a joke more than the non-scholarship teams do.

[EKU05]

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about this because...

The reason that those programs left Division III was that the D3 membership voted them out. Regardless of whether we think it would be more fair at the Division II level the D2 membership would do the same thing. Why compete with a school that has the attraction of a Division I name when you don't have to?

I'm not at all for forcibly removing any Division I school from FCS football. I do think that a conference should have to meet some kind of minimum standard of scholarships in order to be considered for (or keep) an automatic playoff bid, but beyond that any Division I school that plays football should play it in Division I as is the case now. Besides, as we're all aware some of these teams regularly outperform at lot of full scholarship programs.

[401ks]

Butler does not deserve to be in the FCS division unless it gives at least 45 (or some other arbitrary number) of equivalcies.

Let's see... xcoffeex

It costs less than $12,000/year for NDSU to provide a full scholarship to one of their in-state football players, and just about $12,000 to a player from Minnesota.

Butler will be providing DOUBLE that to my son to come to Butler.

Who is it that's not coughing up enough bucks? xeyebrowx

It appears that there may not be a level playing field here.

Hey, how about THIS for an idea that is just as brilliant and viable as the one that began this thread:

Any school that is not providing AT LEAST $1,000,000 in institutional grants to its football STUDENT-ATHLETES doesn't deserve to be in the FCS! ;)

(My guess is that Butler surpasses that by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.)

[Saint3333]

Does anyone have the data of how many schools offer at least 75% of the 63 scholarships in the FCS?

My guess is only the Pioneer, NE, and MAAC don't met this requirement, which is just under 20% of the division. (Note I don't count the Ivy and Patriot as they have at least that many grants).

I like the idea of a minimum requirement, but grants would count towards the number. And yes I believe there is a strong correlation between the number of scholarships and FCS wins.

[USDFAN_55]

Does anyone have the data of how many schools offer at least 75% of the 63 scholarships in the FCS?

My guess is only the Pioneer, NE, and MAAC don't met this requirement, which is just under 20% of the division. (Note I don't count the Ivy and Patriot as they have at least that many grants).

I like the idea of a minimum requirement, but grants would count towards the number. And yes I believe there is a strong correlation between the number of scholarships and FCS wins.

News flash, Pioneer schools give the same grants to their players. They are called academic merit grants. There was a thread on this a while back.

[bonarae]

Yes and no.

What would be the Ivies' opinion on that? They wouldn't want something like this to happen, e.g. downgrading the set of teams their football teams would play...

and yet, we don't play against DII teams, unlike some teams in the South who still play them (DII teams).

[mvemjsunpx]

The bigger question to all of this is: why does anyone care?

Seriously, why do so many power conference fans want to weed out & remove the "weaker" programs from FCS? What exactly does this accomplish? Is it some sort of nationalistic desire to strengthen FCS in our "war" against FBS (even though the non-schollies don't generally play FBS anyway)? How does this push even benefit your (or my) team? There are more DI teams you can choose from to fill out the schedule and you can schedule weak non-schollies instead of non-DIs to look better for the playoff committee. It seems like a win-win to me.



Originally posted by catbob
I don't see whats wrong with not wanting a division of football that runs the gambit from the full allotment of scholarships to absolutely zero scholarships.


I don't see what's wrong with having it.

[MplsBison]

Let's see... xcoffeex

It costs less than $12,000/year for NDSU to provide a full scholarship to one of their in-state football players, and just about $12,000 to a player from Minnesota.

Butler will be providing DOUBLE that to my son to come to Butler.

Who is it that's not coughing up enough bucks? xeyebrowx

It appears that there may not be a level playing field here.

Hey, how about THIS for an idea that is just as brilliant and viable as the one that began this thread:

Any school that is not providing AT LEAST $1,000,000 in institutional grants to its football STUDENT-ATHLETES doesn't deserve to be in the FCS! ;)

(My guess is that Butler surpasses that by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.)



If it is not athletic merit grants, it does not count.

[Saint3333]

News flash, Pioneer schools give the same grants to their players. They are called academic merit grants. There was a thread on this a while back.

Sorry I don't really keep up with the mid-major FCS programs, excuse my ignorance.

How many does SD offer?

[catbob]

Well for one thing, think of it this way. The full scholarship teams are paying a premium to be in this division. We have higher budgets, spend more money on athletic scholarships, and often (certainly not always though) have better facilities (private schools get some good donations).

So here we are, paying our premium, and then the non-scholarship teams come in screaming to be treated equally and given their fair shot.

When you are paying for something that other people, reaping the same benefits, are not paying for, it can create some disdain.

Or here is a different thought. If you want to be eligible for the playoffs, then you should be required to have a 75% or whatever equivalent. If you don't wana pony up, just stay in FCS with no chance of ever winning a NC. I mean if you think about it, if a school isn't paying their football players scholarship money, how serious can be they be about competing at a national level?

[UAalum72]

If it is not athletic merit grants, it does not count.
Dollars is dollars.

If it induces a player to come to a college by reducing his expenses, what difference does it make? Do you think the player cares what pot the money comes out of?

[DUPFLFan]

If you can not afford to give 45 equivalencies, you are not a FCS football team.

You are DII.

Geez - just why in the hell do you care?xviolinx xdeadhorsex

[MplsBison]

Well for one thing, think of it this way. The full scholarship teams are paying a premium to be in this division. We have higher budgets, spend more money on athletic scholarships, and often (certainly not always though) have better facilities (private schools get some good donations).

So here we are, paying our premium, and then the non-scholarship teams come in screaming to be treated equally and given their fair shot.


This is a really great point.



You get low budget teams like San Diego and Dayton who think that because they beat eight other low budget teams they should get an automatic bid to the playoffs against the big budget teams who have been playing big budget teams all year.

[MplsBison]

Do you think the player cares what pot the money comes out of?


Oh sure, if a kid has good grades and went to the "right" prep school, I do not think he cares if he is getting an academic merit grant or an athletic merit grant.


Of course, most kids are not like that. They go to the local public school and have average grades.



Those are the kids who need the athletic merit grants that low budget schools refuse to provide.

[andy7171]

This is a really great point.



You get low budget teams like San Diego and Dayton who think that because they beat eight other low budget teams they should get an automatic bid to the playoffs against the big budget teams who have been playing big budget teams all year.

I can't believe it, I am in full agreement with MPLS! xoopsx

[USDFAN_55]

Well for one thing, think of it this way. The full scholarship teams are paying a premium to be in this division. We have higher budgets, spend more money on athletic scholarships, and often (certainly not always though) have better facilities (private schools get some good donations).

So here we are, paying our premium, and then the non-scholarship teams come in screaming to be treated equally and given their fair shot.

When you are paying for something that other people, reaping the same benefits, are not paying for, it can create some disdain.

Or here is a different thought. If you want to be eligible for the playoffs, then you should be required to have a 75% or whatever equivalent. If you don't wana pony up, just stay in FCS with no chance of ever winning a NC. I mean if you think about it, if a school isn't paying their football players scholarship money, how serious can be they be about competing at a national level?

So Hypathetically speaking, if a team like San Diego played Cal poly, Northern Arizona, UC Davis, and Montana State in the OOC schedule and went undefeated that year, they wouldn't be worthy of a play-off spot because they didn't have "athletic" scholarships? That's crazy! That's such an elitist attitude; like you are priveledged only if you spend exuberant amounts of money. There's more to fielding a good team than getting a bunch of dummies on a field that are only going to school (and got in) because they can play football. These non-scholarship schools, including the Ivies and the Patriots, are getting very good student athletes that could have played at many scholarship programs, but realized the value of a great education.

I don't think this would be much of an issue if the non-scholarship schools weren't winning. The non-scholarship talent level is slowly catching up with the scholarship schools.

[MplsBison]

if a team like San Diego played Cal poly, Northern Arizona, UC Davis, and Montana State in the OOC schedule and went undefeated that year, they wouldn't be worthy of a play-off spot because they didn't have "athletic" scholarships?


Four wins over high budget teams does not prove that you could hang with the high budget teams all year.



And that will always be the crux of the argument.


Until low budget teams can prove that they would win eight games against high budget teams, they don't deserve the playoffs.




No doubt the low budget schools have stars (Jackson from SD, for example).


But the low budget schools simply do not have the depth to sustain that level the whole season.



Money = depth.


Without it, your starters get hurt and you lose.

[USDFAN_55]

Four wins over high budget teams does not prove that you could hang with the high budget teams all year.



And that will always be the crux of the argument.


Until low budget teams can prove that they would win eight games against high budget teams, they don't deserve the playoffs.




No doubt the low budget schools have stars (Jackson from SD, for example).


But the low budget schools simply do not have the depth to sustain that level the whole season.



Money = depth.


Without it, your starters get hurt and you lose.

That's Johnson by the way.

Also, Money = Depth may hold some kind of truth, but money spent doesn't alway correlate to being good (Indiana State, Southern Utah, Savanah State, Northern Colorado, VMI, North Carolina A&T, Stephen F Austin, Texas Southern, etc.). To suggest that you shouldn't be FCS unless you have scholarships is ignoring the most important thing, winning!

Do you have info/statistics to back-up your statement that the starters will get hurt?

[Ruler]

Very good points USDFAN 55.

Scholarships/Fin Aid/Merit/Grants/ however you want to label it is all the same to the player ....SCHOLARSHIP....."they are paying me to play football" @ Davidson, Butler, or Harvard.. The the Ivies/PL/ Pioneer, and NEC use any and all combos to field the best teams they can BUY/PURCHASE anyway possible.

The difference is depth. The chances of Dayton's or SD's top 22 starters matching up with Delawares top 22 will probably be somewhat close. The depth and duration of the season will give direct advantages to Delaware.

But in the end I agree I think all programs at this level should have a minimum of 50 schollies/Aid/Merit/ grants/ you get the picture.

[401ks]

If it is not athletic merit grants, it does not count.

This thread has gone from totally absurd to....

THE TWILIGHT ZONE

(cue the creepy music)

I've determined that MplsBison is just messing with us. He can't possibly be serious.

I thought we were having a SERIOUS discussion. Obviously, I was wrong.

I'll move on. xpeacex

[UAalum72]

Money = depth.

Without it, your starters get hurt and you lose.
Albany opened last year vs. Colgate, Fordham, Montana, Hofstra, and Stony Brook. They finished the year with the same starters they had for the opening kickoff in September.

As far as I heard Central Connecticut had no major injuries vs. FBS Western Michigan.

Probably had fewer injuries because these high-money teams no doubt had better field conditions.

[BearsCountry]

Another typical wack job thread by MplsBison. Suprise, suprise.

[Franks Tanks]

This thread has gone from totally absurd to....

THE TWILIGHT ZONE

(cue the creepy music)

I've determined that MplsBison is just messing with us. He can't possibly be serious.

I thought we were having a SERIOUS discussion. Obviously, I was wrong.

I'll move on. xpeacex

I felt the same way at first "Wow this guy is just ******ing with me and its probably sitting laughing." But no he is absolutely serious

[catbob]

Well let me pose a simple question to the non-scholly schools:

Do you believe your talent would increase, decrease, or remain constant if you gave scholarships to football players?

[DetroitFlyer]

Well let me pose a simple question to the non-scholly schools:

Do you believe your talent would increase, decrease, or remain constant if you gave scholarships to football players?

First, explain to me how so many so called "full scholarship" teams in FCS stink up the place.... As you may recall, Dayton finished in the top 25 in some polls, and at least top 40 in most rankings. So, please explain to me how the talent at Dayton is better than the talent at around 80 other FCS schools, many of which are reported to be "full scholarship".

[USDFAN_55]

Well let me pose a simple question to the non-scholly schools:

Do you believe your talent would increase, decrease, or remain constant if you gave scholarships to football players?

A possible increase in the depth of talent, but the talent at some non-scholarship schools is right on with the most of the FCS.

[USDFAN_55]

First, explain to me how so many so called "full scholarship" teams in FCS stink up the place.... As you may recall, Dayton finished in the top 25 in some polls, and at least top 40 in most rankings. So, please explain to me how the talent at Dayton is better than the talent at around 80 other FCS schools, many of which are reported to be "full scholarship".

They don't like to discuss this glaring fact.

Fact: Scholarships do not make a winning team!!!!!!

[JBB]

It is what it is. I say leave it alone. It started to preserve rivalries.

Tell me this, which team wouldnt love to have a non-scholarship for the first or second round playoff game? Let em play.

[eaglesrthe1]

They don't like to discuss this glaring fact.

Fact: Scholarships do not make a winning team!!!!!!


That's a no brainer. If the entire league were to become athletic scholarship only, it would be impossible for all teams to have a winning record. While mandates such as this can't guarantee an increase in the level of play, it can increase the odds of it.

For SD it would simply be a decision for the program or the league to either abandon FCS or to designate the appropriate number of scholarships as athletic instead of academic. The choice and power of the decision process would still rest with these programs and not with the NCAA.

The benefit from an athletic level of play standpoint would be to allow the football coaches to award scholarships based on the level of talent that they saw in their prospects as a primary quality, as long as they met some academic minimums put forth by the school. The coaches would certainly have greater autonomy on who would receive scholarships if they were designated as athletic.

[catbob]

First, explain to me how so many so called "full scholarship" teams in FCS stink up the place.... As you may recall, Dayton finished in the top 25 in some polls, and at least top 40 in most rankings. So, please explain to me how the talent at Dayton is better than the talent at around 80 other FCS schools, many of which are reported to be "full scholarship".

Didn't your mother teach you not to answer a question with a question? :)

But I'll be nice and answer yours first. I said it earlier, non-scholly schools can field good, sometimes great teams every now and again. Chances are there will usually be one or two fighting for a top 25, even top 15 spot.

But I said it before and I'll say it again, there is a reason that the San Diego team wasn't picked for an at-large. I mean you can't really have much more of an impressive resume (except for the fact they had bad NAIA and DII schools in their OOC) than they did those few years as a non-scholly school. In 2006, rather than give USD a shot, the committee selected a 7-4 Montana State team and even gave us a first round game (which we won).

I really have no problem with the non-scholly teams being in our division. I would prefer to have a requirement, but the non-scholly teams aren't such a joke or anything like that that I am embarrassed to have them in the same division. All I'm really trying to say is that if you have the greatest Dayton team you've had since being DI, don't get too upset when you aren't given a shot to win a NC.

[gophoenix]

Does anyone have the data of how many schools offer at least 75% of the 63 scholarships in the FCS?

My guess is only the Pioneer, NE, and MAAC don't met this requirement, which is just under 20% of the division. (Note I don't count the Ivy and Patriot as they have at least that many grants).

I like the idea of a minimum requirement, but grants would count towards the number. And yes I believe there is a strong correlation between the number of scholarships and FCS wins.

But why require a minimum in football when they don't do it for any other D-I sport?

[gophoenix]

They don't like to discuss this glaring fact.

Fact: Scholarships do not make a winning team!!!!!!

This is the silliest comment yet. You're right, if all the scholarship teams play scholarship teams on a weekly basis, then 50% of them would lose on a weekly basis.

Scholarships do not equal wins. But on the average, scholarship teams give each other a better change to accurately measure against each other since they play more inter-divisional games than the non-scholarship teams do on average.

So you get outliers in a statistical set like Dayton, San Diego and others have been sometimes because of the lack of direct 1 to 1 FCS/FBS games along with the lack of 1 t o1 FCS/FBS games with their opponents overall.

[USDFAN_55]

This is the silliest comment yet. You're right, if all the scholarship teams play scholarship teams on a weekly basis, then 50% of them would lose on a weekly basis.

Scholarships do not equal wins. But on the average, scholarship teams give each other a better change to accurately measure against each other since they play more inter-divisional games than the non-scholarship teams do on average.

So you get outliers in a statistical set like Dayton, San Diego and others have been sometimes because of the lack of direct 1 to 1 FCS/FBS games along with the lack of 1 t o1 FCS/FBS games with their opponents overall.

Of course that logic makes sence. What doesn't make sense is to say a team is not worthy of being in the FCS because they don't give scholarships. They may not give athletic scholarships, but they do give academic grants/scholarships. If a team is winning it shouldn't matter though. If anything it should open the eyes of some of the sholarship schools that continually lose year after year despite having scholarship players, while a school without athletic scholarships is winning. That kind of thing puts coaches and ADs on the hot seat from the alumni/fans.

This is not like a situation where a team is awarding more than the maximum, thus giving an unfair advantage. The schools are choosing to compete at a "disadvantage", and some are doing so successfully.

