1,000 posts, Dreams, Scholarships and PCG

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I thought I'd celebrate my 1,000th post - the big milestone - by sharing some of my dreams for our beloved I-AA, PCG, whatever you'd like to call it. This coming week, a huge milestone is happening with the name change, and although you can debate how much of a change it will be from the I-AA days, you can't deny that *something*'s gonna change.

How can the PCG/I-AA change benefit our division to the fullest? There are a few easy things that can be done, and some that are not so easy.

1) If we're all division I, eliminate the 63-scholly limit. You heard me correctly. With us all being "division I", it's the only remaining barrier to separating BCG and PCG membership. You want schools and entire divisions to switch from the BS... I mean BCS to PCS? If you eliminate the scholly limit, then that's what you'll see. The fewer barriers to entry for the PCS, the better.

With eliminating the 63-scholly limit, the Penn State's and USC's of the world would have little problem scheduling other D-I schools, PCS or BCS. The stigma of scheduling "little colleges" would still exist, but all of a sudden a whole new world is opened up - especially for the App State's, Delaware's and Montana's of the world. It would also help the Lehigh's, too.

2) With a huge influx of new schools, it's time to bite the bullet and cut the season down to 10 games and have a 32-team playoff, with 16 autobids. I don't like 5 playoff rounds, but it has to be done with a large influx of schools -- and I *do* like a dynamic playoff with Sun Belt and/or MAC schools in there too.

3) Do whatever it takes, but get the Ivy and SWAC aboard with the new 32-team playoff.

4) Get Army and Navy in the Patriot League. It's where they belong.

5) The championship game should have the name of a bowl, along with the fanfare and sponsorships of any other money bowl. Last year's game was superb in representing I-AA to the world, and now it's time to take it up yet another step.

6) Discussed elsewhere, but neutral "bowl sites" for semifinal games would be awesome.

7) No championship games or overloaded conferences. Make the new "Yankee Conference" with Maine, UNH, UMass, Rhody, Stony Brook, Albany and anyone else who wants in. Cut the SWAC to 8 teams, the MEAC to 7 or 8 teams, and make a new HCBU conference - maybe call it the SIAC - Southern Intercollegiate Athletic conference? - and combine FAMU, B-CC, Jackson State, UNC-C, NC A&T. Of course, all should have autobids from the get-go.

8) Give the GWFC an autobid. Now.

Most are dreams, I know, but I'm a believer. I think it could all be done.

[89Hen]

Congrats on 1000 LFN!:hurray: But I see that you and I would have a lot of disagreements....


1) If we're all division I, eliminate the 63-scholly limit.

2) With a huge influx of new schools, it's time to bite the bullet and cut the season down to 10 games and have a 32-team playoff, with 16 autobids.

4) Get Army and Navy in the Patriot League. It's where they belong.

6) Discussed elsewhere, but neutral "bowl sites" for semifinal games would be awesome.

8) Give the GWFC an autobid. Now.

I disagree with all of the above.

1. eliminating the 63 limit would kill the bottom half of most of our current conferences. Teams like Delaware, Montana, GSU... would get stronger while teams that are already stretched to offer full schollies would flounder against the new, bigger teams.

2. I like the playoffs at 16. Sure every year there is one team that gets "screwed" but it doesn't matter what the number is, the first team to be left out will feel that way. Even with 32 teams making the playoffs, diminishing the regular season to 10 games means that 70+ teams would only get 10 games.

4. Why do Army and Navy belong in the PL? They can still get Notre Dames and USC's and Bowl Games. If I'm either of them, I'm staying put.

6. We often have a problem with attendance at the NC game as it is. I'd be more in favor of having the NC at one of the participants than I would moving two more games to neutral sites. As a fan, can you afford (money, time, wife...) to go to away games two weeks in a row?

8. I'd agree that all the teams should be eligible, but they are a five team conference in 2006 with UNC going to the Big Sky. NO WAY would I give a five team conference an auto even if it were allowed. Who do you take it away from anyway? NCAA rules say you can only have half the field as autos. :twocents:

[*****]

Congrats on 1K LFN, you are a great member of AGS!

[OL FU]

Thanks LFN. I look forward to your posts and viewpoint. Great 1000.

[carney2]

Congrats on having enough worthwhile things to say to get to 1,000. A real milestone.

I have an intense dislike for your kind for about 3 hours on the Saturday before Thanksgiving each year, but beyond that, you are all pretty decent sorts. You, in particular have been a very welcome and knowledgeable source as I attempt to weave my way through all of this I-AA/D-I Playoff stuff. Thanks, and keep up the good work.

Go Lehigh! 10 - 1 every year.

[colgate13]

I'm pretty much agreeing with 89Hen's disagreements.

In particular, I cannot believe a PL supporter would like to see the division allow up to 85 scholarships. We're not even at the 63 limit in terms of equivalencies. You want to grow the divide more? Not me.

