the end of FCS/FBS

[tarmac]

the end of FBS


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15164842/divide-might-be-coming-but-which-leagues-will-conquer


Divide might be coming, but which leagues will conquer?

By Tony Barnhart
CBSSports.com
May 25, 2011

A lot of people in Division I-A (FBS) football sat up and took notice last week when Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and SEC commissioner Mike Slive raised the possibility of expanding athletic scholarships to include "the full cost of attendance."

Delany and Slive, the two biggest powerbrokers in big-time college sports, said the time has come to consider giving athletes a stipend to cover incidental living expenses, something major academic scholarships already do.

Schools on the lower end of Division I-A, whose budgets are already deep in red ink as they try to keep up with the big boys, feared such a move would further widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. They were concerned this was just the first shot across the bow in a process where the six BCS conferences will eventually break away and operate as a separate division in college football.

Appalachian State could move up just in time to be relegated to a second division again. (Getty Images)
But you know who else noticed what Delany and Slive had to say last week? Guys like Charlie Cobb.

Cobb is the athletic director at Appalachian State University, one of the very best programs in Division I-AA (due to public confusion over the labels, we don't use the official NCAA designations FBS and FCS). The Mountaineers of Jerry Moore won three straight national championships from 2005-2007 and have led the nation in Division I-AA attendance (at 28,000-plus) three times in the last four years.

In case you are wondering, in 2010 a total of 32 of the 120 Division I-A teams averaged less in home attendance than Appalachian State. In fact, 23 Division I-A schools averaged less than 20,000 in attendance last season.

"When we look at the WAC, the MAC, the Sun Belt and the others we compare very favorably to what they are doing," Cobb said. "So we decided that if things change dramatically we need to be prepared."

Last September the school announced the formation of a committee that would conduct a feasibility study to determine if they should go Division I-A. Originally that committee was going to give a recommendation in May. That announcement has been postponed. Appalachian State wants to wait for several reasons, and one of those is to see what is going to happen in the upper level of Division I-A football.

"What the Big Ten said last week got everybody's attention," said Cobb, a former football player at N.C. State. "What it really showed is that the gap in college football is not between Division I-A and I-AA. It's between the BCS schools and everybody else Division I-A."

Cobb said there are a number of schools like Appalachian State who have had very good success at the I-AA level and who wonder where they need to be if there is a major upheaval in the college football landscape. For example: What if the BCS schools split from the rest of Division I-A? What happens to rest of the division?

see link for remainder of article

[Saint3333]

Hey GP you out there and still not believe in my three tier division one idea?

[henfan]

What confusion? Barnhart & CBS Sports are directly responsible for whatever public confusion exists over D-I labels by perpetuating the use of the outdated nomenclature. It's really not that difficult to use FCS instead of I-AA, is it? Could they possibly talk down to their audience any more? For people in the 'words' business, they do a pretty pxss poor job with words.xsmhx

What's more, Barnhart goes forth to set up mythical sub-divisions with titles that don't and won't exist. All of the ridiculousness could be solved by simply eliminating subdivison labels and allowing conferences to compete in whatever postseason opportunity they want, whether it be an NCAA-sponsored playoff or bowls. Equivalency limits would be set accordingly by each conference.

[txstatebobcat]

As long as it leads to either new conferences or alignments I'm personally all for it.

[jmufan999]

As long as it leads to either new conferences or alignments I'm personally all for it.

you'd be ok with moving from the 2nd most important division to the 3rd most important division? that's a pretty huge deal.

[89Hen]

It's really not that difficult to use FCS instead of I-AA, is it?
Much of the sports world uses some sort of A, AA, AAA nomenclature. If somebody who didn't know anything about college football were told there was an FBS and an FCS, do you think they'd be able to come up with a rational explanation of what that meant? I-A and I-AA make a lot more sense and I applaud them for refusing to use the stupid nomenclature.

BTW, best quote IMO... "What it really showed is that the gap in college football is not between Division I-A and I-AA. It's between the BCS schools and everybody else Division I-A."

[Silenoz]

DI - BCS
DII - Midmajors + full scholly FCS
DIII - D2 full scholly + other FCS
DIV - D3 + FCS nonscholly + D2 partial scholly
NAIA

Or something like that. Do it NCAA

[Lehigh Football Nation]

C-USA and the Mountain West hobnobbing in the same subdivision as the Big Sky and the OVC? A cold day in hell will happen then that's the case.

This joker seems to be judging the power of his football conferences based on basketball. In football, there is zero way the MWC or C-USA would accept any less than BC$ membership. He thinks the status quo leads to lawsuits? Try it when the BCS breaks off and forms their own conference, and the Mountain West is left behind. C-USA I'm sure wouldn't take to kindly to it either.

[StorminASU]

DI - BCS
DII - Midmajors + full scholly FCS
DIII - D2 full scholly + other FCS
DIV - D3 + FCS nonscholly + D2 partial scholly
NAIA

Or something like that. Do it NCAA

Way too much pride in the current FBS/FCS schools to be called DII and so forth down the line. That would be really insulting and further hurl those schools under the shadow of the BCS.

[Pard4Life]

This sounds like a maneuver to perserve the BCS cartel by outright excluding and demoting the schools from the non-six power conferences. Try again!

Athletes are already getting something... an education!

[Silenoz]

Way too much pride in the current FBS/FCS schools to be called DII and so forth down the line. That would be really insulting and further hurl those schools under the shadow of the BCS.

Well if the BCS conferences take off what else are they gonna do?

[NDB]

DI - BCS
DII - Midmajors + full scholly FCS
DIII - D2 full scholly + other FCS
DIV - D3 + FCS nonscholly + D2 partial scholly
NAIA

Or something like that. Do it NCAA

Football isn't the only sport in the world.

[Silenoz]

Football isn't the only sport in the world.
Well maybe basketball and football shouldn't be tied at the hip. Doesn't make any sense to field a non-scholly "DI" football team because you're DI in basketball.

Works for hockey, right?

[StorminASU]

Well if the BCS conferences take off what else are they gonna do?

A conference affiliation/nomenclature similar to what was laid out in the article would work. You have to remember the post above me and take basketball, etc. into account

[UAalum72]

Well maybe basketball and football shouldn't be tied at the hip. Doesn't make any sense to field a non-scholly "DI" football team because you're DI in basketball.

Works for hockey, right?
Doesn't apply. Only a handful of hockey schools grandfathered in to play ABOVE their division. Nowhere in the NCAA does a college play a single sport BELOW their classification.

[Silenoz]

A conference affiliation/nomenclature similar to what was laid out in the article would work. You have to remember the post above me and take basketball, etc. into account
Okay, didn't see the link had more info beyond what was posted. Same idea basically, grouping actual talent and budgets together instead of the current mess


Doesn't apply. Only a handful of hockey schools grandfathered in to play ABOVE their division. Nowhere in the NCAA does a college play a single sport BELOW their classification.
Then call it DI. Or whatever it takes to soothe egos.

[tribefan40]

I actually really like the structure discussed in the article, particularly because conferences would move as a whole (theoretically):

The College Football Association (CFA): ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, Pac-12, Army, Navy, Notre Dame, and BYU.

Division I-A: Mountain West, WAC, Mid-American, Conference USA, Sun Belt, Big Sky, CAA, Missouri Valley, Ohio Valley, Southern, Southland, Charlotte (Independent)

Division I-AA: Big South, Ivy, MEAC, Northeast, Patriot, Pioneer, SWAC, Fordham (Independent)

Division II

Division III

Depending on compliance and money, some teams could filter up or down, Liberty and Fordham(?) are teams I could see jumping to the CAA, Southern or independent and moving up.

[darell1976]

Since North Dakota will be part of the new Division I-A....what about that attendance rule? Our building holds 13,500 people and can NOT be expanded. Will they get rid of the rule or force schools to build or remodel stadiums to get to that level.

Also if the NCAA is worried about attendance how about basketball when some teams in Division I average less than 1000 people. Why don't they split that sport up then.

[NHwildEcat]

DI - BCS
DII - Midmajors + full scholly FCS
DIII - D2 full scholly + other FCS
DIV - D3 + FCS nonscholly + D2 partial scholly
NAIA


Or something like that. Do it NCAA

I don't think the D1 schools would like to be thought of as D2 schools because they can't make as much money in football as the BCS group...I think a name/label goes a whole long way when put in this perspective. People don't care about D2 nearly as much as FCS, which isn't cared about nearly as much as FBS. There will even be less TV dollars if they were to change division labels as you propose here....

[NHwildEcat]

Since North Dakota will be part of the new Division I-A....what about that attendance rule? Our building holds 13,500 people and can NOT be expanded. Will they get rid of the rule or force schools to build or remodel stadiums to get to that level.

Also if the NCAA is worried about attendance how about basketball when some teams in Division I average less than 1000 people. Why don't they split that sport up then.

Great point...what would the NCAA do in regards to the attendance figures and stadiu, sizes. UNH is in the CAA, and if they were to "move up" in this move then do they need to adjust their current standards? If so, we may be forced out of the CAA just in that regard...IMHO there would have to be a change int he status quo regarding the attendance.

[citdog]

perhaps what is at the root of all this is the wish of these football factories to be free of the oversight of the ncaa?

[StorminASU]

perhaps what is at the root of all this is the wish of these football factories to be free of the oversight of the ncaa?

Ruh roh, he smells another succession thread!

http://www.photocub.com/photo/var/albums/1_62_scooby_doo%5B1%5D.jpg?m=1304657962

[citdog]

Ruh roh, he smells another succession thread!

http://www.photocub.com/photo/var/albums/1_62_scooby_doo%5B1%5D.jpg?m=1304657962

it's SECESSION and the question is a valid one. are these schools basically saying that the ncaa is dead? if they break off wouldn't they just form another ncaa like governing body that THEY control?

[henfan]

If somebody who didn't know anything about college football were told there was an FBS and an FCS, do you think they'd be able to come up with a rational explanation of what that meant?

Sure, because prior to using any acronym, a publication spells out the actual title. The retired A/AA designations tell the uniformed reader/listener absolutely nothing about the two classifications.

It's silly to even be arguing the point at this late date. The NCAA changed the nomenclature; it's over. Many of those media types who stubbornly cling to the outdated lingo are doing so out of laziness or to fulfill a particular political agenda. It's just odd that CBS would allege confusion when they are responsible for creating it among their own readers.

As time goes on and the old designations fall further out of use, CBS will eventually come around, as I suspect will you. Hey, at least you're not still calling UD's level of play the "Small College Division".xhurrayx

[StorminASU]

I will answer your question, but first I'm gonna try to figure out what I spelled????

I def. believe they will create the rules they want to go by and they have the money to do a lot more than the NCAA currently allows. It could get nasty quick if this happens.

[49RFootballNow]

Delany is starting to sound a lot like the boy who cried wolf. He rattles his saber ever chance he gets; but at the end of the day even a good portion of BCS schools struggle to fully fund their current atheltics scholarships, much less his proposed full ride scholarships. This is just more of Delany's constant intimidation tactics to try to get the inmates back in their cells.

[49RFootballNow]

If that happens, which would essentially make these conferences minor NFL leagues and corporations, then any and all government funding should be stripped from those schools. Being under the NCAA is what allows those "schools" to continue to receive funding.

I doubt it will go down that way. I don't think federal money for research, grants and academic scholarships will be taken away because of sports decisions.

[BEAR]

Here's my take on it. The BCS schools obviously have bigger budgets, so why not let them form a semi-pro league and sign kids to contracts. Doing so would negate their chances of winning an NCAA championship in football, disassociate them from the NCAA, and would force them to rely on donors and ticket prices etc..to keep their heads above water. ..i.e. The Arkansas Twisters are an example. xlolx If they want to be seperate, then let them. But they are going to have to rely on their own fundraising to keep playing.

Of course, how do you seperate the other sports from the football side of it. Honestly it just seems like everytime the trend goes toward teams moving up a division, a new one is created. DIII to DII to DI-FCS to DI-FBS to DI-BCS...what's next? xscanx

[DFW HOYA]

If that happens, which would essentially make these conferences minor NFL leagues and corporations, then any and all government funding should be stripped from those schools. Being under the NCAA is what allows those "schools" to continue to receive funding.

Yes and no. Government funding is not predicated on whether a school pays athletes. If the school abandoned Title IX, that's another story.

But there's a scenario these schools could drive a truck through. Let's say Alabama wanted to pay players outright. It divests itself of the athletic department and spins it off into a 501 (c)(3) non-profit corporation, we'll call it "Crimson Tide Enterprises, LLC" (CTE). CTE enters into an agreement to license the school's name, its athletic trademarks, etc., and rents Bryant-Denny Stadium and other sites. It hires coaches, athletes, and staff and provides them housing, per diems, travel, etc.. The school agrees to offer classes to CTE employees who wish to take advantage of them but does not require it. As a 501(c)(3), CTE can accept charitable contributions from donors and agrees to make contributions back to the school if as it sees fit. But, since it is not an educational institution, CTE is exempt from Title IX.

[aceinthehole]

Yes and no. Government funding is not predicated on whether a school pays athletes. If the school abandoned Title IX, that's another story.

But there's a scenario these schools could drive a truck through. Let's say Alabama wanted to pay players outright. It divests itself of the athletic department and spins it off into a 501 (c)(3) non-profit corporation, we'll call it "Crimson Tide Enterprises, LLC" (CTE). CTE enters into an agreement to license the school's name, its athletic trademarks, etc., and rents Bryant-Denny Stadium and other sites. It hires coaches, athletes, and staff and provides them housing, per diems, travel, etc.. The school agrees to offer classes to CTE employees who wish to take advantage of them but does not require it. As a 501(c)(3), CTE can accept charitable contributions from donors and agrees to make contributions back to the school if as it sees fit. But, since it is not an educational institution, CTE is exempt from Title IX.

CTE would not fit the requirments of a 501(c)3. It is NOT organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, to promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

CTE could not be tax exempt, it would be a for profit sports franchise no diffrent than the Miami Dolphins. However, if CTE sepearted itself from the university, it would not be subject to Title IX.

[gjw007]

I have to wonder the affect on schools budgets if this came about. Many schools schedule a FBS school for the paycheck and it would appear with the proposed alignment, this would no longer (or be very limited) be the situation. With no 'money' game, what affect will this be on scheduling.

[State Line Liquors]

Can't wait to see the impact including college football players as paid employees has on self-funded workers compensation programs.

[StorminASU]

CTE would not fit the requirments of a 501(c)3. It is NOT organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, to promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

CTE could not be tax exempt, it would be a for profit sports franchise no diffrent than the Miami Dolphins. However, if CTE sepearted itself from the university, it would not be subject to Title IX.


Even if it seperated itself and it wasn't subject to Title IX, aren't we forgetting that the school itself would still be subject. Assuming of course the school continued to sponsor other sports, wouldn't it have to replace the newly seperated football program with an equal number of men's scholarships or cut the equal number of womens???

It seems like the school would be back to square one after all that legal wrangling.

[DFW HOYA]

Even if it seperated itself and it wasn't subject to Title IX, aren't we forgetting that the school itself would still be subject. Assuming of course the school continued to sponsor other sports, wouldn't it have to replace the newly seperated football program with an equal number of men's scholarships or cut the equal number of womens??? It seems like the school would be back to square one after all that legal wrangling.

OK, I'll put aside the 501(c)(3) issue, but assuming all UA sports were transfered to the LLC, there's no Title IX impact on the school, i.e., "Alabama no longer offers athletic scholarships, but refers students to opportunities with CTE." No school is required to offer athletics, and some don't.

[StorminASU]

Ahhh, I gotcha. I wasn't catching up on the whole "all sports" thing, but that would do it. Thanks!

[one4all333]

I don't believe paying players is the answer. I just see it as an excuse for them to hide their bigger problems of not being able to control their institutions and backers. I told my son when he signed that this is your job. They are paying you with room, food and education. I explained that the time they require is pretty tough, but you will have some down time and when that occurs get a part time job to make some spending money. I told him it's and honer that he is getting this opportunity and now it's about teaching work ethics, discipline and life...not about taking short cuts

I would love to see the old conference good-ole-boys go bye-bye...realign all schools (1A-1AA) geographically and let them play in 8 conferences. Each conference comprised of 7/8 teams. Allow only a max of an 11 game schedule. 6/7 conference games 4/5 non conference. Conference winners play in Division championships (8 games 16 teams), Division winners play other division winners (4 games 8 teams), now you can use the 4 remaining teams in the 3 big post New Years bowls to get a championship.

To level the playing field between the have and have nots
1 - Do away with personal TV contracts with schools, BCS, etc...and have the networks only work with NCAA or one governing body
2 - Limit or increase scholys to 75 (allowing no more than 20 to be split and max roster of 85)
3 - 4 year Death Penalty (ie; SMU style) for violation breakers. (This will help control the special "boosters" of the world)
4 - All playoff money revenue is shared with conference/Division teams
5 - Lower stadium requirement to 10,000

The money saved by travel would help the universities, the local regional games would allow Away teams to bring larger crowds and most of all we could finally crown a REAL NATIONAL CHAMP. I know this is a pipe dream, but would love to see it.

[WestCoastAggie]

The problem is March Madness.

[blazrdog#1]

It is laughable for these two powerbrokers to suggest such an idea in tough economic times.People will balk at higher concession prices and higher ticket package prices to support such an idea.Just look at the NFL lockout possibilities right now and the ramifications of higher prices passed onto NFL fans.

[Yote 53]

At the FBS level, I don't believe student athletes can have a part time job. This proposal is not to pay student athletes, it's to make the athletic scholarship the equivalent to a full ride academic scholarship in which the scholar does get money for the "costs" of going to school such as books and other incidentals. If the school was restricted to giving their athletes no more than what their academic scholarship recipients receive I see no problem with it.

If the increase costs in athletic scholarships is too much for some schools to handle then maybe they should be at FCS anyway. I could argue there are plenty of FBS schools in the MAC, Sun Belt, some WAC and CUSA schools that should be at FCS anyways. I don't think the MWC or any other school that wants to participate should be excluded from this new CFA, but the CFA could enact strict minimums that schools need to meet or they'd be sent to next level down.

[49RFootballNow]

At the FBS level, I don't believe student athletes can have a part time job. This proposal is not to pay student athletes, it's to make the athletic scholarship the equivalent to a full ride academic scholarship in which the scholar does get money for the "costs" of going to school such as books and other incidentals. If the school was restricted to giving their athletes no more than what their academic scholarship recipients receive I see no problem with it.

If the increase costs in athletic scholarships is too much for some schools to handle then maybe they should be at FCS anyway. I could argue there are plenty of FBS schools in the MAC, Sun Belt, some WAC and CUSA schools that should be at FCS anyways. I don't think the MWC or any other school that wants to participate should be excluded from this new CFA, but the CFA could enact strict minimums that schools need to meet or they'd be sent to next level down.

One could argue there are some current BCS conference members that will have trouble fully funding these types of athletic scholarships and should, by the standard you applied in your statement, be in FCS. If this is the pressing issue Delany and Slive want to make it out to be then they should ask the NCAA to lower the maximum number of required FBS and FCS scholarships to a level below the current 85/63 of today. Then most of the current FBS schools could probably fund these full-incidentials scholarships from the same amount they had before. Or why not reduce the amount of practice time allowed across the board so that some of these STUDENT-athletes can actually have the time to go to class, practice and work a 20 hour or less part time job? Of course you won't see these noble BCS leaders doing either of those things as it does not accomplish they're true goal, which is widening the gap between the BCS and non-BCS.

[ValleyBoy]

Even if it seperated itself and it wasn't subject to Title IX, aren't we forgetting that the school itself would still be subject. Assuming of course the school continued to sponsor other sports, wouldn't it have to replace the newly seperated football program with an equal number of men's scholarships or cut the equal number of womens???

It seems like the school would be back to square one after all that legal wrangling.

Title IX would remain because it is set by the federal goverment not the NCAA.
The NCAA is the governing body that sactions the sports at this time. The only thing that would change would be a new sactioning body for just football or all sports played by the Universities that leave the NCAA and join the new sactioning body.

[StorminASU]

Title IX would remain because it is set by the federal goverment not the NCAA.
The NCAA is the governing body that sactions the sports at this time. The only thing that would change would be a new sactioning body for just football or all sports played by the Universities that leave the NCAA and join the new sactioning body.

Yeah you just agreed with everything I said.....so...thanks?
Was that suppose to be a counter to something I said?

[blaw0203]

I actually really like the structure discussed in the article, particularly because conferences would move as a whole (theoretically):

The College Football Association (CFA): ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, Pac-12, Army, Navy, Notre Dame, and BYU.

Division I-A: Mountain West, WAC, Mid-American, Conference USA, Sun Belt, Big Sky, CAA, Missouri Valley, Ohio Valley, Southern, Southland, Charlotte (Independent)

Division I-AA: Big South, Ivy, MEAC, Northeast, Patriot, Pioneer, SWAC, Fordham (Independent)

Division II

Division III

Depending on compliance and money, some teams could filter up or down, Liberty and Fordham(?) are teams I could see jumping to the CAA, Southern or independent and moving up.

This would NEVER happen - MONEY IS TOO IMPORTANT!!!!! You have a conference like C-USA downgraded when they inked a 43million dollar tv contract? Those schools wouldnt stand for it, imagine what they would be worth in a diminished division? Then downgrading the MEAC and SWAC when those two conferences makes the MOST money and have the largest attended games in ALL OF FCS? Sorry, I KNOW my peeps at FAMU wouldnt stand for it! Along with the prestige of being in a higher division comes more money, and as we ALL know, money is important to fielding athletic programs. MANY lawsuits would be brought against the NCAA if this were to happen.

The best thing for the NCAA to do is to keep the divisions the way they are, but strengthen the requirements to move up divisions and ACTUALLY downgrade an institution when they fail to meet the requirements and then you wont have broke schools with low attendance trying to exist in FBS.

[LegalGaSouthernEagle]

This is a more likely scenario than the realignment that Sam Baker told us was going to happen years ago, i.e. I-A would be kicking certain weaker teams down to I-AA. Just stupid.

Still, I don't see it happening like ths article suggests. The fiction of the amatuer college athlete is a facade that I'm not sure even the BCS wants to lose.

[ValleyBoy]

The part I did not agree with was the following.


wouldn't it have to replace the newly seperated football program with an equal number of men's scholarships or cut the equal number of womens???



No scholarships will be cut, therefore none will have to be replaced. The only thing that would change is the sacntioning body.

[LegalGaSouthernEagle]

This would NEVER happen - MONEY IS TOO IMPORTANT!!!!! You have a conference like C-USA downgraded when they inked a 43million dollar tv contract? Those schools wouldnt stand for it, imagine what they would be worth in a diminished conference? Then downgrading the MEAC and SWAC when those two conferences makes the MOST money and have the largest attended games in ALL OF FCS? Sorry, I KNOW my peeps at FAMU wouldnt stand for it! Along with the prestige of being in a bigger conference comes more money, and as we ALL know, money is important to fielding athletic programs. MANY lawsuits would be brought against the NCAA if this were to happen. I competely agree with this. The non-BCS conferences wouldn't let this happen without a fight.
I also think it's kind of laughable that the scenario suggested includes some current FCS school in the "new I-A".
In the very same way that the BCS would be squeezing out the non-BCS schools from the money pie, don't you think the non-BCS school would squeeze out the likes of the SoCon and the CAA from the "new I-A" money pie?
Comon sense ought to tell you that.

[txstatebobcat]

you'd be ok with moving from the 2nd most important division to the 3rd most important division? that's a pretty huge deal.

Texas State is moving to FBS next year anyway so all we would be doing staying in the "2nd most important division" anyway.

[StorminASU]

Yeah you just agreed with everything I said.....so...thanks?
Was that suppose to be a counter to something I said?


The part I did not agree with was the following.


wouldn't it have to replace the newly seperated football program with an equal number of men's scholarships or cut the equal number of womens???


No scholarships will be cut, therefore none will have to be replaced. The only thing that would change is the sacntioning body.



If the football program was moved into a separate entity where it could basically pay it's athletes, it would no longer be amateur AND it would only have a loose affiliation with an educational institution so it doesn't seem like Title IX would apply to the separate football entity. That's the assumption I was talking about.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I competely agree with this. The non-BCS conferences wouldn't let this happen without a fight.
I also think it's kind of laughable that the scenario suggested includes some current FCS school in the "new I-A".
In the very same way that the BCS would be squeezing out the non-BCS schools from the money pie, don't you think the non-BCS school would squeeze out the likes of the SoCon and the CAA from the "new I-A" money pie?
Comon sense ought to tell you that.

The entire problem with the proposal is the absence of a "I-A money pie". All the money would flow into the new CFA division, and therefore the whole reason for being of the I-A/FBS would collapse.

[DFW HOYA]

This proposal is not to pay student athletes, it's to make the athletic scholarship the equivalent to a full ride academic scholarship in which the scholar does get money for the "costs" of going to school such as books and other incidentals. If the school was restricted to giving their athletes no more than what their academic scholarship recipients receive I see no problem with it.


So what about schools that don't award academic scholarships?

[LegalGaSouthernEagle]

The entire problem with the proposal is the absence of a "I-A money pie". All the money would flow into the new CFA division, and therefore the whole reason for being of the I-A/FBS would collapse.That's not even close to being true. You're telling me that C-USA and the rest would lose their TV contracts? No way. ESPN wont lose a single viewer on a weekly C-USA games if the BCS splits with the non-BCS, and therefore the value of that contract in the future won't diminish much, if at all. Those are lucrative deals that C-USA, the MAC, ect have with ESPN.
There is no I-AA money pie. If you had added an "A" to your statement, you would have been closer to being correct.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

That's not even close to being true. You're telling me that C-USA and the rest would lose their TV contracts? No way. ESPN wont lose a single viewer on a weekly C-USA games if the BCS splits with the non-BCS, and therefore the value of that contract in the future won't diminish much, if at all. Those are lucrative deals that C-USA, the MAC, ect have with ESPN.
There is no I-AA money pie. If you had added an "A" to your statement, you would have been closer to being correct.

The C-USA'a and MAC's TV contracts don't even come close to allowing its member schools to become break-even athletic departments.

And adding to the issues, there will be no longer BC$ money flowing in for at-large qualifiers. That money would disappear.

They would need to expand the TV contracts in order to just stay in place. Without access to the BCS, what's the likelihood of that?

FBS schools spend a ton more money for little gain, but at least they could take solace that they're rubbing shoulders with the big boys and have a Powerball chance at big money. This proposal gets rid of both reasons to be in FBS.

[blaw0203]

That's not even close to being true. You're telling me that C-USA and the rest would lose their TV contracts? No way. ESPN wont lose a single viewer on a weekly C-USA games if the BCS splits with the non-BCS, and therefore the value of that contract in the future won't diminish much, if at all. Those are lucrative deals that C-USA, the MAC, ect have with ESPN.
There is no I-AA money pie. If you had added an "A" to your statement, you would have been closer to being correct.

They WOULD lose out! By movinge C-USA to a lower division, the programs in C-USA would suffer because they would not be able to attract the type of recruits they can as a conference in the TOP DIVISION of collegiate athletics. And dont be foolish, NO COMPANY would pay a lower division conference 43million for a tv deal! What FCS conference has a tv contract worth ANYTHING??? Even the tv deals the MEAC and SWAC has with ESPN is pure GARBAGE!

[LegalGaSouthernEagle]

The C-USA'a and MAC's TV contracts don't even come close to allowing its member schools to become break-even athletic departments.

And adding to the issues, there will be no longer BC$ money flowing in for at-large qualifiers. That money would disappear.

They would need to expand the TV contracts in order to just stay in place. Without access to the BCS, what's the likelihood of that?
Huh? How many of those schools are even ever the beneficiaries of BCS at-large qualifier dollars? very few. Boise state's conference has reaped benefits of that money, but who else? TCU? the non-BCs schools don't count on BCS money. The whole point of the BCS is to lock those non-BCS schools out of the money.

You state that they would have to expand the tv contracts in order to make up for "lost" bcs money, but they're not getting any BCS money right now to begin with.

[Skjellyfetti]

The C-USA'a and MAC's TV contracts don't even come close to allowing its member schools to become break-even athletic departments.

Not true.* I'd imagine only a couple of CUSA athletic departments operate in the red. How many of the scholarship FCS conferences can claim that? There are, at best, a small handful of athletic departments in ALL of scholarship FCS football with athletic departments in as good of shape financially as CUSA.





*At least regarding CUSA. Don't know/Don't care about the MAC.

[The Eagle's Cliff]

Here's my take on it. The BCS schools obviously have bigger budgets, so why not let them form a semi-pro league and sign kids to contracts. Doing so would negate their chances of winning an NCAA championship in football, disassociate them from the NCAA, and would force them to rely on donors and ticket prices etc..to keep their heads above water. ..i.e. The Arkansas Twisters are an example. xlolx If they want to be seperate, then let them. But they are going to have to rely on their own fundraising to keep playing.

Of course, how do you seperate the other sports from the football side of it. Honestly it just seems like everytime the trend goes toward teams moving up a division, a new one is created. DIII to DII to DI-FCS to DI-FBS to DI-BCS...what's next? xscanx

The BCS is the name of the semi-pro league you refer to. There's enough money in those conferences for them to form another Athletic Association and leave the NCAA altogether. The market and the money would follow. ESPN won't care about the NCAA if the Big Market schools are not members.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Not true.* I'd imagine only a couple of CUSA athletic departments operate in the red. How many of the scholarship FCS conferences can claim that? There are, at best, a small handful of athletic departments in ALL of scholarship FCS football with athletic departments in as good of shape financially as CUSA.

You have got to be kidding me. The total expenses of athletic departments in C-USA are Central Florida ($35 million), UTEP ($23 million) and Houston ($31 million).

The grand total of C-USA TV agreements?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_ucf/2011/01/conference-usa-signs-new-tv-agreement-with-fox.html


The league’s total television revenue under the new agreements is estimated to be about $14 million a year, an increase from its previous contracts with ESPN and CBS College Sports worth about $9.5 million per year.

If UCF, Houston and UTEP are operating in the red, I'd hate to see Marshall and Tulane's books.

[LegalGaSouthernEagle]

You have got to be kidding me. The total expenses of athletic departments in C-USA are Central Florida ($35 million), UTEP ($23 million) and Houston ($31 million).

The grand total of C-USA TV agreements?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_ucf/2011/01/conference-usa-signs-new-tv-agreement-with-fox.html



If UCF, Houston and UTEP are operating in the red, I'd hate to see Marshall and Tulane's books.So what? That's not the point. You said that this proposed new alignment would cripple conferences like C-USA because they'll lose BCS auto-qulifier money. That's money that they aren't getting now for the most part anyway. So where is this big loss of dollars you keep claiming when/if this new classification goes through?

[bluehenbillk]

I didn't go through all the previous pages so if this has been stated forgive me. I don't see how this can happen on multiple levels. The BCS schools simply can't avoid lawsuits regarding the BCS system by packing up and forming their own league. Additionally, if the BCS schools wanna pay their players they're gone from the NCAA. What would happen to March Madness? It'd be no more. Hoops schools like Gonzaga, Marquette, Memphis, Villanova, Georgetown just to nae a few would have big-time damage to their programs, as would the Butler's and Xavier's of the world. Same thing with the CWS, so much foe Cal St Fullerton, UC Irvine and the Dirtbags from Long Beach.

How would this new D1 work, do teams pull back to FCS level of schollies or have to add??

Good thought piece article but short on feasibility...

Remember one card the government has in their back pocket - these universities get a lot of government aid and are "non-profit" in that they don't pay taxes like the "for profit" schools like Univ of Phoenix, DeVry and Strayer do.

[Accelerati Incredibilus]

I actually really like the structure discussed in the article, particularly because conferences would move as a whole (theoretically):

The College Football Association (CFA): ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, Pac-12, Army, Navy, Notre Dame, and BYU.

Division I-A: Mountain West, WAC, Mid-American, Conference USA, Sun Belt, Big Sky, CAA, Missouri Valley, Ohio Valley, Southern, Southland, Charlotte (Independent)

Division I-AA: Big South, Ivy, MEAC, Northeast, Patriot, Pioneer, SWAC, Fordham (Independent)

Division II

Division III

Depending on compliance and money, some teams could filter up or down, Liberty and Fordham(?) are teams I could see jumping to the CAA, Southern or independent and moving up.

You will not see entire FCS conferences make a move up. The better positioned FCS programs would either form a new conference or be absorbed into others. No way CUSA, Mtn West, WAC, MAC, & Sun Belt will be associated with a conference where all but one or two schools average 8-9,000.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The C-USA'a and MAC's TV contracts don't even come close to allowing its member schools to become break-even athletic departments.

And adding to the issues, there will be no longer BC$ money flowing in for at-large qualifiers. That money would disappear.

They would need to expand the TV contracts in order to just stay in place. Without access to the BCS, what's the likelihood of that?

FBS schools spend a ton more money for little gain, but at least they could take solace that they're rubbing shoulders with the big boys and have a Powerball chance at big money. This proposal gets rid of both reasons to be in FBS.


So what? That's not the point. You said that this proposed new alignment would cripple conferences like C-USA because they'll lose BCS auto-qulifier money. That's money that they aren't getting now for the most part anyway. So where is this big loss of dollars you keep claiming when/if this new classification goes through?

Read my post again. BC$ money was not the entire, but part of the overall financial picture of the C-USA schools.

But since you asked:

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/41467/non-aq-bcs-money-distribution


Several months ago, the BCS announced the non-AQs would receive a record $24.7 million to split among themselves. That may be a record, but it is a pittance compared to the $145 million that collectively went to the automatic qualifying conferences.

Mountain West: $12,746,183
WAC: $4,044,042
C-USA: $3,341,900
MAC: $2,639,758
Sun Belt: $1,937,617

So "money they aren't getting for the most part anyway" is not true. They are getting $2-$3 million a year, which disappears from C-USA's balance sheet every year. That's a very large revenue stream to be losing. And to top it off, that extra revenue isn't even balancing their books. Sure, they get more revenue, but they have to spend way more than that to get it.

So, what other FBS and C-USA myths can I debunk for you? xlolx

[JMUNJ08]

Read my post again. BC$ money was not the entire, but part of the overall financial picture of the C-USA schools.

But since you asked:

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/41467/non-aq-bcs-money-distribution



So "money they aren't getting for the most part anyway" is not true. They are getting $2-$3 million a year, which disappears from C-USA's balance sheet every year. That's a very large revenue stream to be losing. And to top it off, that extra revenue isn't even balancing their books. Sure, they get more revenue, but they have to spend way more than that to get it.

So, what other FBS and C-USA myths can I debunk for you? xlolx

If I am correct as well, I am sure the NCAA student-athletes could not compete against this new 'BCS' league with paid players. This therefore, would mean these schools also lose big paydays ($1M plus?) for games against a OSU or FLA. That would be an even bigger hit than the 12 teams splitting around $4M....

[LegalGaSouthernEagle]

Read my post again. BC$ money was not the entire, but part of the overall financial picture of the C-USA schools.

But since you asked:

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/41467/non-aq-bcs-money-distribution



So "money they aren't getting for the most part anyway" is not true. They are getting $2-$3 million a year, which disappears from C-USA's balance sheet every year. That's a very large revenue stream to be losing. And to top it off, that extra revenue isn't even balancing their books. Sure, they get more revenue, but they have to spend way more than that to get it.

So, what other FBS and C-USA myths can I debunk for you? xlolxI'd like a link, but I expect as much from a lehigh, PA rube.
Taking your premise as true for arguments sake, Um, 24.7 million? That's divided between the entire list of non-autoqualifier schools. If you think C-USA will miss 3.5 million spread across the entire league, you're high. Lehigh. Come on. Your hate of FBS is clear, but you're talking about Universities being crippled by basically peanuts. Typical delusional FCS fan who wants to see FBS schools suffer at all costs.

[Skjellyfetti]

If UCF, Houston and UTEP are operating in the red, I'd hate to see Marshall and Tulane's books.

UCF, Houston, and UTEP aren't operating in the red.

Marshall is operating in the red (and is one of, if not the only school in Conference USA operating in the red).

Tulane, Tulsa, and Rice's financial statements aren't publicly available.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm

The vast majority of Conference USA does not operate in the red. How many scholarship FCS conferences can say that?

[WestCoastAggie]

So how will these football moves affect the NCAA Division One Men's Basketball Tournament?

[AppMan]

As someone who has long believed there are three distinct levels of programs within D-I football I would personally like to see something like this come about, but not at the expense of those conferences leaving the NCAA. Is this simply a shot across the bow of the NCAA to make a point?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

UCF, Houston, and UTEP aren't operating in the red.

Marshall is operating in the red (and is one of, if not the only school in Conference USA operating in the red).

Tulane, Tulsa, and Rice's financial statements aren't publicly available.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm

The vast majority of Conference USA does not operate in the red. How many scholarship FCS conferences can say that?

Let's take UCF as an example.

According to that report, they get $40 million in revenues.

$17 million of that came from student fees, which is a per-credit subsidy from its students to keep the athletic department afloat. There's nothing illegal or immoral about this, but it's worth noting that 1/3 of their entire revenue comes from soaking students, whether they enjoy their athletics programs or not.

So far, so good, then.

However, "direct institutional support" - i.e. money paid by the university to prop up their FBS program - is $2.2 million dollars.

In addition, $600,000 is paid for by "state support" (i.e. the taxpayer).

So UCF, in reality, is operating in the red, when you take out the lost money paid for by the school and the other supports from the state, which amounts to nearly $3 million dollars.

Also, $3.3 million is paid to the school by the conference.

If the BC$ schools leave, the $3,3 million from the conference also goes away, which went towards propping up the bottom line. So while UCF clearly operates in the red, losing that $3.3 million ever year will make things much, much worse.

I'd look up the other schools, but undoubtedly they're in the exact same boat as UCF. Basically, in order to believe these schools are "in the black" you have to believe that "institutional support" is a legitimate revenue source, when in reality it's a blank check from the university to subsidize the athletics department.

To address those folks that simplistically dismiss me as an FBS hater, hey, I don't make up the numbers. I just find it incredibly hypocritical when schools say they are leaving FCS to find riches at the FBS level. In nine out of ten situations it's patently untrue.

[LegalGaSouthernEagle]

Also, $3.3 million is paid to the school by the conference.

If the BC$ schools leave, the $3,3 million from the conference also goes away, which went towards propping up the bottom line. So while UCF clearly operates in the red, losing that $3.3 million ever year will make things much, much worse.What are there like a dozen C-USA teams. Spread 3.3. million over those 12 teams and it's peanuts in their big pictures.
You're grasping.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

9 our of 10??? That's not true. There's a reason why FBS schools have higher athletic budgets than FCS schools 99% of the time, and it far extends the BC$.

Yes, you're right. The reason why their budgets are higher is that they have to spend gobs more money in order to "compete" in that subdivision. And "competing" in the subdivision means, if you're not in the BC$, that there's a snowball's chance in hell that you'll be playing in the BC$ Crystal Ball game.

Is it worth the extra cost, to spend all that extra money and get no additional revenue in return? That's the question every school going to FBS must face.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I talk about putting Jim Delany's money to better use than adding the "full cost of scholarship" to Big Ten scholarship athletes.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2011/05/will-jim-delanys-endorsement-of-full.html

[jmufan999]

"If I go down, I'm taking you to hell with me!"--Buzz Aldrin to Homer Simpson


best.

episode.

ever.

[DFW HOYA]

The movement of some I-AA schools is more a case of upward mobility than real change in their programs or results. It's the same mobility that drove "teachers colleges" to rebrand themselves as "state colleges", then "state universities", which too has become passe as that are now "universities". As long as the money comes from the legislature to build that stadium, to build those skyboxes, what school wouldn't want to increase their brand awareness by being considered among football's elite (which is I-A, and certainly not I-AA)? App State isn't going to make the US News Top 50, so why not leverage football to reach the students that it wouldn't otherwise?

So Western Kentucky is 2-10 instead of 10-2. But they're not coming back to the "excitement" of first round playoff games before 4,000. And Presbyterian isn't going back to D-II, either. Thet's the price of upward mobility--the view is great but the hill to climb gets a lot tougher.

[LegalGaSouthernEagle]

Still waiting for the guy from Lehigh to explain how the loss of 3.3. million spread over the entire conference, is going to cripple C-USA.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Still waiting for the guy from Lehigh to explain how the loss of 3.3. million spread over the entire conference, is going to cripple C-USA.

Are you too lazy to click on http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm and look up UCF?

[LegalGaSouthernEagle]

Are you too lazy to click on http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm and look up UCF?Um, no. I've read the entire article and you have yet to answer the question. Your argument is so all over the place. Does anybody follow this guy?
Your original argument was if the bcs separated from the rest of I-A, that the rest of I-A would fold because everybody would then be operating in the red.
You were showed that the BCS subsidy for non-BCS conferences (like C-USA for example $3.3. million) is peanuts in the big budgetary picture.
Now your onto a completely different subject regarding state and federal subsidies that have nothing to do with the BCS/non-BCS distinction.

Do me a favor and articulate your point in a few sentences. If you can.

[Appfan_in_CAAland]

There is about 15 different topics going on in this thread. But I'd just like to throw something else out on the fire. While it will never happen for way too reasons to get into, I have long felt the answer to much of this talk in this thread and generally of BCS/non-BCS, conference realignment, schools moving between fbs and fcs, financial and athletic competitivness within and between conferences, programs being either full scholarships or non-scholarship, and a whole host of other related topics is the total reorganization of the NCAA using tiers of soccer-style promotion and relegation operating independently for each sport. Win and you move up, lose and you go down. Duke, Butler, Villanova could be tier 1 in basketball while playing at lower levels in football. App State upgrades its football program by winning on the field and moves from say tier 3 to tier 2 while the basketball team stays put. Start a new program, and you start at the bottom. And so on.

[LegalGaSouthernEagle]

There is about 15 different topics going on in this thread. But I'd just like to throw something else out on the fire. While it will never happen for way too reasons to get into, I have long felt the answer to much of this talk in this thread and generally of BCS/non-BCS, conference realignment, schools moving between fbs and fcs, financial and athletic competitivness within and between conferences, programs being either full scholarships or non-scholarship, and a whole host of other related topics is the total reorganization of the NCAA using tiers of soccer-style promotion and relegation operating independently for each sport. Win and you move up, lose and you go down. Duke, Butler, Villanova could be tier 1 in basketball while playing at lower levels in football. App State upgrades its football program by winning on the field and moves from say tier 3 to tier 2 while the basketball team stays put. Start a new program, and you start at the bottom. And so on.They do that in the EPL, and it results in a have/have nots situation. I don't think relegation is the solution. We all know that the real solution is a playoff system. The problem is getting the competing interested parties, (the bowls, the NCAA, and the BCS) to figure out a system that serves all 3 of their interests.
It used to seem impossible for a playoff to work, because all of the bowls were on New Year's Day. It's different now. The bowls, even the big BCS bowls, are pretty spread out. I can foresee a system where they have a FCS style tournament with maybe 32 teams at the most, while keeping the bowl games and the bowl sponsorships intact. The key is convincing the BCS that they can make the most money that way. I think it's difficult, but doable.

[tribefan40]

This would NEVER happen - MONEY IS TOO IMPORTANT!!!!! You have a conference like C-USA downgraded when they inked a 43million dollar tv contract? Those schools wouldnt stand for it, imagine what they would be worth in a diminished division? Then downgrading the MEAC and SWAC when those two conferences makes the MOST money and have the largest attended games in ALL OF FCS? Sorry, I KNOW my peeps at FAMU wouldnt stand for it! Along with the prestige of being in a higher division comes more money, and as we ALL know, money is important to fielding athletic programs. MANY lawsuits would be brought against the NCAA if this were to happen.

The best thing for the NCAA to do is to keep the divisions the way they are, but strengthen the requirements to move up divisions and ACTUALLY downgrade an institution when they fail to meet the requirements and then you wont have broke schools with low attendance trying to exist in FBS.

Pretty sure the article, and my post, were predicated on the idea that the divide would come beacuse the big six would seperate on their own, with minimal or no approval from the NCAA or anyone else's approval. If that did happen, I think you would see more survival instinct than entitlement and whining. If the big six do break away, the remaining schools in division I will be scrambling to get whatever they can with whomever they can. If the NCAA hasn't been successfully sued to this point with the BCS, why would an organization of the same schools with a different name be such a legal nightmare?

The MEAC and SWAC do have fantastic fanbases and would certainly have something to say about a divide like this, but I'm not sure where that would play in a shakeup like this one.

[DFW HOYA]

1. Another problem with relegation--it would entice wholesale rules breaking at the higher levels of I-A level to stay there. If you're, solely for example of argument, Ole Miss, and you risk going from the SEC to the Sun Belt with another bad season, you'd do anything and then some to avoid it.

2. It also wouldn't make much sense at the higher levels of lower divisions. Does Mount Union become a D-II school but try to compete without scholarships?

3. Finally, how would you judge the tiers in, say, track and field?

[DaveK]

Much of the sports world uses some sort of A, AA, AAA nomenclature. If somebody who didn't know anything about college football were told there was an FBS and an FCS, do you think they'd be able to come up with a rational explanation of what that meant? I-A and I-AA make a lot more sense and I applaud them for refusing to use the stupid nomenclature.

BTW, best quote IMO... "What it really showed is that the gap in college football is not between Division I-A and I-AA. It's between the BCS schools and everybody else Division I-A."

+1

[ursus arctos horribilis]

+1
DAVEk!!!

Wonderful to see you back! I was just mentioning you on an old thread that was bumped last week or the week before.