With you logic, should they require professional teams to spend a minimum ammount on their player's salaries? After all, those teams that don't spend as much are at a sever disadvantage, right?xthumbsupx

[USDFAN_55]

But why require a minimum in football when they don't do it for any other D-I sport?

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern xreadx

[401ks]

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern xreadx

xreadx

superiority complex
n.
1. An exaggerated feeling of being superior to others.
2. A psychological defense mechanism in which feelings of superiority counter or conceal feelings of inferiority.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[USDFAN_55]

xreadx

superiority complex
n.
1. An exaggerated feeling of being superior to others.
2. A psychological defense mechanism in which feelings of superiority counter or conceal feelings of inferiority.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Way to be originalxthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

[MplsBison]

If nothing else, you should not get to golf at the country club without paying your dues.


Low budget teams want the country club experience without having to pay their dues.



Not going to fly.

[USDFAN_55]

If nothing else, you should not get to gold at the country club without paying your dues.


Low budget teams want the country club experience without having to pay their dues.



Not going to fly.

Country Club???? Not quite the right analogy. I don't think the FCS, in general, is considered so highly (except for in here of course)

[mvemjsunpx]

Well for one thing, think of it this way. The full scholarship teams are paying a premium to be in this division. We have higher budgets, spend more money on athletic scholarships, and often (certainly not always though) have better facilities (private schools get some good donations).

So here we are, paying our premium, and then the non-scholarship teams come in screaming to be treated equally and given their fair shot.

When you are paying for something that other people, reaping the same benefits, are not paying for, it can create some disdain.

Or here is a different thought. If you want to be eligible for the playoffs, then you should be required to have a 75% or whatever equivalent. If you don't wana pony up, just stay in FCS with no chance of ever winning a NC. I mean if you think about it, if a school isn't paying their football players scholarship money, how serious can be they be about competing at a national level?


I think you're a little off track with your argument here. This thread wasn't really about whether non-scholarship teams should be given a "fair shot" at the playoffs, it was about a proposal (by MplsBison) to move the non-scholarship schools down a division in football. Since doing so would mean a bigger "basketball cash cow" situation than what we have now & given that DIII & DII don't want those teams competing with them anyway, this proposal seems quite impossible.


When you are paying for something that other people, reaping the same benefits, are not paying for, it can create some disdain.

Except that the non-scholarship mid-majors clearly aren't getting the same benefits; not one has ever been selected for the playoffs.


Or here is a different thought. If you want to be eligible for the playoffs, then you should be required to have a 75% or whatever equivalent.

The playoff committee should select the 8 non-transitional at-larges with the best resume, period. Dayton & San Diego didn't quite have the credentials to make the playoffs the last 2 years (though I thought they were close) and, as a result, were not selected. The system seems to be working fine.


Though it isn't too interesting now, the argument about scholarship vs. non-scholarship fairness becomes a lot more meaningful once the NCAA starts expanding the playoff field. They will need 4 more auto-bids to reach their eventual goal of 24 teams. The NEC & the Big South will, of course, each get one. The SWAC presumably won't want one, so that leaves the Great West, the Ivy League, & the Pioneer League for the next 2 bids. The Great West doesn't look like it will reach auto-bid eligibility anytime soon, so the NCAA is going to have to convince the Ivy League that their current playoff non-participation has no practical justification & then give the other bid to the currently mid-major Pioneer League.

[MplsBison]

Country Club???? Not quite the right analogy. I don't think the FCS, in general, is considered so highly (except for in here of course)


The analogy is correct in that the fact that you may be just as good of a golfer, if not better, than a golfer who has a membership at the club does not entitle you to the rewards of membership without paying for them.


You refuse to pay membership.


Therefore, you should be barred from the course.

[MplsBison]

the argument about scholarship vs. non-scholarship fairness becomes a lot more meaningful once the NCAA starts expanding the playoff field. They will need 4 more auto-bids to reach their eventual goal of 24 teams. The NEC & the Big South will, of course, each get one. The SWAC presumably won't want one, so that leaves the Great West, the Ivy League, & the Pioneer League for the next 2 bids. The Great West doesn't look like it will reach auto-bid eligibility anytime soon, so the NCAA is going to have to convince the Ivy League that their current playoff non-participation has no practical justification & then give the other bid to the currently mid-major Pioneer League.



Or just change the rule that says half of the field has to be auto bids.

[USDFAN_55]

The analogy is correct in that the fact that you may be just as good of a golfer, if not better, than a golfer who has a membership at the club does not entitle you to the rewards of membership without paying for them.


You refuse to pay membership.


Therefore, you should be barred from the course.

So how would this work for a school whose tuition is $32k a year (plus another $10k for room and board), and a school whose tuition is $10K a year (plus $6k room and board)? Would the school with the higher tuition have to provide less scholarships than the school with the lower tuition? Afterall, the "country club" membership fee is a flat rate. Or maybe there should be a rule that states an FCS school has to have a $2 million budget for their football program?

If you want to go this route, why is there even an FCS level? Two D-I's? That's insane; D-I should be D-I. All teams in the FCS should either go full scholly (FBS) or go D-II; thus sliding all divisions down (D-II becomes D-III and D-III becomes D-IV). Don't you see how this logic can be applied to the FCS from the FBS point of view? How about you go full scholly, or stop your complainingxthumbsupx

[MplsBison]

So how would this work for a school who's tuition is $32k a year (plus another $10k for room and board), and a scool who's tuition is $10K a year (plus $6k room and board)?


The first step would be for your top ranked liberal arts "scool" to teach you the difference between who's and whose.



But the important thing to realize is that the NCAA uses "equivalencies".


I do not know the exact rule off the top of my head, but one equivalency is not a set number of dollars. It is the amount of money that it takes to pay for tuition, room and board for a player, I think.


IE, if a player from Houston gets 15k for tuition and 5k for room and board from NDSU, that would be counted as one equivalency against the total count for NDSU. Then if a player from Milwaukee gets 6k for tuition and 5k for room and board from NDSU, that also would be counted as one equivalency against the total count for NDSU. The reason being that out of state tuition at NDSU is 15k and Wisconsin reciprocity tuition at NDSU is 6k while room/board for all students is 5k.


Something like that.

[USDFAN_55]

The first step would be for your top ranked liberal arts "scool" to teach you the difference between who's and whose.



But the important thing to realize is that the NCAA uses "equivalencies".


I do not know the exact rule off the top of my head, but one equivalency is not a set number of dollars. It is the amount of money that it takes to pay for tuition, room and board for a player, I think.


IE, if a player from Houston gets 15k for tuition and 5k for room and board from NDSU, that would be counted as one equivalency against the total count for NDSU. Then if a player from Milwaukee gets 6k for tuition and 5k for room and board from NDSU, that also would be counted as one equivalency against the total count for NDSU. The reason being that out of state tuition at NDSU is 15k and Wisconsin reciprocity tuition at NDSU is 6k while room/board for all students is 5k.


Something like that.

Sorry about the typos. Way to bust my balls about itxsmiley_wix

My point was that an equivalency for a school like San Diego would be a lot higher than an equivalency for North Dakota State, therefore making it a lot easier financially to offer 63 scholarships at NDSU. After all, you did say it's a country club membership we are paying for right?

It looks like you completely ignored my comment about all of FCS should drop down to D-II because they aren't meeting the requiements for FBS.xreadx

[gophoenix]

If nothing else, you should not get to golf at the country club without paying your dues.


Low budget teams want the country club experience without having to pay their dues.



Not going to fly.

Ok. For the record, I am not for or against non-scholarship teams in FCS. Personally, I am for a D-I football classification period. No FBS, FCS or NS. It doesn't matter.

With that said, just because you aren't giving scholarships doesn't mean you aren't paying. Nearly every team in FCS loses money in the whole scheme of things, NS teams included.

The deal is, this isn't a country club. This is collegiate sports. Collegiate meaning, students first.

But, by that same logic Bison, let me take it a hypothetical step further. Public school people expect the country club experience (Grade A education) without paying for it. Essentially, that is what public school education is..... private schools on the whole are what a relative public school would cost without the taxpayer subsidies.

[gophoenix]

The first step would be for your top ranked liberal arts "scool" to teach you the difference between who's and whose.



But the important thing to realize is that the NCAA uses "equivalencies".


I do not know the exact rule off the top of my head, but one equivalency is not a set number of dollars. It is the amount of money that it takes to pay for tuition, room and board for a player, I think.