[bluehenbillk]

I agree with 89Hen's sentiments as well. Hell, the NCAA is voting on going to a 12-game season, why go back to a 10-game season? The more football the better!!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Thanks for the love! :nod:

Now, on to the disagreements. xlolx


Congrats on 1000 LFN!:hurray: But I see that you and I would have a lot of disagreements....

1. eliminating the 63 limit would kill the bottom half of most of our current conferences. Teams like Delaware, Montana, GSU... would get stronger while teams that are already stretched to offer full schollies would flounder against the new, bigger teams.

First: there's nothing saying that you HAVE to go against the 63 limit or 85 limit. How many would really actively pursue the limit?

Second: what would the practical difference between 63 and 85 really be? Would it mean better teams and a huge divide? What's the difference now between Central Michigan and App. State? App State has 63 schollies and is a better team.

You can't say that 63 vs. 85 would have a huge impact on I-AA/PCG on one hand and *then* say that low-level Sun Belt/MAC teams are not as good as the best teams in I-AA/PCG on the other.

Third: and the linchpin to my argument - how else do you have Sun Belt/MAC teams back into the PCG/I-AA fold? I don't think a 4-year probation period to bring the scholly level down will hack it. Why not just make it all equal? Furthermore, as a side benefit, there's no reason to call Stanford scheduling UC-Davis as a "step down" since it will all be the same scholarship level.


2. I like the playoffs at 16. Sure every year there is one team that gets "screwed" but it doesn't matter what the number is, the first team to be left out will feel that way. Even with 32 teams making the playoffs, diminishing the regular season to 10 games means that 70+ teams would only get 10 games.

A fair point, but who do you strip autobids from to make the playoffs? The GWFC and Big South won't stay ineligible forever. A new Yankee conference or a new HBCU conference would also wreck the math - not to mention the Sun Belt or MAC joining PCG. The playoff question will pop eventually.

Having said that, maybe 11 games with no bye weeks is the answer.


4. Why do Army and Navy belong in the PL? They can still get Notre Dames and USC's and Bowl Games. If I'm either of them, I'm staying put.

They belong since they don't offer athletic scholarships and they would be competitive for the PL title every year. With everyone being D-I they could continue to schedule Notre Dame, Air Force and USC every year if they want to. Their insititutions are a perfect fit for the PL and the PCG. The only thing that keeps them in the hunt for bowls is sheer arrogance -- that PL football is somehow "beneath them", "minor league" and contrary to the goals of their program. That was true once - not anymore.


6. We often have a problem with attendance at the NC game as it is. I'd be more in favor of having the NC at one of the participants than I would moving two more games to neutral sites. As a fan, can you afford (money, time, wife...) to go to away games two weeks in a row?

Convincing my wife to go to 2 away games in a row? :eek:

I happen to like this since it (for lack of a better word) outsources some of the issues with hosting a game to a third-party that can get everything together weeks in advance, like hotel rooms, practice facilities, turf, etc. - even special events. Furthermore, it's prevents the sort of money losses in the playoffs that everyone complains about - not to mention time and logistics in the AD department.


8. I'd agree that all the teams should be eligible, but they are a five team conference in 2006 with UNC going to the Big Sky. NO WAY would I give a five team conference an auto even if it were allowed. Who do you take it away from anyway? NCAA rules say you can only have half the field as autos. :twocents:

I agree here 100%. Minimum 6 teams for an autobid. And, of course, expanding the field to 32 teams leaves plenty of autobids. :nod:

[89Hen]

First: there's nothing saying that you HAVE to go against the 63 limit or 85 limit. How many would really actively pursue the limit?

That's the problem. I'm sure UD, Montana, GSU, ASU, UNI, WKU... would but a lot would not, which would absolutely widen the gap in the PCG IMO. I'm not saying all of sudden that these teams would be competitive with BCS teams, but to say they wouldn't be better with more schollies is not accurate.


and the linchpin to my argument - how else do you have Sun Belt/MAC teams back into the PCG/I-AA fold?

Not sure I want them back. :confused:


The GWFC and Big South won't stay ineligible forever.

Sure they will. I'd be willing to wager that the GWFC will be gone in a couple of years with the teams going to other conferences. The Big South could be in the same boat if Coastal gets impatient. I agree that there is the possibility that we could see some other conference join in on the fun, but then we can address the field size, not now.


They belong since they don't offer athletic scholarships and they would be competitive for the PL title every year. With everyone being D-I they could continue to schedule Notre Dame, Air Force and USC every year if they want to.

Not really. If they join the PL and have 8 conference games, and Air Force as a definite OOC every year, that only leaves two OOC games for them. ND, USC, Stanford, Rice, Duke..... there are too many other teams that I think they'd prefer to play rather than Bucknell, Holy Cross and Fordham (no offense to the Bison, Crusaders or Rams).


outsources some of the issues with hosting a game to a third-party that can get everything together weeks in advance, like hotel rooms, practice facilities, turf, etc. - even special events.

Attendance.

[blukeys]

Congratulations on 1,000 LFN!!!!!

:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:


Now for the bad news. It just goes down hill from here! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :bawling: :bawling: :bawling: :bawling:

Each passing milestone sneaks up on you like birthdays. It is sort of like the excitement you have at 21 and finally being able to drink legally. After that the birthdays don't means as much.

[colgate13]

First: there's nothing saying that you HAVE to go against the 63 limit or 85 limit. How many would really actively pursue the limit?

Second: what would the practical difference between 63 and 85 really be? Would it mean better teams and a huge divide? What's the difference now between Central Michigan and App. State? App State has 63 schollies and is a better team.

You can't say that 63 vs. 85 would have a huge impact on I-AA/PCG on one hand and *then* say that low-level Sun Belt/MAC teams are not as good as the best teams in I-AA/PCG on the other.

Third: and the linchpin to my argument - how else do you have Sun Belt/MAC teams back into the PCG/I-AA fold? I don't think a 4-year probation period to bring the scholly level down will hack it. Why not just make it all equal? Furthermore, as a side benefit, there's no reason to call Stanford scheduling UC-Davis as a "step down" since it will all be the same scholarship level.

LFN - I think you're missing a big point here. Lower scholarships are one of, IMO, two very important differences between PCG/BCG groups. If you take away the lower scholarship amount, what exactly is the point to the PCG/I-AA again? A playoff?

The practical difference is greater divide will exist than already does between a PL and an A-10 school. We're like at 55 and their at 63. We have trouble beating them. Ramp that up to 85. The difference would be huge.

If a school wants 85 scholarships, they should not be I-AA/PCG.

[Ivytalk]

Good job, LFN! First in war, first in peace, and last in the war with Lafayette!

[blukeys]

Good job, LFN! First in war, first in peace, and last in the war with Lafayette!


IT that was REALLY Cold!!!;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[MR. CHICKEN]

I thought I'd celebrate my 1,000th post - the big milestone - by sharing some of my dreams for our beloved I-AA, PCG, whatever you'd like to call it. This coming week, a huge milestone is happening with the name change, and although you can debate how much of a change it will be from the I-AA days, you can't deny that *something*'s gonna change.

How can the PCG/I-AA change benefit our division to the fullest? There are a few easy things that can be done, and some that are not so easy.

1) If we're all division I, eliminate the 63-scholly limit. You heard me correctly. With us all being "division I", it's the only remaining barrier to separating BCG and PCG membership. You want schools and entire divisions to switch from the BS... I mean BCS to PCS? If you eliminate the scholly limit, then that's what you'll see. The fewer barriers to entry for the PCS, the better.

With eliminating the 63-scholly limit, the Penn State's and USC's of the world would have little problem scheduling other D-I schools, PCS or BCS. The stigma of scheduling "little colleges" would still exist, but all of a sudden a whole new world is opened up - especially for the App State's, Delaware's and Montana's of the world. It would also help the Lehigh's, too.

2) With a huge influx of new schools, it's time to bite the bullet and cut the season down to 10 games and have a 32-team playoff, with 16 autobids. I don't like 5 playoff rounds, but it has to be done with a large influx of schools -- and I *do* like a dynamic playoff with Sun Belt and/or MAC schools in there too.

3) Do whatever it takes, but get the Ivy and SWAC aboard with the new 32-team playoff.

4) Get Army and Navy in the Patriot League. It's where they belong.

5) The championship game should have the name of a bowl, along with the fanfare and sponsorships of any other money bowl. Last year's game was superb in representing I-AA to the world, and now it's time to take it up yet another step.

6) Discussed elsewhere, but neutral "bowl sites" for semifinal games would be awesome.

7) No championship games or overloaded conferences. Make the new "Yankee Conference" with Maine, UNH, UMass, Rhody, Stony Brook, Albany and anyone else who wants in. Cut the SWAC to 8 teams, the MEAC to 7 or 8 teams, and make a new HCBU conference - maybe call it the SIAC - Southern Intercollegiate Athletic conference? - and combine FAMU, B-CC, Jackson State, UNC-C, NC A&T. Of course, all should have autobids from the get-go.

8) Give the GWFC an autobid. Now.

Most are dreams, I know, but I'm a believer. I think it could all be done.


HAWKSTER......INTERESTIN' IDEAHS.......CONGRATS..ON DUH FIRST GRAND......KEEP DUH WHEELS TURNIN'....YER LIABLE...TA LAND UH CONFERENCE COMMISH POSITION....IN DUH..."EAST COAST SUBTERRANIAN PSYCHO ATHLETIC CONFERENCE......NORTHERN DIVISION"......xlolx...BRAWK!

[ngineer]

Way to go LFN. One of the deep thinkers on AGS. Enjoy the observations as well as the Blog. Although the eyes are 'brown' they see with clarity...:hurray: