Ideas for a different I-AA

[AppMan]

Ralph, The only thing these few enhancements are targeted at is post season play. The point I have been attempting to make is what about the regular season? Other than a cosmetic name change nothing being done to help this division become stronger and gain respect.

If 1-aa, or the whatever it is to be called, was a business plan for a start-up corporation there wouldn’t be a bank in the country that would loan a dime to get it going. Other than being a member of Division One there are no standards for participation. 1-aa schools are not required to meet any specific criteria like 1-A programs. No minimum scholarships, no set numbers of coaches, or average attendance numbers. Although requirements like these do not necessarily guarantee a solid program, what they do is show a desire and commitment to a high level of competition on the part of the university. It also guarantees a more competitive field by weeding out those who only stick their foot in the water without actually jumping in.

The ONLY way to make this a viable and respected level of college football is to attract a group of schools BACK INTO the division that have a commitment to playing football at a high level. I'd be willing to bet the farm the people who created 1-aa football had no idea it would cause the turmoil it has in D-I football. No way did they forsee the flight of better programs out of the division only to be replaced by an a influx of D-II programs. If the NCAA truly wants to correct the mistakes of the past 28 years they had better do something along the following lines.

Number One: Get rid of the insane rule that requires a school that participates in Division One for all other sports to play football at the Division One level as well. In an attempt to level the playing field the NCAA has diluted the quality of Division One football by requiring non-scholarship and low scholarship programs to play at a level that should be reserved for programs that have made the commitment to the level. Please understand, I am not saying there is anything wrong with how theses schools chose to participate in football. Just give them the opportunity to go back and play at the D-II & D-III level like they used to do. After all, wasn’t that the reason for those divisions to begin with? What makes this rule even more ridiculous is when you consider all schools that play D-I, but do not field football teams. Do they not have a competitive advantage in those other sports by not having to fund football?

Number Two: Establish minimum standards for scholarships, coaches, and attendance. All members must fund a minimum of 60 full grants, but cannot exceed 75 full grants. A school can choose to give 65 full grants and split five between 2 players each to reach the75 player limit. Schools must average 12,000 per home game against all opponents.

Number Three: A national television package with someone like ESPN2 that will broadcast two televised games each Saturday. These games should be in addition to any regional games already being shown on any other regional cable channel. Some form of cash compensation to be established for the conferences with members being shown.

Number Four: Make the playoffs financially attractive and a more bowl like atmosphere. Although 12,000+ Mountaineers filled the stands and spent a ton of cash in Chattanooga, the ASU department of athletics lost money on the national championship run. No bids for the right to host elimination rounds. The higher seeded team always plays at home and in the case of a tie the attendance of the previous week determines the host school. Perhaps that will cause the school to do some aggressive marketing for those early round games. After the school deducts their expenses for running the game (as per NCAA regulations) the NCAA takes the money and splits it into four shares among the two participants and themselves. Winning team gets two shares, loosing team one and the NCAA one. NCAA continues to pay expenses for traveling teams involved in the playoffs. However, if the NCAA truly wants to make this a well-respected division they are going to have to attract a number of mid-major conferences back into the fold. In order to make it attractive to name programs they must attach financial rewards to the playoffs. Much like they do in the NCAA basketball tournament. First round players receive a minimum check. Advance to the second round and the check increases a little more. Then so on and so on up to the championship game. I’m not talking about some huge windfall, but a nice reward.

You are cleared to tear apart as you please.

[UAalum72]

Schools must average 12,000 per home game against all opponents.
Based on last year's attendance, reduces the number of teams to 21, of which five do not participate in the playoffs. Everybody makes the post-season!!

Even lowering the bar to 9,000 leaves you with only about 32 playoff-eligible teams.

[Bub]

If the requirements for I-AA are fund 75 schollies and put 12, 000 plus in the stands against every opponent why not just do away with I-AA? The differences between I-AA as described and I-A would be so miniscule why bother ?

[AppMan]

Based on last year's attendance, reduces the number of teams to 21, of which five do not participate in the playoffs. Everybody makes the post-season!!

Even lowering the bar to 9,000 leaves you with only about 32 playoff-eligible teams.

I am talking about something based on a totally different scenario than what we have today. To understand my point you must go back to the original intent of 1-aa. Please understand this is not a bust on your school (which I am assuming is Albany), but if 1-aa had been managed properly from the get go, we would not be having this conversation. You would be talking to a completely different group of people.

[AppMan]

If the requirements for I-AA are fund 75 schollies and put 12, 000 plus in the stands against every opponent why not just do away with I-AA? The differences between I-AA as described and I-A would be so miniscule why bother ?

The BCS leagues will never allow mid-major programs to taste a piece of the pie mega dollar pie, but they will need them to stick around for scheduling purposes. The pecking order has been forever established. However, in order to give our fan base quality games the scope of the second half of Division One must be ramped up to include MAC, SunBelt, WAC, and possibly MtnWest & CUSA programs. It is the only way programs like ASU, JMU, Delaware, Montana, McNeese, ect will be able to survive. A quick look at the scheduling problems these schools experienced the past few years is just the tip of the iceberg. It is going to get a lot worse.

[blukeys]

Ralph, The only thing these few enhancements are targeted at is post season play. The point I have been attempting to make is what about the regular season? Other than a cosmetic name change nothing being done to help this division become stronger and gain respect.

If 1-aa, or the whatever it is to be called, was a business plan for a start-up corporation there wouldn’t be a bank in the country that would loan a dime to get it going. Other than being a member of Division One there are no standards for participation. 1-aa schools are not required to meet any specific criteria like 1-A programs. No minimum scholarships, no set numbers of coaches, or average attendance numbers. Although requirements like these do not necessarily guarantee a solid program, what they do is show a desire and commitment to a high level of competition on the part of the university. It also guarantees a more competitive field by weeding out those who only stick their foot in the water without actually jumping in.

The ONLY way to make this a viable and respected level of college football is to attract a group of schools BACK INTO the division that have a commitment to playing football at a high level. I'd be willing to bet the farm the people who created 1-aa football had no idea it would cause the turmoil it has in D-I football. No way did they forsee the flight of better programs out of the division only to be replaced by an a influx of D-II programs. If the NCAA truly wants to correct the mistakes of the past 28 years they had better do something along the following lines.

Number One: Get rid of the insane rule that requires a school that participates in Division One for all other sports to play football at the Division One level as well. In an attempt to level the playing field the NCAA has diluted the quality of Division One football by requiring non-scholarship and low scholarship programs to play at a level that should be reserved for programs that have made the commitment to the level. Please understand, I am not saying there is anything wrong with how theses schools chose to participate in football. Just give them the opportunity to go back and play at the D-II & D-III level like they used to do. After all, wasn’t that the reason for those divisions to begin with? What makes this rule even more ridiculous is when you consider all schools that play D-I, but do not field football teams. Do they not have a competitive advantage in those other sports by not having to fund football?

Number Two: Establish minimum standards for scholarships, coaches, and attendance. All members must fund a minimum of 60 full grants, but cannot exceed 75 full grants. A school can choose to give 65 full grants and split five between 2 players each to reach the75 player limit. Schools must average 12,000 per home game against all opponents.

Number Three: A national television package with someone like ESPN2 that will broadcast two televised games each Saturday. These games should be in addition to any regional games already being shown on any other regional cable channel. Some form of cash compensation to be established for the conferences with members being shown.

Number Four: Make the playoffs financially attractive and a more bowl like atmosphere. Although 12,000+ Mountaineers filled the stands and spent a ton of cash in Chattanooga, the ASU department of athletics lost money on the national championship run. No bids for the right to host elimination rounds. The higher seeded team always plays at home and in the case of a tie the attendance of the previous week determines the host school. Perhaps that will cause the school to do some aggressive marketing for those early round games. After the school deducts their expenses for running the game (as per NCAA regulations) the NCAA takes the money and splits it into four shares among the two participants and themselves. Winning team gets two shares, loosing team one and the NCAA one. NCAA continues to pay expenses for traveling teams involved in the playoffs. However, if the NCAA truly wants to make this a well-respected division they are going to have to attract a number of mid-major conferences back into the fold. In order to make it attractive to name programs they must attach financial rewards to the playoffs. Much like they do in the NCAA basketball tournament. First round players receive a minimum check. Advance to the second round and the check increases a little more. Then so on and so on up to the championship game. I’m not talking about some huge windfall, but a nice reward.

You are cleared to tear apart as you please.


You actually have me here Appman. The NCAA has screwed both I-AA and schools such as Dayton who had a true opportunity to win a NC at the non scolly level. The Non Scolly schools have nowhere the opportunity to win a NC they would have at D-3.

On number two, I can see small private schools having a problem with the number of scollies. But I think the number of scollies could be negotiated. Of I-A, I-AA and D-2, only I-AA has a scholarship range of 63 scollies. So while I see problems with your total number, your proposal offers a starting point that schools can negotiate.


Your number three is beyond anyone's control and requires the support of I-A to play hardball with television networks. I know of no one on this board who would not support this but getting it done is another matter.

Your number four is definitely an area that deserves some exploration. For instance in the NCAA basketball tournament, Conferences are rewarded when a team advances in the playoffs. As of today the CAA is already spending the George Mason Windfall. How a Conference allocates this windfall is up to the conference. The problem is there is no way the I-AA football playoffs offer the same financial incentive as the NCAA basketball tournament. Your point is that the right financial incentives could get the MAC and Sunbelt teams to look at I-AA as an option. I happen to agree. Most athletic decisions in the end are about money. The right financial arrangement could make the difference. The money though is in the BCS conferences. Someone would have to convince the BCS conferences that a strong I-AA helps their bottom line. I'm not sure anyone knows how to do this.

Regarding Attendance requirements, no one has been able to enforce this on I-A (Trust me Temple for the last few years did not average 12,000/game). There just are too many ways to cheat. Scolly levels and assistant coaches are much easier to measure and quantify. If you want to make these the criteria then much more can be accomplished.

[DFW HOYA]

Here's the general flaw in this proposal--it presumes Division I membership is based on scholarships, which it's not. Division I membership is based on the number of sports a school sponsors. It is entirely possible to field teams without scholarships (or with very few scholarships) and be valid members of Division I.

Defining scholarships just by numbers is unfair to schools where the cost of education is significantly higher. Which is more of a commitment-60 scholarships at $4,000 each or 15 scholarships at $45,000? Or does the latter school simply give 63 students $4,000 each as a "scholarship" for I-AA purposes but require them to foot the bill for the other $41,000?

It is also unrealistic to assume teams would drop back down to other levels to play football. The lower divisions didn't want Dayton et al. in their midst 15 years ago, and most of these programs have grown in the years since, further distancing themselves from D-III.

[bluehenbillk]

I'd love to see #3 but TV coverage is dictated by ratings & let's be honest, there's not tons or people that are going to watch regular season 1-AA games on the duece.

[gophoenix]

I agree with everything AppMan said except for the attendance requirement. No other sport has an attendance requirement, so why should football? Besides, TV packages do nothing but reduce the amount of fans who travel to games.

Also, if the minimum is 60 grants and the minimum attendance is 12,000; then what the heck happens to the other 56 scholarship I-AA schools who give more than the DII number of grants but don't meet this attendance number?

Do away with the attendance requirement and you have an attractive deal.


It is the only way programs like ASU, JMU, Delaware, Montana, McNeese, ect will be able to survive.