IE, if a player from Houston gets 15k for tuition and 5k for room and board from NDSU, that would be counted as one equivalency against the total count for NDSU. Then if a player from Milwaukee gets 6k for tuition and 5k for room and board from NDSU, that also would be counted as one equivalency against the total count for NDSU. The reason being that out of state tuition at NDSU is 15k and Wisconsin reciprocity tuition at NDSU is 6k while room/board for all students is 5k.


Something like that.

So essentially what you are saying is, where it would be maybe $100k for a typical public school to fully fund football by your definition, and it cost a private school $1 million. Then, all in all, it is ultimately the same?

Or does your country club analogy not fit here? After all, my 25 scholarships could equal your 63 scholarships. We've both paid the same "dues"... you jsut think mine aren't good enough.

[MplsBison]

My point was that an equivalency for a school like San Diego would be a lot higher than an equivalency for North Dakota State, therefore making it a lot easier financially to offer 63 scholarships at NDSU.


NDSU could arbitrarily raise its tuition to 50k a year for all students who are from outside North Dakota.


That would mean nothing. NDSU would simply pay 50k times however many players we happen to have from outside ND.




If your school honestly can not afford to pay the money, that is fine. It just means you should not be playing football at the DI level.

[MplsBison]

So essentially what you are saying is, where it would be maybe $100k for a typical public school to fully fund football by your definition, and it cost a private school $1 million. Then, all in all, it is ultimately the same?

Or does your country club analogy not fit here? After all, my 25 scholarships could equal your 63 scholarships. We've both paid the same "dues"... you jsut think mine aren't good enough.



You are not paying the same dues because you are not providing for 63 young men to go to your school via playing football. You are only providing for 25.

[mvemjsunpx]

Or just change the rule that says half of the field has to be auto bids.

Because that would never happen (nor should it). A lot of the conferences that currently have auto-bids would strongly oppose any attempt to change that rule fearing that they would lose them. Not to mention, how would the NCAA decide what conferences got auto-bids & what conferences didn't? Personally, I think that every conference that meets the requirements should get an auto-bid (like in DI basketball) unless they refuse one.

[swaghook]

This rule would allow a DI athletic department to have a DII football team without requiring them to move the entire athletic department to DII.



So NOW what do you think?Parroting UND's president Kupchella.xnonono2x His idea was shot down already and rightfully so.

[DFW HOYA]

You are not paying the same dues because you are not providing for 63 young men to go to your school via playing football. You are only providing for 25.

Welcome to the silly season on AGS.

MplsBison throws these firecrackers on thw board every few months and must appreciate how people jump up and down when they go off. It reminds me of a response last years suggesting that if a school took a player's academics into consideration when offering a football scholarship, it wasn't a real scholarship.

Granted there are some serious proposals that could be debated: a minimum stadium size, a minimum funding level. Instead, the idea that Yale will turn in its Division I keys to play Chowan and Grand Valley State is preposterous. Division I is about fielding a minimum number of sports to compete, which the Ivies do more than their share.

So how about a better argument--should a school need, say, 20 Division I sports to play in I-AA/FC, not 14? Does your respective school offer a true commitment, or is just getting by?

[gophoenix]

You are not paying the same dues because you are not providing for 63 young men to go to your school via playing football. You are only providing for 25.

So, let me get this straight. At first, it was about money. Now, it is about numbers of people. So which is it? If I'm paying $2 million and you're paying $500,000 then, who isn't paying their dues.

I see you successfully dodged the other questions though. Golf clap for you. xsmileyclapx

Overall, you're just being silly. Really what you want is some exclusive club that has an uneven measure across the board.

[Franks Tanks]

So, let me get this straight. At first, it was about money. Now, it is about numbers of people. So which is it? If I'm paying $2 million and you're paying $500,000 then, who isn't paying their dues.

I see you successfully dodged the other questions though. Golf clap for you. xsmileyclapx

Overall, you're just being silly. Really what you want is some exclusive club that has an uneven measure across the board.


He has shown his disdain for private schools in FCS before, and most of his argument disparage them. What he really wants is a division full of directional state schools--thats why we have D-II

[MplsBison]

Parroting UND's president Kupchella.xnonono2x His idea was shot down already and rightfully so.

His idea was to allow a DII athletic department to have DI football.


That is completely different.

[MplsBison]

A lot of the conferences that currently have auto-bids would strongly oppose any attempt to change that rule fearing that they would lose them.

Not if the rule was changed so that 10 of the 24 bids had to be auto bids.

[MplsBison]

Welcome to the silly season on AGS.

MplsBison throws these firecrackers on thw board every few months and must appreciate how people jump up and down when they go off. It reminds me of a response last years suggesting that if a school took a player's academics into consideration when offering a football scholarship, it wasn't a real scholarship.

Granted there are some serious proposals that could be debated: a minimum stadium size, a minimum funding level. Instead, the idea that Yale will turn in its Division I keys to play Chowan and Grand Valley State is preposterous. Division I is about fielding a minimum number of sports to compete, which the Ivies do more than their share.

So how about a better argument--should a school need, say, 20 Division I sports to play in I-AA/FC, not 14? Does your respective school offer a true commitment, or is just getting by?



DI was never about how many sports you could provide.



The true nature of DI was how many athletic merit grants can you provide to student athletes.



Simply having sports means nothing.

[MplsBison]

So, let me get this straight. At first, it was about money. Now, it is about numbers of people. So which is it? If I'm paying $2 million and you're paying $500,000 then, who isn't paying their dues.


The dollar amount is meaningless.


It is the number of equivalencies that count.




If your school can not afford to give 45 equivalencies because you make your tuition so high that only the elite can afford it, that is your own fault.

[gophoenix]

The dollar amount is meaningless.


It is the number of equivalencies that count.




If your school can not afford to give 45 equivalencies because you make your tuition so high that only the elite can afford it, that is your own fault.

Is the dollar amount meaningless? You said this was like a country club. If you don't pay your dues, you shouldn't be in. So my dues are $2 million and your dues are $500k? If that's the case, then those are no longer dues and your analogy was about as wrong as it could be.

With that said, I really have no problem with public schools. But again, let me make this argument. Private schools charge the true cost of education without taxpayer subsidies to drive cost down at the expense of everyone in a particular state (generally speaking). That's true socialism at work. Add to that that many states of waived out of state tuition at in state schools for athletes (not regular students) and it further pushes that cause of government forcing an unfair playing field. After all, you have the government behind you.... you can do anything. Why do you think Duke is so expensive compared to North Carolina although most graduate school and higher grads have the same amount of educational respect? One of them I pay for with every paycheck I get, one the other I don't.

So anyway, I see where you're going with this. And you've still completely dodged my question. Why should football, in your argumentative case, have some sort of minimum while no other D-I sport does? After all, there are a few minimum to no scholarship basketball teams. There are even more no scholarship baseball teams. Why not force them all to give that maximum?

I also completely disagree with your in another respect. If you want to give more than the D-II limit, where do you go? And say this same logic applied to D-II. Where would the teams giving 1-29 scholarships go?

You are also wrong on a number of fronts. D-I isn't about scholarships. It is also about the number of coaches you can hire per sport. It is about how you can break scholarships up amongst multiple players. And it is about academic standards in each sport. There are others, but I really don't feel like pulling my old rule book out.

Good grief, you really just want the rules bent so that it fits whatever criteria that you want it to. The way you constantly contradict yourself is cracking me up at this point. xthumbsupx

[udchuck]

Sorry I don't really keep up with the mid-major FCS programs, excuse my ignorance.

How many does SD offer?

THERE IS NO MID -MAJOR PROGRAMS, I REPEAT NO MID-MAJOR PROGRAMS,100 TIMES NO MID MAJOR PROGRAMS.xbangx xspankx

[USDFAN_55]

Is the dollar amount meaningless? You said this was like a country club. If you don't pay your dues, you shouldn't be in. So my dues are $2 million and your dues are $500k? If that's the case, then those are no longer dues and your analogy was about as wrong as it could be.

With that said, I really have no problem with public schools. But again, let me make this argument. Private schools charge the true cost of education without taxpayer subsidies to drive cost down at the expense of everyone in a particular state (generally speaking). That's true socialism at work. Add to that that many states of waived out of state tuition at in state schools for athletes (not regular students) and it further pushes that cause of government forcing an unfair playing field. After all, you have the government behind you.... you can do anything. Why do you think Duke is so expensive compared to North Carolina although most graduate school and higher grads have the same amount of educational respect? One of them I pay for with every paycheck I get, one the other I don't.

So anyway, I see where you're going with this. And you've still completely dodged my question. Why should football, in your argumentative case, have some sort of minimum while no other D-I sport does? After all, there are a few minimum to no scholarship basketball teams. There are even more no scholarship baseball teams. Why not force them all to give that maximum?

I also completely disagree with your in another respect. If you want to give more than the D-II limit, where do you go? And say this same logic applied to D-II. Where would the teams giving 1-29 scholarships go?

You are also wrong on a number of fronts. D-I isn't about scholarships. It is also about the number of coaches you can hire per sport. It is about how you can break scholarships up amongst multiple players. And it is about academic standards in each sport. There are others, but I really don't feel like pulling my old rule book out.

Good grief, you really just want the rules bent so that it fits whatever criteria that you want it to. The way you constantly contradict yourself is cracking me up at this point. xthumbsupx

Very good points. To add to this: Why is there even two D-I's in football? No other sport has that. Maybe the FCS should be D-II. Afterall, they don't want, or can't afford, the exclusive FBS "country club", yet they want to reap the benefits of being called D-I. Do you see your Hypocracy yet MplsBison?

[MplsBison]

Is the dollar amount meaningless? You said this was like a country club. If you don't pay your dues, you shouldn't be in. So my dues are $2 million and your dues are $500k?


Paying your dues means paying for at least 45 equivalencies (more like 63).

It has nothing to do with the dollar amount.


With that said, I really have no problem with public schools. But again, let me make this argument. Private schools charge the true cost of education without taxpayer subsidies to drive cost down at the expense of everyone in a particular state (generally speaking). That's true socialism at work. Add to that that many states of waived out of state tuition at in state schools for athletes (not regular students) and it further pushes that cause of government forcing an unfair playing field. After all, you have the government behind you.... you can do anything. Why do you think Duke is so expensive compared to North Carolina although most graduate school and higher grads have the same amount of educational respect? One of them I pay for with every paycheck I get, one the other I don't.

If all colleges were private, only the elite would be able to afford them.


I suppose that is what the elite would want: keep all the opportunity for advancement within the elite circle. Keep the poor poor and the rich rich.



Too bad. Our country has decided that opportunity for advancement should be given to all.


Our society has made the elite rich, so it is justified for our society to take some of that wealth back and invest it back into the society it was taken from in the first place.



Why should football, in your argumentative case, have some sort of minimum while no other D-I sport does?

Because football is fundamentally different than every other sport.


If you want to give more than the D-II limit, where do you go? And say this same logic applied to D-II. Where would the teams giving 1-29 scholarships go?


You have 4 choices for your football team:

offer between 85-77 equivalencies for football: DI FBS

offer between 63-45 equivalencies for football: DI FCS

offer between 36-0 equivalencies for football and offer athletic merit aid in other sports: DII

offer no athletic merit aid in all sports: DIII



So schools like San Diego and Dayton could be DI as long as they meet the DI criteria but they could play DII football since they offer no merit aid for football.

[MplsBison]

Why is there even two D-I's in football? No other sport has that.


I do think that eventually the big FBS schools will split away from the NCAA and keep all the money they generate to themselves.



Then there will just be a single DI football division comprising the lower end schools of FBS and the schools in FCS who offer at least 45 equivalencies.

[DFW HOYA]

DI was never about how many sports you could provide.

It's in the NCAA bylaws. Perhaps you had better start there.

[mvemjsunpx]

With that said, I really have no problem with public schools. But again, let me make this argument. Private schools charge the true cost of education without taxpayer subsidies to drive cost down at the expense of everyone in a particular state (generally speaking). That's true socialism at work. Add to that that many states of waived out of state tuition at in state schools for athletes (not regular students) and it further pushes that cause of government forcing an unfair playing field. After all, you have the government behind you.... you can do anything. Why do you think Duke is so expensive compared to North Carolina although most graduate school and higher grads have the same amount of educational respect? One of them I pay for with every paycheck I get, one the other I don't.


That's an absolutely absurd statement. Many private schools charge ridiculously high tuitions, but then give massive scholarships to essentially everyone who attends (I know for a fact that Macalester College in Minnesota does this). That way, they can say they are elite because of the high tuition price even though the real effective tuition price is considerably lower. The high tuition prices are hardly the "true cost" of education.

Also, your argument above really makes public universities look better than private ones since, as you said, you get the same education for less money (even taking taxes into account).

[MplsBison]

It's in the NCAA bylaws. Perhaps you had better start there.

I already knew that the rule says you must have a minimum of 14 sports to be in the FCS, 16 to be in the FBS.


DI is not about providing the largest number of sports.

[gophoenix]

Paying your dues means paying for at least 45 equivalencies (more like 63).

It has nothing to do with the dollar amount.

Then get your terms straight. You want a quota, not dues.


If all colleges were private, only the elite would be able to afford them.


I suppose that is what the elite would want: keep all the opportunity for advancement within the elite circle. Keep the poor poor and the rich rich.



Too bad. Our country has decided that opportunity for advancement should be given to all.


Our society has made the elite rich, so it is justified for our society to take some of that wealth back and invest it back into the society it was taken from in the first place.

Uhm. No it isn't. But I do not understand why I am forced to sponsor other people's education. I was by no means rich or elite. But I did well enough in school to get some independent scholarships and the rest I got loans for. Why do you want to make your education everyone's responsibility rather than taking responsibility for yourself???

And by that same thinking, since everyone should "have the opportunity" ... why do you want D-I so exclusive. Maybe you public schools you help the schools get those extra scholarships that you want everyone to provide. After all, it's only fair that everyone get a shot.... that seems to be the way of your thinking in one area.


Because football is fundamentally different than every other sport.
Uhm, every sport is fundamentally different than every other sport. Your little explanation here actually explained nothing. Try again.


That's an absolutely absurd statement. Many private schools charge ridiculously high tuitions, but then give massive scholarships to essentially everyone who attends (I know for a fact that Macalester College in Minnesota does this). That way, they can say they are elite because of the high tuition price even though the real effective tuition price is considerably lower. The high tuition prices are hardly the "true cost" of education.

Also, your argument above really makes public universities look better than private ones since, as you said, you get the same education for less money (even taking taxes into account).

It's not really that absurd. You get a better sense for what college really costs at private schools. That is why I said the whole comment was for argument's sake only. At private schools, the better the school gets, the more the school costs. Overall, that is not really the case in public school system. You get some variation but not variation the covers the difference as the quality goes up (meaning the curve isn't smooth). But people at say UNC aren't paying terribly much more than people at UNCP.

Anyway, just because this one college adopts this policy does not mean they all do. And to be honest, I haven't heard of any school doing it on that magnitude, if it is indeed true.

Overall, public schools have tuition that is outrageously low because the government taxes the people to offset the loss due to tuition and dues not covering costs. These schools were originally designed to train people from that state to work in that state. That is no longer really the case anymore either.

But yes, public education and private education can be comparatively the same. Comparing Duke to Fayetteville State is not quite the same though. So, it is really a case by case thing and not as black and white as some of you want to make it.

My whole point wasn't to bash public schools or say either was better or worse. My point was to draw a real world comparison for Mr. Bison who doesn't seem to get it.

[MplsBison]

Then get your terms straight. You want a quota, not dues.

Dues is the correct analogy.

You do not like it because it reflects poorly on the lack of commitment by your school to student athletes who come from non elite families.



But I do not understand why I am forced to sponsor other people's education.


Because that is how this country works. Those who do well give to those who are trying to do well for themselves and so on.


Greed will get you nowhere.



And by that same thinking, since everyone should "have the opportunity" ... why do you want D-I so exclusive.


I want as many student athletes to have that opportunity, regardless of the ability of their family to pay for it.

That is what this is all about.


If San Diego and Dayton are going to call themselves DI football teams, then they need to be providing opportunities for 45-63 young men, regardless of their social class.



every sport is fundamentally different than every other sport.


Therefore the rules of basketball do not apply to football.

[DFW HOYA]

Many private schools charge ridiculously high tuitions, but then give massive scholarships to essentially everyone who attends (I know for a fact that Macalester College in Minnesota does this).

Just because Macalester pursues this policy does not meen it is adopted by everyone.

Just like public schools, some private schools offer a lot of merit aid to allow it compete for the best students, some offer a mix, and some none at all. In the Patriot League, five schools have a a handful of merit awards amidst need based awards, while two are all-need for students.

Georgetown has zero merit aid for incoming students for both practical and philosophical reasons--practically speaking, when the average accepted freshman is now in the top 6% of their class, most would qualify for merit aid, but at the expense of those that could not afford to go there. Since 1978, therefore, it chooses to allocate all its money on need.

Financial aid needs vary considerably by school. At Columbia, 40% of students are on need based aid, 60% at Cornell, 90% at MIT.

[MplsBison]

when the average accepted freshman is now in the top 6% of their class, most would qualify for merit aid, but at the expense of those that could not afford to go there. Since 1978, therefore, it chooses to allocate all its money on need.


Nothing wrong with that.


It just means you are not DI. You are DIII.



Oh but wait, Georgetown gives scholarships to poor black kids who are good at basketball.


It is ok if you let a couple of "those" in. Basketball is only 5 guys, right?




Football, on the other hand, then you'd have to let in 85+ of "those" kind. No, no, no, that will just not do. Not at all. Georgetown has to keep up the elite image, you know.

[gophoenix]

Dues is the correct analogy.

You do not like it because it reflects poorly on the lack of commitment by your school to student athletes who come from non elite families.

Dues is not a correct analogy in this case. I'm sorry.

I am not sure I am following you here. Unless you're trying, very poorly, to bait an argument. My school fully funds football. So I am not sure where on Earth the second part of your argument comes from.

Paying for education does not make one "Elite" and going to a private school does not make one "Elite" so I am failing to see where your line of logic goes.

On one hand, exclusivity is good because it benefits you. On the other hand, exclusivity doesn't benefit you so it must be bad.


Because that is how this country works. Those who do well give to those who are trying to do well for themselves and so on.


Greed will get you nowhere.

Who said anything about greed? You assume that saying take responsibility for yourself means I'm greedy?

But I will agree. It is my responsibility to give to those that I want to help. Not the government's responsibility to force me to. That is not what this country was started to be about.

Is your line of logic indicative to what they teach at North Dakota State?

[MplsBison]

Dues is not a correct analogy in this case.

It is exactly the correct analogy in this case.


My school fully funds football.

Excellent!

Your school and schools like Stanford, Northwestern and Vanderbilt are the true models for all private schools in the nation.


going to a private school does not make one "Elite"

It depends on which private school you go to.

There is no doubt that some private schools try to weed out middle and lower class students from applying by artificially raising tuition to an elite level.


On one hand, exclusivity is good because it benefits you. On the other hand, exclusivity doesn't benefit you so it must be bad.

There is no exclusivity in setting a standard for providing opportunities.




It is my responsibility to give to those that I want to help. Not the government's responsibility to force me to.


You are responsible to society, for that is where you take 100% of your wealth from. So it absolutely is the governments place to take back some of it and reinvest it back into society.

[gophoenix]

It is exactly the correct analogy in this case.


Uhm, no, it isn't. You want a quote. Dues would be a constant monetary amount across all schools. Which you clearly stated that you didn't want. Quota is based on numbers, not money. Maybe you should think about either going to school, or going back to school.

[quota]
Excellent!

Your school and schools like Stanford, Northwestern and Vanderbilt are the true models for all private schools in the nation.



It depends on which private school you go to.

There is no doubt that some private schools try to weed out middle and lower class students from applying by artificially raising tuition to an elite level.



There is no exclusivity in setting a standard for providing opportunities.




[/quote]

It really sounds like you have a problem with people making, and keeping money they earn. Why? If you took the time to read the founding father's letters as well as read the reasons we revolted against England, much of it is for the exact reasons you are stating above.

It is the government's job to protect me from other people; to provide basic security for the country; possibly to create a transportation system and to create a court system to protect my rights as dictated by the constitution and various state charters. Nowhere outside of this latest "I'm entitled" society have we really run into this type of attitude that you have.

With that said, I find it completely racist that you basically have tied poor with black as you did in your previous post about Georgetown. There are, in numbers alone, more poor white people than black people but a higher percentage of black people are poor. YOu have repeatedly made the assertion that athletes are poor, especially in basketball and football. And that is clearly a bad judgement too.

You do realize that Vanderbilt, your model for private schools, doesn't really give scholarships the way it used to, right? In fact, the athletics department falls under an academic dean now. And why are those the models but Duke, Rice, Boston College and Miami aren't (or Furman, Elon, Samford, Wofford, Hofstra, Liberty, Gardner-Webb, Presbyterian, Hampton, Bethune-Cookman and Howard and a handful of others are not)?



You are responsible to society, for that is where you take 100% of your wealth from. So it absolutely is the governments place to take back some of it and reinvest it back into society.

Ultimately, you seem to have a problem with people who make money. The problem is, this "elite" term is described differently by every one who supports your values. Elite means "anyone who has more than me" so basically your laws and rules that you want should only affect those people. Basically, there is always someone who makes more than someone else (except for 1).

I will agree that it is my responsibility to give back. But it is not the government's place to make sure I do. That is idiotic thinking and neither supports capitalism, upon which we are based, or anything in which our government was set up upon. It sucks that some people have less.

Personally, I think sports scholarships should be handled like any other scholarships given out by the school. Some should be for sports, but it should be dictated by a dean. We are running academic institutions here, not minor league sporting teams. But too many people want the athletics department run like it is a pro team, giving out scholarships like it is paying people. When it should be like giving a scholarship for a regular student if they are given one for debate, the school newspaper or other clubs.

Essentially, you want a quote system to create an elite in the sports world. So like I said before. You want equality for the haves and have nots, but in the NCAA you don't. It's typical of people of your mindset. You want everything but want to give nothing in return.

[lucchesicourt]

I am sort of with SD Toreros on this issue. UCD for many years played D2 schollie and D1AA schollie schools for years and that UCD did not offer any schollies at all (except academic ones), and UCD did fairly well against these schools. Sac State and St Mary's though not great D1AA football schools still offered many schollies, but still did not fair too well against UCD over the years. The talent level a school gets is not only based on the athletic schollie, but also the academics and majors offered by a school. UCD offered more than Sac State as far as majors and academics and since most athletes do not go to the next level, academics is a much more selling point over the long run for the student/athlete. If you could afford the education at a school like Stanford and were accepted, and you were offered a schollie to play football at Sac State, where would you attend? I think one would have to choose Stanford, even without Stanford offereing the schollie. That is the ace in the hole for the non schollie teams.

[citdog]

110% support that idea. Time to get the fakers, who only have an FCS level football team due March Madness money, out of this division.


I AGREE WITH A GSU PERSON. ALERT THE MEDIA.

[USDFAN_55]

I AGREE WITH A GSU PERSON. ALERT THE MEDIA.

Maybe it's time to get the "Fakes" out of D-I.xnodx You guys are a bunch of hypocrites.

[JDC325]

I AGREE WITH A GSU PERSON. ALERT THE MEDIA.


At least it is a former military GSU person! xthumbsupx

[citdog]

Maybe it's time to get the "Fakes" out of D-I.xnodx You guys are a bunch of hypocrats.

NO I AM A STARK RAVING MAD NEO-SECESSIONIST, I Have nothing to do with the "hypocrats" who ever that party is.


San Diego Football? xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx that's what the rest of the country does whenever USD is mentioned.

[USDFAN_55]

NO I AM A STARK RAVING MAD NEO-SECESSIONIST, I Have nothing to do with the "hypocrats" who ever that party is.


San Diego Football? xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx that's what the rest of the country does whenever USD is mentioned.

I undestand an intelligent response from you is asking a lot, but I'll try one more time.

Don't you think the FBS guys are saying the same thing about the scholarship FCS schools? FCS is called D-I, but is it really D-I? D-I implies the top level, yet FCS is not. Why not call FCS what it really is, D-II? Let's stop kidding ourselves here. If you want non-scholarship schools out of FCS, then it would only make sense to take all FCS football programs out of the D-I discussion. Football is the only sport that had to create two D-I's. Why is this? Do these FCS schools feel better if they say they have a D-I football program, when in reality it is D-II? I guess there is a lot of power in a name.

[citdog]

I undestand an intelligent response from you is asking a lot, but I'll try one more time.

Don't you think the FBS guys are saying the same thing about the scholarship FCS schools? FCS is called D-I, but is it really D-I? D-I implies the top level, yet FCS is not. Why not call FCS what it really is, D-II? Let's stop kidding ourselves here. If you want non-scholarship schools out of FCS, then it would only make sense to take all FCS football programs out of the D-I discussion. Football is the only sport that had to create two D-I's. Why is this? Do these FCS schools feel better if they say they have a D-I football program, when in reality it is D-II? I guess there is a lot of power in a name.

our program is Division I in all sports. Div II is Newberry College and where Presby came from before joining the "Little South". imho if a school doesn't fund schollys they should be DIV III.

[USDFAN_55]

our program is Division I in all sports. Div II is Newberry College and where Presby came from before joining the "Little South". imho if a school doesn't fund schollys they should be DIV III.

But you are not fully funded like the FBS.xnodx You too are D-I in football by association with your other D-I sports, just like San Diego. By the way, San Diego is D-I in all sports as well.... except with a big difference, we are competetive

[citdog]

But you are not fully funded like the FBS.xnodx You too are D-I in football by association with your other D-I sports, just like San Diego. By the way, San Diego is D-I in all sports as well.... except with a big difference, we PLAY NO ONE


OUR BASEBALL PROGRAM MAKES YOURS LOOK LIKE PONY LEAGUE AND OUR FOOTBALL TEAM MAKES YOURS LOOK LIKE POP WARNER. SCHEDULE SOMEONE AND COME TALK TO ME BOY.

[USDFAN_55]

OUR BASEBALL PROGRAM MAKES YOURS LOOK LIKE PONY LEAGUE AND OUR FOOTBALL TEAM MAKES YOURS LOOK LIKE POP WARNER. SCHEDULE SOMEONE AND COME TALK TO ME BOY.

Our baseball is a jokexlolx
Here is your baseball schedule and results: http://www.citadelsports.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=9700&KEY=&SPID=3827&SPSID=43192

here is our baseball and results: http://usdtoreros.cstv.com/sports/m-basebl/sched/usd-m-basebl-sched.html

We hosted regionals last year, and at the end of the regualr season we were ranked as high as #5. We started this season ranked #5, and right now we are ranked between 17 and 25. what are you guys ranked? How many ranked teams have you played?

[citdog]

Our baseball is a jokexlolx
Here is your baseball schedule and results: http://www.citadelsports.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=9700&KEY=&SPID=3827&SPSID=43192

here is our baseball and results: http://usdtoreros.cstv.com/sports/m-basebl/sched/usd-m-basebl-sched.html

We hosted regionals last year, and at the end of the regualr season we were ranked as high as #5. We started this season ranked #5, and right now we are ranked between 17 and 25. what are you guys ranked? How many ranked teams have you played?

WE DEFEATED THE #1 TEAM IN THE NATION LAST SEASON AND THE #23 RANKED TEAM THIS SEASON AND HAVE SOUTH CAROLINA COMING TO OUR PLACE TOMORROW. TALK TO ME WHEN YOU'VE BEEN TO OMAHA. THE CITADEL BULLDOG BASEBALL... 18 SOUTHERN CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS SINCE 1980.

[McTailGator]

I just want everyone's offical opinion on this:


if the NCAA said that to be in the FCS you must sponsor at least 90% of 63 equivalencies (not scholarships), otherwise your team would have to play in DII.

Note that this rule would allow the athletic department (IE, basketball, volleyball, soccer, baseball, etc.) to stay DI while having the football team play in DII.


Would you guys support that?


My opinion is yes.

It establishes a minimum competitive standard in FCS and it doesn't hurt the DII schools like it hurt the DIII schools when Dayton, etc. were playing DIII.



I would...

BUT, the college presidents that never played a sport in their lives will not.

[Model Citizen]

OUR BASEBALL PROGRAM MAKES YOURS LOOK LIKE PONY LEAGUE AND OUR FOOTBALL TEAM MAKES YOURS LOOK LIKE POP WARNER. SCHEDULE SOMEONE AND COME TALK TO ME BOY.

Are you as dumb as you seem, or are you so desperate for attention that you don't mind playing the fool?

USD baseball is nationally ranked. We have the best player in amateur baseball.

Citadel football has three winning seasons in the last 15 years. Next to Columbia, no one represents losing more than your school.

[gophoenix]

I undestand an intelligent response from you is asking a lot, but I'll try one more time.

Don't you think the FBS guys are saying the same thing about the scholarship FCS schools? FCS is called D-I, but is it really D-I? D-I implies the top level, yet FCS is not. Why not call FCS what it really is, D-II? Let's stop kidding ourselves here. If you want non-scholarship schools out of FCS, then it would only make sense to take all FCS football programs out of the D-I discussion. Football is the only sport that had to create two D-I's. Why is this? Do these FCS schools feel better if they say they have a D-I football program, when in reality it is D-II? I guess there is a lot of power in a name.

Because D-I FBS football isn't like any other classification. Drawing lines on funding money and scholarships I can see.

Drawing lines based on stadium size and average attendance does not.

But your suggestion above would make plenty of people happy. Basically in the D-I football world. You have three classes of schools. The Big Six conferences (ACC, SEC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 10), the schools (not conferences) who think they belong in the real division I (most CUSA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt, SoCon, CAA, Gateway type schools) and the last group is the group that the middle group of wannabes want to disappear because they think other schools don't belong as much as the Big 6 conferences think all the rest of us don't belong. In essence.

In reality, there are the big 6 conferences and the rest of us. The rest of us outnumber them. But we all back stab each other to death to feed superiority complexes at our various schools. We could all work together for the benefit of the whole sport, or we can keep a strangle hold on each other and never get anything accomplished... so far, we've all chosen the later.

[citdog]

Are you as dumb as you seem, or are you so desperate for attention that you don't mind playing the fool?

USD baseball is nationally ranked. We have the best player in amateur baseball.

THE Citadel football has three winning seasons in the last 15 years. Next to Columbia, no one represents losing more than your school.

LISTEN HERE PIRCK. WE PLAY FOOTBALL IN SOMETHING YOU LEFT COAST HIPPIES MAY HAVE HEARD OF. IT'S CALLED A REAL CONFERENCE. IT'S CALLED A REAL SCHEDULE. IT'S CALLED THE SOUTHERN CONFERENCE. WCU AND CHATT WOULD BOTH DESTROY USD.


YOUR BASEBALL SEEMS PRETTY GOOD AND I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY YOU AND CUT YOUR A55.

[Model Citizen]

Love it. Even the alums are D-II.

[citdog]

Love it. Even the alums are D-II.


YEAH WE ARE D-II. IF D-II STANDS FOR A D!CK AND TWO B@LLS!

[USDFAN_55]

I would...

BUT, the college presidents that never played a sport in their lives will not.

How about we call everyone D-I, so they feel better about themselves? We'll have D-IA, D-IAA, D-IAAA, D-IAAAA.xthumbsupx

Here's a question for you guys: What's the importance of mandating a minimum number of scholarships? If a school can compete, who cares? I understand having a maximum, but a minimum is not advantageous for anyone.

[DetroitFlyer]

How about we call everyone D-I, so they feel better about themselves? We'll have D-IA, D-IAA, D-IAAA, D-IAAAA.xthumbsupx

Here's a question for you guys: What's the importance of mandating a minimum number of scholarships? If a school can compete, who cares? I understand having a maximum, but a minimum is not advantageous for anyone.

All I want to know is the number of scholarships a team must offer to stink up the SOCON.... LOL!!!!!xlolx

[citdog]

All I want to know is the number of scholarships a team must offer to stink up the SOCON.... LOL!!!!!xlolx


YOU DON'T OFFER ENOUGH. SEE CHATTANOOGA:D

[MplsBison]

What's the importance of mandating a minimum number of scholarships?


You do not seem to mind that in order be classified as a DI university in the NCAA you must offer a minimum number of equivalencies.



In fact, it is only in the sport of football that the Pioneer schools choose to not offer athletic merit aid in order to cut costs.

[USDFAN_55]

You do not seem to mind that in order be classified as a DI university in the NCAA you must offer a minimum number of equivalencies.



In fact, it is only in the sport of football that the Pioneer schools choose to not offer athletic merit aid in order to cut costs.

I believe the size of the sports program is the most important factor in determining D-I status.

You don't seem to mind that you are psuedo D-I footballxthumbsupx Man up and go full scholly (FBS) or live with what the FCS is. Schools that want a D-I sports program but don't want to front the cost of a true D-I football program.

[gophoenix]

You do not seem to mind that in order be classified as a DI university in the NCAA you must offer a minimum number of equivalencies.



In fact, it is only in the sport of football that the Pioneer schools choose to not offer athletic merit aid in order to cut costs.

A minimum number, yes, but a focus in a sport absolutely not. This minimum number has to follow title IX too.

And I told you, it is not just the Pioneer in football that doesn't give scholarships. There are plenty of non-scholarship baseball teams.

I told you before, there are many qualifications for being D-I. You, for some reason, can only wrap your mind around one of them.

[MplsBison]

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan/genrel/auto_pdf/2007-08_d1_manual.pdf

Section 20.9.1.2, read it and weep.




Your school must provide the minimum financial aid defined in that section in order to sustain membership in Division I.

Your school does this.





Therefore, FCS is justified in setting up its own minimums.

[gophoenix]

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan/genrel/auto_pdf/2007-08_d1_manual.pdf

Section 20.9.1.2, read it and weep.




Your school must provide the minimum financial aid defined in that section in order to sustain membership in Division I.

Your school does this.





Therefore, FCS is justified in setting up its own minimums.

Did you even bother to read the entire guideline. That's not what it says at all.

[MplsBison]

(a) A minimum of 50 percent of the maximum allowable grants in 14 sports, at least seven of which must be
women’s sports.
(b) Financial aid representing a minimum aggregate expenditure of $1,049,022 in 2007-08 (with at least
$524,511 in women’s sports), and $1,077,346 in 2008-09 (with at least $538,673 in women’s sports)
(c) A minimum of the equivalent of 50 full grants (at least 25 full grants in women’s sports)


Read it and weep.


Your school does one of those three.


Which means your school offers athletic merit aid.



Meaning you have no possible argument against a minimum award for FCS.

[gophoenix]

Read it and weep.


Your school does one of those three.


Which means your school offers athletic merit aid.



Meaning you have no possible argument against a minimum award for FCS.

My school does all three. I told you this before yet it doesn't seem to sink in with you.

The problem is, the above clause applies to to ALL sports not one sport in particular. Nor does it single out one sport or spell out requirements for one sport. And if they applied a minimum in D-I requirement for any sport, it would potentially violate this clause. So yes, since legally the above clause could be true for a particular school (if the FCS had a minimum scholarship floor), there would be a legal loophole or legal method for objection as the clause and the minimum could contradict each other depending on the circumstances of each particular school.

So, as long as their is a legal loophole or a clause that violates another clause, then no, you don't have an argument for setting a minimum scholarship floor in FCS by the current NCAA bylaws. Sorry.

[UAalum72]

A fuller quote of those rules include:
(b) Financial aid representing a minimum aggregate expenditure of $1,049,022 in 2007-08 (with at least
$524,511 in women’s sports), and $1,077,346 in 2008-09 (with at least $538,673 in women’s sports),
exclusive of grants in football and men’s and women’s basketball, provided the aggregate grant value is
not less than the equivalent of 38 full grants, with at least 19 full grants for women
c) A minimum of the equivalent of 50 full grants (at least 25 full grants in women’s sports), exclusive of
grants awarded in football and men’s and women’s basketball.

(so football is specifically excluded)
20.9.1.2.1 Aid Counted Toward Minimum Requirements. All institutional financial aid (including
aid that is exempted from an equivalency computation per Bylaw 15.5.3.2.1) awarded by the member institution
to a counter (per Bylaw 15.5.1) shall be used

(so it doesn't have to be athletic scholarships)

[dbackjon]

Definition of hopeless: Trying to reason with MplsBison

[Chad4Life]

You need to make certain that you read Section 15 which deals with financial aid and what makes up financial aid. It's just not athletic grants.

[USDFAN_55]

A fuller quote of those rules include:
(b) Financial aid representing a minimum aggregate expenditure of $1,049,022 in 2007-08 (with at least
$524,511 in women’s sports), and $1,077,346 in 2008-09 (with at least $538,673 in women’s sports),
exclusive of grants in football and men’s and women’s basketball, provided the aggregate grant value is
not less than the equivalent of 38 full grants, with at least 19 full grants for women
c) A minimum of the equivalent of 50 full grants (at least 25 full grants in women’s sports), exclusive of
grants awarded in football and men’s and women’s basketball.

(so football is specifically excluded)
20.9.1.2.1 Aid Counted Toward Minimum Requirements. All institutional financial aid (including
aid that is exempted from an equivalency computation per Bylaw 15.5.3.2.1) awarded by the member institution
to a counter (per Bylaw 15.5.1) shall be used

(so it doesn't have to be athletic scholarships)

RULES!!! Am I the only one that gives a ****** about the rules?????


(in the voise of Walter from the Big Lebowski)xlolx

[MplsBison]

My only point was that since minimums have been established by the NCAA, the FCS is justified in establishing minimum aid requirements.

[USDFAN_55]

My only point was that since minimums have been established by the NCAA, the FCS is justified in establishing minimum aid requirements.

You were previously talking about minimum athletic aid/scholarships requirements. These bylaws indicate other aid, such as academic aid, can go towards the minimum requirements. The schools that you are trying to single out (Pioneer, MAAC, NEC, Ivy, and Patriot) meet the minimum requirements per these bylaws. Are you suggesting these bylaws change? Have you considered the affect it would have on the other NCAA D-I sports, not just football?

[MplsBison]

Are you suggesting these bylaws change?


I am advocating that FCS create a new bylaw that establishes a minimum aid requirement for football teams in FCS.

[Franks Tanks]

You were previously talking about minimum athletic aid/scholarships requirements. These bylaws indicate other aid, such as academic aid, can go towards the minimum requirements. The schools that you are trying to single out (Pioneer, MAAC, NEC, Ivy, and Patriot) meet the minimum requirements per these bylaws. Are you suggesting these bylaws change? Have you considered the affect it would have on the other NCAA D-I sports, not just football?

Many Ivy and Patriot schools spend well above the medium for FCS football. This arguement never goes anywhere, I had the exact same discussion with MPlsBison about a year ago. xcoffeex

[gophoenix]

I am advocating that FCS create a new bylaw that establishes a minimum aid requirement for football teams in FCS.

I am curious. Why? Why when all the schools in FCS meet the funding requirements laid out by the NCAA.

[DUPFLFan]

LISTEN HERE PIRCK. WE PLAY FOOTBALL IN SOMETHING YOU LEFT COAST HIPPIES MAY HAVE HEARD OF. IT'S CALLED A REAL CONFERENCE. IT'S CALLED A REAL SCHEDULE. IT'S CALLED THE SOUTHERN CONFERENCE. WCU AND CHATT WOULD BOTH DESTROY USD.



This is the new politics. Don't have a discussion - just shout your opponent down.

And you're a moderator?xnonox

[MplsBison]

Why when all the schools in FCS meet the funding requirements laid out by the NCAA.

As was pointed out, those requirements are not for football.


They are for DI membership in everything but football.




Therefore, FCS needs to establish a minimum using the same precedent and philosophy that DI used to establish a minimum.

[USDFAN_55]

WE DEFEATED THE #1 TEAM IN THE NATION LAST SEASON AND THE #23 RANKED TEAM THIS SEASON AND HAVE SOUTH CAROLINA COMING TO OUR PLACE TOMORROW. TALK TO ME WHEN YOU'VE BEEN TO OMAHA. THE CITADEL BULLDOG BASEBALL... 18 SOUTHERN CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS SINCE 1980.

Just this year alone we've played and beaten: Missouri, Cal State Fullerton, Long Beach State, Oregon State, and Fresno State.

Also played UC Irvine and Cal, but lost.

That schedule makes your's look like Pony Leaguexnodx

Still holding onto that one appearance you guys made in Omaha back in 1990? 18 year ago!xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

Quit living in the past.

[USDFAN_55]

As was pointed out, those requirements are not for football.


They are for DI membership in everything but football.




Therefore, FCS needs to establish a minimum using the same precedent and philosophy that DI used to establish a minimum.

That would lead us to the other argument I've brought up previously. If we are not meeting the D-I (FBS) minimum, why should they create another minimum for schools (FCS) that don't meet the established minimum requirements for FBS? Maybe they'll make another D-I to make you happy. We'll call it FSCS (Football Subdivision Championship Subdivision). A subdivision of a subdivision.