And now we see the true intent. This is what I love about the "we must go I-A" crowd. These "requirements" are always made so that it fits exactly who they want in I-A.

I guess its good if they move up, but as long as who you deem is below that "standard" knows their place and stays there.... right? Is that what you're saying?


No way did they forsee the flight of better programs out of the division only to be replaced by an a influx of D-II programs
Ugh, I hate comments like this. Their was an influx of D-II and NAIA programs into DI back in the late 60s and early 70s (ECU, App, UTC, ETSU, WCU, Delaware, and so on). It leveled off for a while and now has picked up a bit again. So what's the big deal, as long as those programs put forward the $$ and commitment to field a fully funded team? So far, who if the "influx" group doesn't belong in D-I in general, besides Savannah St?

[ngineer]

Agreed on the attendance requirement...You'd be eliminating alot of even the stronger I-AA programs who, for lack of student body size and/or location will never average near that number.

[gophoenix]

It is the only way programs like ASU, JMU, Delaware, Montana, McNeese, ect will be able to survive.

And now we see the true intent. This is what I love about the "we must go I-A" crowd. These "requirements" are always made so that it fits exactly who they want in I-A.

I guess its good if they move up, but the Elons, Furmans, Hofstras, Towsons have to know their place.

[OL FU]

Hey no body should complain cuz you are thinking.

1. Absolutely agree
2. Can't agree with that. Lots of good teams don't field 60 scholarships. I think many of the GWFC teams don't and they can compete with anybody. And the attendance requirement means so long to OL FU:o If there is an attendance requirement it should be much lower. Alot of IA's don't get 12,000 people.

3 and 4. Since the market dictates attendance and TV, I don't know how you do that.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Interesting ideas - of course, I don't agree with all of them, but, isn't that why we're here?



Number One: Get rid of the insane rule that requires a school that participates in Division One for all other sports to play football at the Division One level as well... Just give them the opportunity to go back and play at the D-II & D-III level like they used to do. After all, wasn’t that the reason for those divisions to begin with? What makes this rule even more ridiculous is when you consider all schools that play D-I, but do not field football teams. Do they not have a competitive advantage in those other sports by not having to fund football?

I actually agree with this, but it may not have the results that you think. I don't think this will make the LaSalle's or Jacksonville's drop down to D-II or D-III. You may see the occasional move, but I don't think there will be much change. There will still be D-I non-scholly.



Number Two: Establish minimum standards for scholarships, coaches, and attendance. All members must fund a minimum of 60 full grants, but cannot exceed 75 full grants. A school can choose to give 65 full grants and split five between 2 players each to reach the75 player limit. Schools must average 12,000 per home game against all opponents.


I think we all know what attendance requirements for I-A did for keeping teams from dropping, right? :rolleyes: Attendance requirements have been proven to be impossible to police and easy to fudge - all of a sudden, Lafayette's band and the catering group will be counted in the attendance - so that will be nigh-impossible to do.

The same applies to athletic scholarships. Even at I-A teams like Army, Navy and Air Force don't have "scholarships" since all their students are on a "scholarship" with a service requirement. Patriot League schools have grants-in-aid that act like scholarships to most (and, incidentally, generally are under 60 of these).

The truth is that the minimum standards could exist, but the NCAA has never had the will or the wherewithal to enforce these standards. Setting artificial bars won't help.



Number Three: A national television package with someone like ESPN2 that will broadcast two televised games each Saturday. These games should be in addition to any regional games already being shown on any other regional cable channel. Some form of cash compensation to be established for the conferences with members being shown.


As a I-AA fan, who wouldn't like this? :smiley_wi The trouble is, again, you get into Economics I with this. We had this - sort of - with CSTV, and as great as it was for I-AA, it's clear that from their perspective more money is to be made with Navy regular-season games and middling SEC games.

However, I do think that the NCAA needs to be more aggressive in shopping I-AA football to the networks. Maybe the BCG/PCG change will help in that since we're all D-I now.



Number Four: Make the playoffs financially attractive and a more bowl like atmosphere... No bids for the right to host elimination rounds. The higher seeded team always plays at home and in the case of a tie the attendance of the previous week determines the host school. Perhaps that will cause the school to do some aggressive marketing for those early round games. After the school deducts their expenses for running the game (as per NCAA regulations) the NCAA takes the money and splits it into four shares among the two participants and themselves. Winning team gets two shares, loosing team one and the NCAA one. NCAA continues to pay expenses for traveling teams involved in the playoffs. However, if the NCAA truly wants to make this a well-respected division they are going to have to attract a number of mid-major conferences back into the fold. In order to make it attractive to name programs they must attach financial rewards to the playoffs. Much like they do in the NCAA basketball tournament. First round players receive a minimum check. Advance to the second round and the check increases a little more. Then so on and so on up to the championship game. I’m not talking about some huge windfall, but a nice reward.

All decent ideas. You can't force schools to "market" the first-round playoff games, though. The problem there is not so much the lack of effort by the schools but rather the lack of time between the selection show and the first-round games. Athletic departments have 6 days to secure their venue, get travel parties together... it's just not a lot of time to properly hype up matchups. I know there are other problems with extending the playoffs, but promotion of first-round games are a bit of the fallout from that decision.

Seeding is fine, but I really like the idea of more neutral sites for playoff rounds, maybe even the semifinal rounds. That enables people to be able to plan ahead somewhat, have hotel rooms available, etc. I think the old women's NCAA basketball tourney is a good model. The higher-seeded team hosts rounds 1 and 2, and every round after that goes to "regionals". Couldn't this work for I-AA/PCG?

I don't think you'll get any oppostion to bigger guarantees and, generally, having the NCAA spend more :twocents: on PCG football. It can and should be equal to any bowl game in terms of interest and finanical windfall for the school. Personally, I think App St./UNI last year opened some eyes as to what the PCG can continue to be in terms of excitement and promoting NCAA athletics.

[bluehenbillk]

If you had an average attendance requirement of 12K, 9 or 10 of the 12 teams in the A-10 would not meet that standard.

UD & JMU make it & maybe UMass.

[colgate13]

Seeding is fine, but I really like the idea of more neutral sites for playoff rounds, maybe even the semifinal rounds. That enables people to be able to plan ahead somewhat, have hotel rooms available, etc. I think the old women's NCAA basketball tourney is a good model. The higher-seeded team hosts rounds 1 and 2, and every round after that goes to "regionals". Couldn't this work for I-AA/PCG?
Interesting theory to explore. I think you might have nice potential in a back to back semifinal game somewhere neutral. Quarters too. It's just murder on the fans trying to plan something that quickly. Maybe it shouldn't be neutral, but bid on like NCAA ice hockey. PCG hotbeds could bid and maybe have teams they care about in it. I'm thinking again like ice hockey. Wisconsin wins the title in Wisconsin, but only because Wisconsin was hosting. Next year Albany has the title game (I think, if not, the year after). If Colgate or Cornell or RPI or BC/BU, etc. is in the frozen four, it's an easy trip.

You could have sites down south, in the mid atlantic, northeast, out west, bidding on sites. I know the odds of me attending a non-Colgate playoff game increase exponentially if it is within driving distance, and if it was for 2 games - like a 2 and a 6 kickoff. Is that even do-able?

[bcrawf]

You are so right on #4. UNI lost about $100,000 for being successful!! I am sure App St. and even maybe the semi-final teams are in the same boat!!

[kardplayer]

Interesting theory to explore. I think you might have nice potential in a back to back semifinal game somewhere neutral. Quarters too. It's just murder on the fans trying to plan something that quickly. Maybe it shouldn't be neutral, but bid on like NCAA ice hockey. PCG hotbeds could bid and maybe have teams they care about in it. I'm thinking again like ice hockey. Wisconsin wins the title in Wisconsin, but only because Wisconsin was hosting. Next year Albany has the title game (I think, if not, the year after). If Colgate or Cornell or RPI or BC/BU, etc. is in the frozen four, it's an easy trip.

You could have sites down south, in the mid atlantic, northeast, out west, bidding on sites. I know the odds of me attending a non-Colgate playoff game increase exponentially if it is within driving distance, and if it was for 2 games - like a 2 and a 6 kickoff. Is that even do-able?

Hosting two games at the same site on the same day is going to challenging due to field conditions. I'm guessing a lot of grass fields couldn't take that kind of beating. And if by some chance it were raining, the first game would slop the field up so that the second game would be disastrous.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Interesting theory to explore. I think you might have nice potential in a back to back semifinal game somewhere neutral. Quarters too. It's just murder on the fans trying to plan something that quickly. Maybe it shouldn't be neutral, but bid on like NCAA ice hockey. PCG hotbeds could bid and maybe have teams they care about in it. I'm thinking again like ice hockey. Wisconsin wins the title in Wisconsin, but only because Wisconsin was hosting. Next year Albany has the title game (I think, if not, the year after). If Colgate or Cornell or RPI or BC/BU, etc. is in the frozen four, it's an easy trip.

You could have sites down south, in the mid atlantic, northeast, out west, bidding on sites. I know the odds of me attending a non-Colgate playoff game increase exponentially if it is within driving distance, and if it was for 2 games - like a 2 and a 6 kickoff. Is that even do-able?

Glad you like the proposal 13. :) You'd think there would be possibilities here, even with neutral venues. With the Ivies not participating, why not the Yale Bowl, Franklin Field or Palmer Stadium? Down south, why not Legion Field in Brimingham, or perhaps at UK (Lexington, KY) or Louisville? There's got to be a lot of possibilities.

[colgate13]

Hosting two games at the same site on the same day is going to challenging due to field conditions. I'm guessing a lot of grass fields couldn't take that kind of beating. And if by some chance it were raining, the first game would slop the field up so that the second game would be disastrous.

You mean some teams still have grass? My god! :p

Would field turf make it doable though? That's why I asked - I have memories of fields getting trashed after a game. I don't know if you could 'play two' like in baseball.

[colgate13]

You'd think there would be possibilities here, even with neutral venues. With the Ivies not participating, why not the Yale Bowl, Franklin Field or Palmer Stadium?

I'm thinking differently. I want I-AA hotbeds specifically. Yale? No. Not a a great draw IMO. Franklin Field? No. Philly's not a I-AA town. Palmer? Maybe... great field, lots of I-AA teams within an hour, nice town.

I was more along the lines though of Delaware or Lehigh or someplace like that. A place where they know what I-AA football is, have a nice stadium and are centrally located between a bunch of I-AA schools to grab some random fans and increase the odds that travelling would be easy.

Probably a long shot... but worth talking about!

[foghorn]

I'd love to see #3 but TV coverage is dictated by ratings & let's be honest, there's not tons or people that are going to watch regular season 1-AA games on the duece.

MAC games are shown on weeknights ( Tues. or Thur.) in the fall. I don't see why good I-AA matchups wouldn't be at least as popular, but not on Saturdays when the competition would be too strong.
I think Appman's suggestions are excellent, especially #1. How can a division which allows 0 to 63 scholarships and have teams getting beaten by, or even playing Div. III teams, be taken seriously? Lumping great football programs like GSU, YSU, Grambling, Youngstown, Lehigh, etc., with the likes of La Salle ( no disrespect intended), is just not commensurate with what these teams have accomplished throughout their great histories and, by association, lowers the perceived status of Div. I-AA.
The division needs to lure the bottom D-IA's into the fold and eliminate those who can't afford it, by changing the assinine D-I football/ basketball nonsense. :mad:

[gophoenix]

That is just it. It isn't the D-II moveups that hurt I-AAs image, it is the fact that you have 2/3 of the schools playing at near full scholarship level while you have 1/3 playing at nearly a no scholarship level. When you see App playing GSU and then see Davidson losing to Georgetown KY in the next frame.... it really makes the division look bad.

I say 55 scholarship minimum, 75 maximum. No attendance requirement, otherwise you end up killing a program like Hofstra, Lehighm Colgate, Jacksonville St, Eastern Illinois, Furman, Wofford, Northern Arizona, Northern Iowa, etc. Also, I could care less about TV deals, if I want to see a game then I go to it.

[BigApp]

only thing I would add Appman, and this falls into #1, full conference participation only. I.E. if you are Big East in basketball, then you must be in all other sports that conference offers as well. No more half-assing, like Notre Dame, Georgetown and others do.

That would pare down many from the ranks

[colgate13]

only thing I would add Appman, and this falls into #1, full conference participation only. I.E. if you are Big East in basketball, then you must be in all other sports that conference offers as well. No more half-assing, like Notre Dame, Georgetown and others do.

That would pare down many from the ranks

What problem would that solve?

[DetroitFlyer]

As I recall, Davidson beat Georgetown at Georgetown last season. I suppose that makes 1-AA look bad as well? If you want to really lay it on the line, it is not a matter of numbers of scholarships, it is a matter of how much money does a school spend on it's football program? If you want to go a bit further, ask yourself the question if "academic" aid at a non-scholarship school is counted as a football expense in the NCAA's reporting requirement, or if the tuition paid by football players counts as "revenue" for the NCAA's reporting requirements? Trying to equalize the reporting requirements and control all of those types of issues is almost impossible.... If 1-AA or PCS is going to exist as a "cost containment" brand of college football, every conference should have equal access to the playoffs regardless of the scholly versus non-scholly tag. San Diego and Lafayette had virtually identical GPI's last season, San Diego went 11-1 and won the PFL. Lafayette went to the playoffs as an "at large" while San Diego sat at home. Nothing more than the good ole boys network taking care of their own. 1-AA was never meant to be equal to 1-A, that is why two divisions exist. 1-AA should be more inclusive of ALL TEAMS, and not worry about some teams making 1-AA look bad in someone's eyes. If you do not like your team being 1-AA, lobby your school to go to 85 scholarships and move up. Seems like a simple solution to me. For crying out load, if enough of you 1-A wannabees band together, you can form the PFL of 1-A, and span the entire country with your new 1-A conference and look forward to those lucrative bowl games. 1-AA is cost containment football, and ALL 1-AA teams should be treated equally. That alone will go a long way to firming up the reputation of 1-AA or PCS as a unique and desirable brand of college football.

[OL FU]

As I recall, Davidson beat Georgetown at Georgetown last season. I suppose that makes 1-AA look bad as well? If you want to really lay it on the line, it is not a matter of numbers of scholarships, it is a matter of how much money does a school spend on it's football program? If you want to go a bit further, ask yourself the question if "academic" aid at a non-scholarship school is counted as a football expense in the NCAA's reporting requirement, or if the tuition paid by football players counts as "revenue" for the NCAA's reporting requirements? Trying to equalize the reporting requirements and control all of those types of issues is almost impossible.... If 1-AA or PCS is going to exist as a "cost containment" brand of college football, every conference should have equal access to the playoffs regardless of the scholly versus non-scholly tag. San Diego and Lafayette had virtually identical GPI's last season, San Diego went 11-1 and won the PFL. Lafayette went to the playoffs as an "at large" while San Diego sat at home. Nothing more than the good ole boys network taking care of their own. 1-AA was never meant to be equal to 1-A, that is why two divisions exist. 1-AA should be more inclusive of ALL TEAMS, and not worry about some teams making 1-AA look bad in someone's eyes. If you do not like your team being 1-AA, lobby your school to go to 85 scholarships and move up. Seems like a simple solution to me. For crying out load, if enough of you 1-A wannabees band together, you can form the PFL of 1-A, and span the entire country with your new 1-A conference and look forward to those lucrative bowl games. 1-AA is cost containment football, and ALL 1-AA teams should be treated equally. That alone will go a long way to firming up the reputation of 1-AA or PCS as a unique and desirable brand of college football.

I believe there are several levels of cost containment football. The difference is the other levels compete at that same level in other sports
and as stated the NCAA rule is forcing schools to participate at a level in football which is difficult due to their non-scholarship status.

I agree with most of your post. Why do non-schollies embarrass anyone? Every level of college sports has every level of play. The PFL, etc or other non-schollies do not make I-AA look bad. And the truth as you pointed out is that some non-sholarship programs are as good or better than other programs.

Now, on the other hand and I know this is one of those beat up topics. The idea that you have to get into the playoffs because you are in the division and basketball does it is tired.

[GannonFan]

Throwing my two cents in - first, to address DetroitFlyer, you have to stop bringing up San Diego as proof of the non-schollies getting screwed - San Diego played two middle of the pack Ivy League schools, 2 NAIA teams, and 2 DIII teams, in addition to playing other IAA non-scholly teams. When you purposely avoid scheduling good IAA teams, it shouldn't be a shock when you don't get invited to the IAA playoffs. With that schedule, they could've gone undefeated and not made the playoffs - everyone has said, play a good schedule, win, and you'll get in - nothing's more fair than that. Oh, and Lafayette was 7 spots better in the GPI than San Diego so they weren't really equivalent and besides, San Diego had a GPI worse than 17 other IAA teams that also didn't make the playoffs so the line was a lot longer than you'd think.

As for Appman's IAA ideas, my take:

Number 1 - I agree with not forcing teams to be IAA just because of an NCAA rule regarding DI basketball. But I wouldn't ask those teams to leave IAA - having non-schollies is fine. If they want to break out of their cocoon and play with the rest of IAA (like Albany and Stony Brook are doing now) that's great and actually makes IAA better. Teams that do that should have a shot at the playoffs if they have merit. As long as we still have the playoffs be merit based rather than little league type (where everyone gets a chance regardless of merit) I'm fine with it - plenty of room in the classification for everyone, and the playoffs are still based on merit.

Number 2 - Obviously the attendance is a no go. Besides the vast majority of IAA not being able to meet the 12k number, quite a few of the mid-major conferences in IA you hope to lure don't average that either. Drop the attendance requirement. As for scholarships, I think you could add a few more and not have too many problems - maybe 68 or 70 would be fine. No need for a bottom number - like I said, having non-schollies is in itself not a problem.

Number 3 - You would have to pay ESPN to broadcast that many games - they aren't going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. If there isn't an audience that large for that kind of coverage, you don't just force it - leave TV the way it is.

Number 4 - I agree, the NCAA is a bit draconian and miserly when it comes to playoffs - they take a fair bit off the top of profits for not really much of a return to the teams. No need for them to do that.

[OL FU]

Number 1 - I agree with not forcing teams to be IAA just because of an NCAA rule regarding DI basketball. But I wouldn't ask those teams to leave IAA - having non-schollies is fine. If they want to break out of their cocoon and play with the rest of IAA (like Albany and Stony Brook are doing now) that's great and actually makes IAA better. Teams that do that should have a shot at the playoffs if they have merit. As long as we still have the playoffs be merit based rather than little league type (where everyone gets a chance regardless of merit) I'm fine with it - plenty of room in the classification for everyone, and the playoffs are still based on merit.

Agree in all respects:nod: :nod: :nod:

[Husky Alum]

How can a division which allows 0 to 63 scholarships and have teams getting beaten by, or even playing Div. III teams, be taken seriously?

Let's see a VERY Good Holy Cross basketball team lost to D-III Williams a couple of years ago.

Princeton lost to Carnegie Mellon in Basketball this year.

How can we take D-I basketball seriously when this happens?

:smiley_wi

[BigApp]

What problem would that solve?

well, these teams would be forced to either pee or get off the pot. AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY, Georgetown (Davidson, Dayton as well) would be forced to pony up the cash to field a I-A football team to compete in the big East, or severely pare down their basketball program to a lower profile conference.

GEE, wonder which one they would choose?

[colgate13]

GEE, wonder which one they would choose?

They would choose to eliminate their programs. THAT'S really good. :rolleyes:

[foghorn]

Let's see a VERY Good Holy Cross basketball team lost to D-III Williams a couple of years ago.

Princeton lost to Carnegie Mellon in Basketball this year.

How can we take D-I basketball seriously when this happens?

:smiley_wi
Huh? I couldn't care less about basketball, and I certainly don't take it seriously. You can't compare a sport that has only 5 starters with a sport that has 22 of them. One outstanding player could make a Div. III basketball team a victor over a Div. I team. Not so in football, where it takes a much larger team effort to be successful. :D

[DFW HOYA]

well, these teams would be forced to either pee or get off the pot. AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY, Georgetown (Davidson, Dayton as well) would be forced to pony up the cash to field a I-A football team to compete in the big East, or severely pare down their basketball program to a lower profile conference.

And that would solve what? Be serious.

[BigApp]

They would choose to eliminate their programs. THAT'S really good. :rolleyes:

No, they wouldn't. No way would Georgetown (again, G'town fans this is an EXAMPLE) leave the Big East and give up all that cash! Get serious! They would fund their football scholarships to compete in Big East football. And rake in the BCS $$$. xcoffeex

With my proposal, if they gave up football, they would have to leave the Big East for a conference that does not have football-playing members. That, my friend, wouldn't happen.

:twocents: :twocents: :twocents:

[OL FU]

No, they wouldn't. No way would Georgetown (again, G'town fans this is an EXAMPLE) leave the Big East and give up all that cash! Get serious! They would fund their football scholarships to compete in Big East football. And rake in the BCS $$$. xcoffeex

With my proposal, if they gave up football, they would have to leave the Big East for a conference that does not have football-playing members. That, my friend, wouldn't happen.

:twocents: :twocents: :twocents:

I guess the other way to look at it is no way the proposal is going to happen anyway. And the Big East isn't kicking Georgetown out of basketball:D

[colgate13]

No, they wouldn't. No way would Georgetown (again, G'town fans this is an EXAMPLE) leave the Big East and give up all that cash! Get serious! They would fund their football scholarships to compete in Big East football. And rake in the BCS $$$. xcoffeex

With my proposal, if they gave up football, they would have to leave the Big East for a conference that does not have football-playing members. That, my friend, wouldn't happen.

:twocents: :twocents: :twocents:
Now you're really dreaming. The Big East has multiple members that DO NOT play football. Multiple conferences have teams that do not have football playing schools. Heck, forget football! Conferences have plenty of members that play some sports and not others. The PL offers baseball, but Colgate doesn't play in it.

You can't compell a school to sponsor a sport, nor would you really be able to set up conferences based on all schools agree to sponsor the same X number of sports.

Look at your own school for crying out loud. App. state plays field hockey in what conference exactly? NorPac? Let's kick ASU out of the SoCon then.

[WUTNDITWAA]

App. state plays field hockey in what conference exactly? NorPac? Let's kick ASU out of the SoCon then.


Now we're talking.:D

[BigApp]

Look at your own school for crying out loud. App. state plays field hockey in what conference exactly? NorPac? Let's kick ASU out of the SoCon then.

The Southern does not sponsor Field Hockey.:read:

[SoCon48]

The Southern does not sponsor Field Hockey.:read:

But Colgate does sponsor toothpaste.:D

[youwouldno]

The problem with I-AA is the lack of unity among I-AA institutions, at least in part, along with structural problems underlying college football. Some App fans are very guilty in the former regard. Whining constantly about being in lowly I-AA, etc. The original post correctly notes that the power distribution has already been established... the question is merely how the system's details work.

I'll go back to that in a second, but first I think it's important to note how badly I-AA has done promotion-wise. The fact I-AA is a lower division of play than I-A really shouldn't matter.

Consider the success of minor league baseball, or even college athletics in general. No college football team could beat the worst NFL team. But that's doesn't make Texas an inferior football team, because they should be judged based on their resources and place in the system. Now, that's not a totally equal comparison, but also consider the inequity in collegiate athletics as compared to the pros.

According to most NFL execs, parity apparently is a good business tactic for a sport. Why should college football be any different? As we see, though, "Division I football" encompasses an extremely wide range of conferences and programs. Of course, the big programs run the show and set up everything to their advantage.

Here's where I come back to marketing. Contrary to what some might say, I don't think people really watch college football to see future pros in action. They watch for competitive football and to support their teams. In my opinion, the playoff system is more competitive and more entertaining. Yes, SoCal and Texas and the other top I-As are the best teams that play at the college level. But their system of postseason is an inferior one. And the postseason is what makes sport-- the World Series, the Superbowl, March Madness-- that's what its about. College basketball has totally overtaken the NBA in popularity in large part because of the postseason format (also college basketball has more parity than college football). I-AA has a ton of potential for growth just based on alumni from member institutions.

Ultimately, things like school size and such should not matter at all. The only thing that needs to be regulated, besides academic requirements, is # of scholarships. I say any team that can fund 63 can be I-AA, any team that funds 85 can be I-A. Those numbers could be tweaked but that's another issue.

Short of radical fixes that the major powers will never allow, the PCS or whatever its called should be aggressively promoted by member institutions. I agree moves should be made to solidify the level of competition within I-AA (letting non-schollies drop down to Div III, etc.). Using attendance, however, is a ploy that's never justified for membership requirement at any level. Scholarships are the issue in that regard.

[AppMan]

What problem would that solve?

In the SoCon we have two schools who do not fund football programs and one who offers non-sholarship football. The dollars those guys do not have to spend on football give them an obvious advantage for all other sports. Most of us old time SoCon fans would like to see a mandate requiring each conference member to field fully funded football, basketball, soccer, and baseball programs.

[AppMan]

Here's the general flaw in this proposal--it presumes Division I membership is based on scholarships, which it's not. Division I membership is based on the number of sports a school sponsors. It is entirely possible to field teams without scholarships (or with very few scholarships) and be valid members of Division I..

Although technically true, can you imagine how successful a program would be at the D-I level if it only funded a third of the scholarships in each sport?


Defining scholarships just by numbers is unfair to schools where the cost of education is significantly higher. Which is more of a commitment-60 scholarships at $4,000 each or 15 scholarships at $45,000? Or does the latter school simply give 63 students $4,000 each as a "scholarship" for I-AA purposes but require them to foot the bill for the other $41,000?


This gets to the heart of my arguement of
like minded schools being in a division and conferences together. After Wofford was admitted to the SoCon they floated the idea scholarships should be based on dollars rather than numbers of grants. Thankfully we had some very strong leadership at the time who correctly understood the cost of an education at a paticular school is strictly an institutional decision. What they chose to charge should not have any impact on the rest of the conference members.


It is also unrealistic to assume teams would drop back down to other levels to play football. The lower divisions didn't want Dayton et al. in their midst 15 years ago, and most of these programs have grown in the years since, further distancing themselves from D-III.

Not at all. A huge number of low & mid-level 1-A programs suffer through serious financial problems every year. I think these would schools would jump at a chance to compete at a fairly high level without the heavy financial burden they now face.

[blukeys]

No, they wouldn't. No way would Georgetown (again, G'town fans this is an EXAMPLE) leave the Big East and give up all that cash! Get serious! They would fund their football scholarships to compete in Big East football. And rake in the BCS $$$. xcoffeex

With my proposal, if they gave up football, they would have to leave the Big East for a conference that does not have football-playing members. That, my friend, wouldn't happen.

:twocents: :twocents: :twocents:


The CAA would gladly take in Georgetown in an all sports conference and they could continue to play football at the I-AA level. And for the record the CAA had more Men's basketball teams in the Final Four then the Big East.:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

[AppMan]

It is good to see a lot of thought going into this discussion and the civil approach being taken by all.

I think these posts make it easy to see the line of demarcation here. The number of responses from private school or non-scholarship school posters is very much against the high minimum scholarship number and attendance requirements. While they may not agree on the numbers most fans of public institutions seem to see some merit in them. These disagreements only further advance my notion that "like minded" schools need to be aligned with one another on both fronts.

As far as the TV goes, the NCAA has a plum every network wants - the NCAA Basketball Tournament. The contracts could very easily be written to contain requirements for nationally televised football games for this division. After all, have you seen some of the programming on late Saturday afternoon (pre-primetime) on ESPN2?

One overriding universal truth still remains. Money talks and BS walks. When presidents from middle of the pack 1-A schools see an opportunity to at least break even financially, they WILL begin to take a serious look at change. But, NOT until then.

[SoCon48]

The contracts could very easily be written to contain requirements for nationally televised football games for this division. After all, have you seen some of the programming on late Saturday afternoon (pre-primetime) on ESPN2?

.

Actually, that's what got us booted out of I-A in the first place, no matter how the facts are twisted or sugar coated.

[*****]

A little off-topic: How in the heck did App St and UNI lose money on the playoffs last year???

[blukeys]

A little off-topic: How in the heck did App St and UNI lose money on the playoffs last year???

I tend to agree. I could see maybe UNI if they had a big traveling party but I thought App's home games (and they had three) were well attended, In addition App. State had to have one of the shortest trips to 'Nooga of any finalist.

[colgate13]

In the SoCon we have two schools who do not fund football programs and one who offers non-sholarship football. The dollars those guys do not have to spend on football give them an obvious advantage for all other sports. Most of us old time SoCon fans would like to see a mandate requiring each conference member to field fully funded football, basketball, soccer, and baseball programs.

First off, boot them out if you don't like what they have to offer. That's a conference issue, not a divisional one.

More importantly though, why does not supporting football give them an obvious advantage in other sports? Are they somehow able to spend more scholarships than the rest of the SoCon in basketball, soccer or baseball? The only thing it does is lower their athletic budget bottom line. Great. It also means they don't have as high a profile athletically as say, ASU, Furman or GSU. They also don't get to make any money on home games like I imagine GSU or ASU does. I don't see any real advantage.

[colgate13]

Although technically true, can you imagine how successful a program would be at the D-I level if it only funded a third of the scholarships in each sport?

No need to imagine. It's called the PL before basketball scholarships. It really didn't work OOC, but schools themselves need to see that writing on the wall.


This gets to the heart of my arguement of like minded schools being in a division and conferences together.

Conferences? Sure. Divisons? No thank you. There are arrangements of conferences of like minded schools. The PL and the Ivy are two Division I examples. It looks like the core CAA members are moving in that direction too.

But divisionally? There is more than one way to skin a cat. The SoCon can do things one way, the Patriot another, but when we meet on the field (Lafayette vs. ASU), it's still a good ball game. So what's the problem again?

[AppMan]

A little off-topic: How in the heck did App St and UNI lose money on the playoffs last year???

Expenses out-stripped revenues. Game guarantees paid to the NCAA, expenses of running the games, paying for the players to stay on Thanksgiving break, and only an average of 10,914 fans for the playoffs. I believe the Chancellor said, including the trip to Chattanooga, we went in the hole about $125,000 during the playoffs.

[*****]

Expenses out-stripped revenues. Game guarantees paid to the NCAA, expenses of running the games, paying for the players to stay on Thanksgiving break, and only an average of 10,914 fans for the playoffs. I believe the Chancellor said, including the trip to Chattanooga, we went in the hole about $125,000 during the playoffs.Really? Must be some big-time "hidden" expenses. 11K attendance usually covers playoff bids plus expenses easily. Overspending is usually the reason why teams lose money in the I-AA playoffs. Oh well, like the rest... that money is recovered in revenue earned from the appearance. App got it big time!

http://anygivensaturday.com/ralphblog/article.php?story=2006012615281374
January 26 2006
...
Unlike a bowl game scenario, Appalachian did not receive money for the championship win, but Appalachian did make some money at the three home playoff games and “merchandising numbers are up a little bit,” Jackson said.
...
“There’s no way to statistically keep track of how many students have applied since the championship for that specific reason, but I can tell you that the number of phone calls and requests we have gotten has definitely had an incredible increase,” Admissions staff member Sue W. Naff said.

Naff said interest has grown and they have even received phone calls from students at rival schools asking about transferring.

The Appalachian State University Bookstore has sold articles of clothing with National Championship logos since the day after the winning game.

“The National Championship clothing alone is 20 percent to date of our yearly sales for Appalachian State University clothing,” Bookstore manager for merchandise supplies Lorraine P. Childers said. ...

===

Clearly App gained from the 2005 playoffs and didn't go "in the hole" looking just one month after...

[ngineer]

I tend to agree. I could see maybe UNI if they had a big traveling party but I thought App's home games (and they had three) were well attended, In addition App. State had to have one of the shortest trips to 'Nooga of any finalist.

First game with Lafayette only had about 6500 in attendance according to one place I saw. The infernal Saturday after Thanksgiving is a bad weekend to expect great turnouts.

[AppMan]

Actually, that's what got us booted out of I-A in the first place, no matter how the facts are twisted or sugar coated.

Kind of, but not exactly. The NCAA controlled all television contracts for college football up through 1984. Ironically, the 1983 game between App State and The Citadel prompted the law suit against the NCAA for individual college's television rights to their own games. Prior to 1984 the NCAA TV contract guaranteed each conference X number of exposures over a two year period. There was usually a national game of the week followed by a regional game. The ASU / Citadel game had been on the schedule all season for the Southeast regional game, but when Sept 24 rolled around Georgia demanded their game against South Carolina be shown. They argued there was far more interest in the Southeast for that game than ASU/Citadel. The NCAA didn't back down and Georgia sued the NCAA over control of the TV rights to their own games and led the charge in forming the College Football Association. The NCAA backed down and the Genie was out of the box.

[GannonFan]

The ASU / Citadel game had been on the schedule all season for the Southeast regional game, but when Sept 24 rolled around Georgia demanded their game against South Carolina be shown. They argued there was far more interest in the Southeast for that game than ASU/Citadel. The NCAA didn't back down and Georgia sued the NCAA over control of the TV rights to their own games and led the charge in forming the College Football Association. The NCAA backed down and the Genie was out of the box.

Damn capitalism!! Hey, while I love IAA football, I'm not advocating the draconian idea of having to show IAA football games when there are games that literally millions more people want to watch. I don't choose the teams I watch or root for based on who gets more national exposure - it does nothing to increase my rooting interest to know that Joe Schmo in Sheboygan, Utah, knows about my Delaware football team. Heck, I kinda like when the games aren't televised and I don't need to sit in the stadium through endless TV timeouts - that's always one knock I have against going to an NFL game with all the TV timeouts they have.


Naff said interest has grown and they have even received phone calls from students at rival schools asking about transferring.

Assuming that these students aren't actual football players, who in their right mind would change their college during their college years based simply on who won the IAA national title last year? Again, I love IAA football, but that just sounds downright nuts to me. Unless you're majoring in college football watching, that's just ludicrous. :nod: