PDA

View Full Version : Div II plus I-AA=one diluted/convoluted mess



SoCon48
May 3rd, 2005, 08:44 PM
Has anyone read anything pertaining to a proposed MERGER of Div I-AA with Div II or parts thereof (especially involving the "close to 36" scholarship Div II schools )?
It's just too insane to be seriously considered or is it simply wishful thinking on DiV II's part? :eek: :eek:

SoCon48
May 3rd, 2005, 09:08 PM
Division II Presidents Council Appoints Task Force to Look at College Football Structure
Monday, May 2, 2005

INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division II Presidents Council has approved the formation of a task force to study a new model for football within the NCAA structure. The Division II Football Task Force will focus on the disparity in the level of competitiveness among Division II football teams, due in part to the differing levels of football financial aid offered. While Division II institutions may offer up to 36 grants-in-aid for football, many institutions offer much lower levels or even no aid for football student-athletes. ...

The task force will be chaired by Jerry McGee, president of Wingate University and a Division I-A football referee. McGee has worked 20 postseason assignments including 17 bowl games. ... The committee will comprise representatives from each Division II football conference and a representative from an independent institution; Management Council members; the chairs of the Division II Football, Membership and Championship committees; and representatives from the Division II Collegiate Commissioners Association and the Division II Athletics Directors Association. ...

http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/press_room/2005/may/20050502_diipcrelease.html

DFW HOYA
May 3rd, 2005, 09:42 PM
There is not going to be a merge of I-AA and II, because there is existing legislation that D-I schools cannot play below the Div. I level. D-II is trying to stem the tide of teams moving up, that's all, but it won't get very far.

The idea that the Northeast 10 will be lumped in with the Ivy, Pioneer, and MAAC is a non-starter.

yomama
May 3rd, 2005, 10:35 PM
The idea that the Northeast 10 will be lumped in with the Ivy, Pioneer, and MAAC is a non-starter.

Got that right.

With regard to the reorganization idea, Grant Teaff worries about football evolving into a dicotomy of I-A and non-scholarship, with nothing in between. I think taking another look at Divisions I-AA and II would strengthen that middle territory. The Grand Valleys and North Dakotas don't belong in D-II football, and making them move up across the board is simply dumb.

I'd like to see a lower division that would include 100 or so schools. Everone else could be at a 63 scholarship limit.

It's such a good idea, the NCAA is incapable of implementing it.

Hammerhead
May 3rd, 2005, 10:40 PM
I wouldn't be too surprised if there is a regorganization a few years down the road. D-II continues to be watered down as more NAIA teams move up and not every good D-II team has the financial backing to make the jump.

bisonguy
May 3rd, 2005, 10:47 PM
Has anyone read anything pertaining to a proposed MERGER of Div I-AA with Div II or parts thereof (especially involving the "close to 36" scholarship Div II schools )?
It's just too insane to be seriously considered or is it simply wishful thinking on DiV II's part? :eek: :eek:

Yes, I've heard plenty. It's VERY wishful thinking on DII's part, and I will now give you the lowdown.

First off, some history. Once upon a time, there were two NCAA DII schools in the state of North Dakota. These schools are known as North Dakota State University and University of North Dakota. NDSU was the football big brother, as they were capable of winning national championships in the NCAA College Division in the 60's against opponents such as the University of Montana and Grambling State. When DI-AA was formed in 1978, NDSU asked it's little brother UND, "Do you wanna move to DI and compete against our peer institutions?". UND whimpered, "Let's stick around and beat up the smaller schools. I'm too scared to compete against them."
After repeated attempts over nearly three decades to persuade UND to move to DI alongside NDSU, NDSU finally gave up and moved on without it's little brother.
Now, this move did not sit well with UND. Roger Thomas, the AD of UND, stated that he thought that DII schools should be able to compete at the DI-AA level for football while funding all the rest of their sports at the DII level. The president of UND also joined in on the bandwagon, with such profound statements to his alumni as follows:( Source: Courtesy of North Dakota Open Record Laws (http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=77050&section=Sports)

One of the things to be considered here is, in fact, the pride and emotion many of you expressed in your notes. I want you to know that I hate the idea that NDSU even appears to be making a move ahead of us in any way whatsoever, perhaps as much as you do - even for a little while. I, too, miss playing NDSU - especially when we win. Pride and emotion are powerful enough sometimes even to overwhelm logic and other considerations. I recognize that we may have to make this move even though, ultimately it may make no otherwise logical or financial sense to do so ... but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Of course, UND has much different athletic department finances than NDSU, with UND currently running nearly $500k of red ink a year on a DII program. UND would like to be able to "keep up" with NDSU, but lacks the funds or possible increase of revenue to do so. What's the easiest solution? Try to pass legislation to allow DII schools to compete at the DI-AA level in football.
Now, the interesting twist: After NDSU, SDSU, and UNC left the North Central Conference (currently the conference home of UND) and took the vast majority of DII national championship trophies won by the NCC with them, the AD of UND left his position to become the commissioner of the NCC. Mr. Thomas was now in a bit of a quandry. He now had control of a conference that had lost the top two schools as far as national success in all sports (NDSU and SDSU) and another strong athletic program (UNC), with no possible replacements that bring any credentials close to those that had left. Actually, there's very few replacements with no credentials to join the conference. Mr. Thomas still knows of the pressure being applied to UND about being left behind by NDSU. His solution to retain the membership in the NCC and not allow any other schools to leave the conference to DI is to try to push for DII schools to be able to compete at the DI-AA level.



So, this is the guy behind this and his reasoning.

Of course, I'm a little biased, but I think it's a completely stupid idea. What about the academic differences between DI and DII? Why hasn't DII even contacted and discussed this with anyone from DI-AA? It seems like a selfish, self-serving proposal to me. Sounds a lot like eating at a restaurant and then running out without paying the bill.

yomama
May 3rd, 2005, 10:57 PM
Of course, I'm a little biased...

Ya think?

Don't be spiteful, Bisonguy. Deep down inside, you want to play the Sioux again. Won't happen unless a change like this is made.

bisonguy
May 3rd, 2005, 10:58 PM
Got that right.

With regard to the reorganization idea, Grant Teaff worries about football evolving into a dicotomy of I-A and non-scholarship, with nothing in between. I think taking another look at Divisions I-AA and II would strengthen that middle territory. The Grand Valleys and North Dakotas don't belong in D-II football, and making them move up across the board is simply dumb.

I'd like to see a lower division that would include 100 or so schools. Everone else could be at a 63 scholarship limit.

It's such a good idea, the NCAA is incapable of implementing it.

How about four divisions? Seeing as how the majority of DII schools fund near the 24 grant level, instead of the max 36, the NCAA could have a DII-AA division at that level. This would also help abolish the NAIA, and would increase membership numbers in the NCAA.This division would only allow DII schools in it.

Now, DII-A would have a grant max of 45. This divison could have either DII schools or DI schools in it. This would allow the bigger DII schools a chance to compete at a higher level, and would allow DI schools that fund at a much lower level a more competitive division.

DI-AA stays the same. DI schools and a max of 63.

DI-A and DIII would stay as they are.

bisonguy
May 3rd, 2005, 11:06 PM
Ya think?

Don't be spiteful, Bisonguy. Deep down inside, you want to play the Sioux again. Won't happen unless a change like this is made.

Honestly, I don't care. The game could happen, but it won't as UND uses the lack of the rivalry to fuel public opinion that they need to move to DI. I enjoyed watching NDSU play their new DI rival, SDSU, this year. Just as much fun, but with 94.37% less pi$$$ and venom involved.

If you would have seen all the condescending and condemning comments from UND officials about NDSU's move to DI in the media, you would probably share my opinion.

yomama
May 3rd, 2005, 11:06 PM
Now, DII-A would have a grant max of 45.


45 doesn't sound too exciting to me. The Patriot League champs typically have under 55 eqivalencies. Colgate even went to the championship game.

Are you saying that a school will pick this middle division instead of adding another 10-15 scholarships??? HMMM

I like your suggestion of a 24 limit for a lower division. I think most of D-II is at 24 or below...80% at 28 or below.

polsongrizz
May 4th, 2005, 02:16 AM
Ya think?

Don't be spiteful, Bisonguy. Deep down inside, you want to play the Sioux again. Won't happen unless a change like this is made.
Except in Hockey wheere they will get there asses kicked

bluehenbillk
May 4th, 2005, 12:41 PM
What I think this calls for is a re-classification of the 1-AA "mid-majors". Let's face it these are D-3 schools hiding behind a 1-AA label that would just get THRASHED by good D-2 clubs. Throw the 1-AAA label at those schools & I'm happy.

yomama
May 4th, 2005, 06:24 PM
But that's not a FOOTBALL classification. That's what the NCAA really needs is a 1-AAA FOOTBALL classification. That way schools that do not offer athletic sholarships can compete with the same type of schools.

Football nut, your terminology is correct. The new classification would have been I-AAA.

However, the idea has consistently failed for the past 14 years. So you can like it all you want, but it's not going to happen.

:deadhorse

yomama
May 4th, 2005, 06:44 PM
Your trolling is tiresome.

The no football classification would've be given another label.

JBB
May 4th, 2005, 07:53 PM
Bisonguy has framed the issue perfectly. DII has caused its own problems. I dont want to see several schools allowed to play out of division. Other schools have made the move and adopted budgets to finance the entire package. Why let several other schools in on the cheap?

It has nothing to do with competition between any two schools yo. Some schools just want to play football like they play hockey. Its starting to rub a little in Division I hockey too. The true DI Universities are starting to resent the DIIs playing on the cheap. After all, it must be a lot easier to support a DI program in any sport when all your other sports are DII or lower.

I would imagine if this thing ever passes those schools with DI hockey and DI-AA football would simply drop the other sports to DIII? Thats about how much sense this idea makes.

AppMan
May 5th, 2005, 07:53 AM
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. If you toss out the non-scholies the merger makes perfect logical sense to me. Other than a couple of coaches and a few scholarships there is NO difference between 1-aa & D-II. Don't come around with that budget and emphasis stuff because there are plenty of D-II schools who spend a heck of a lot more money, have far better facilities and attendance numbers than all but the top 20% of the 1-aa's. It is well known a large majority of 1-aa's would like to see the numbers of scholarships reduced down to near 55 anyway. So where is the difference? Besides, what happened to all that talk last week of 1-aa being the most true form of college football since it isn't spoiled with big corporate money and football factories? Seems to me D-II fits right in there with that arguement.

NoCoDanny
May 5th, 2005, 10:13 AM
It has nothing to do with competition between any two schools yo.

Wow, did rap vernacular finally reach the Dakotas?

Iím just kidding by the way, it gave me a chuckle.

SoCon48
May 5th, 2005, 10:47 AM
AppMan, how have D-II's peformed on the field vs I-AA's other than vs the bottom feeders of I-AA?
West Chester for example, performs well vs Delaware about every 10 years of facing each other.
About 5 D-II teams total, rank with the I-AA top 25.

bisonguy
May 5th, 2005, 11:10 AM
AppMan, how have D-II's peformed on the field vs I-AA's other than vs the bottom feeders of I-AA?
West Chester for example, performs well vs Delaware about every 10 years of facing each other.
About 5 D-II teams total, rank with the I-AA top 25.

Exactly. If those schools want to compete at the next level for football, they can move their athletic programs to DI.

AppMan
May 5th, 2005, 01:31 PM
AppMan, how have D-II's peformed on the field vs I-AA's other than vs the bottom feeders of I-AA?
West Chester for example, performs well vs Delaware about every 10 years of facing each other.
About 5 D-II teams total, rank with the I-AA top 25.

The scholarship difference is the big thing and you made my position with your reference to the "bottom feeders of 1-aa." Read my post again. It has more to do with facilities and spending than scholarhsips and since a large portion of 1-aa's want to see scholarships reduced to around 50 there is precious little difference between the two divisions.

bisonguy
May 5th, 2005, 04:41 PM
The scholarship difference is the big thing and you made my position with your reference to the "bottom feeders of 1-aa." Read my post again. It has more to do with facilities and spending than scholarhsips and since a large portion of 1-aa's want to see scholarships reduced to around 50 there is precious little difference between the two divisions.

There's plenty of schools in DII that want to reduce grant levels as well.

yomama
May 5th, 2005, 05:15 PM
... a large portion of 1-aa's want to see scholarships reduced to around 50 there is precious little difference between the two divisions.


There's plenty of schools in DII that want to reduce grant levels as well.

You're both right. Let the D-IIs that want and can afford more offer more. Let those wanting less reduce the limit. Everyone will be happy...except a few who don't like UND.

bisonguy
May 5th, 2005, 05:26 PM
...... Let the D-IIs that want and can afford more offer more. .......

They already can. It's called moving to Division I, more specifically, I-AA.

Rabbitlivinginverm
May 5th, 2005, 06:14 PM
They already can. It's called moving to Division I, more specifically, I-AA.


Ditto.

yomama
May 5th, 2005, 07:14 PM
except a few who don't like UND.

Ditto for other fans of Dakotas schools who want to see millions of public dollars wasted to one-up thier rivals.

bisonguy
May 5th, 2005, 07:43 PM
Ditto for other fans of Dakotas schools who want to see millions of public dollars wasted to one-up thier rivals.

Exactly. They can be fiscally responsible and stay in DII.

Why waste millions of dollars to fund a I-AA program when a DII program could be had for much less?



I also can think of two words that will be a MAJOR stumbling block for this whole "alliances" from the DII schools trying to compete in DI-AA:

Title IX.

They might as well just move their whole program up to DI, instead of wasting millions more on the Title IX lawsuits that will follow.

yomama
May 5th, 2005, 07:58 PM
That's exactly what some are saying about NDSU and SDSU. With the money losing example set by those schools, some will certainly see a more fiscally responsible path to improving athletics. Money for increasing football scholarships may be found, but adding sports and talk of an all-sports conference with indies from coast-to-coast? Not smart at all.

bisonguy
May 5th, 2005, 08:09 PM
That's exactly what some are saying about NDSU and SDSU. With the money losing example set by those schools, some will certainly see a more fiscally responsible path to improving athletics. Money for increasing football scholarships may be found, but adding sports and talk of an all-sports conference with indies from coast-to-coast? Not smart at all.

Quite different from athletic departments already running nearly $500k in red ink and using tuition waivers at the DII level trying to increase their spending.

If fiscal responsibility is your concern, why not petition to eliminate all athletically related financial aid for all sports?

JBB
May 5th, 2005, 09:07 PM
Wow, did rap vernacular finally reach the Dakotas?

Iím just kidding by the way, it gave me a chuckle.

it was a pun, meant to express the rap vernacular and also directing the comment in a gentle way to yomamma.

JBB
May 5th, 2005, 09:10 PM
You're both right. Let the D-IIs that want and can afford more offer more. Let those wanting less reduce the limit. Everyone will be happy...except a few who don't like UND.

do you know judo? It has nothing to do with und.

bisonguy
May 8th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Here's a story on this proposal and some of the "reasoning" behind it-

Task force looking for more even playing field (http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=91183&section=Sports)

You have to register to read the article.(just make up stuff if you don't want to give out your info ;) )

bisonguy
May 8th, 2005, 01:37 AM
bugmenot.com :)

I usually just register with the email address from some spam I received.

JBB
May 8th, 2005, 08:40 PM
DI-AA and DI-A football have a lot of interaction because they are in the same overall division. Rules were recently changed to increase the opportunities for games. Contrast this with DII.

DII has rules to inhibit competition with any Division I sports programs. It makes it difficult for any DI-AA football team to have a DII game no matter how mutually benefical it might be. Now, because some schools dont fund the entire 33 scholies (used to be 45 remember, before DII began reducing) some DII schools want to benefit from a Division I association without supporting the Division as a whole?

Sounds selfish to me.

arkstfan
May 9th, 2005, 10:12 AM
I just wonder what the long term impact of the greater interlock between I-A and I-AA will be. With the schools needing to average 56.7 equivalencies awarded over 2 years to be "countable" for I-A opponents that would seem to encourage schools that are near that level to get on up there which would make the "divide" even greater within the subgroup.

AmsterBison
May 9th, 2005, 12:10 PM
I'm pretty sure that fans of DI-AA schools aren't interested in North Dakota State v U of North Dakota bickering. As much as I don't want to be in the same division or conference as the "Fighting Sioux", it's not fair to oppose a proposal just because of that.

I do have some problems with the proposal.

First, if you let DII members play DI-AA football and they are allowed to vote on scholarship limits, scholarship limits will drop just like they did in DII. At some level, this is what NDSU fans are worried about. DII members playing up should not be given any power to vote on DI governance or playoff selection. Give them "guest" privileges, not administrative.

Second, there is no way any DII school likely to move up can meet the Title IX requirements (they'd have to add 60+ total scholarships). Just to make sure that the playing field is level and that DII schools don't try to cut corners, DII schools should be required to show Title IX compliance before they are eligible for the playoffs at the end of their five-year probationary period and they should be required to demonstrate continued compliance each year.

Third, it'd be easy for DII conferences to move up as a whole, play games only against teams that offer 30 scholarships, and thus pad their records. I don't have a problem with that as long as teams doing this aren't allowed into the playoffs. To be playoff eligible, a DII school playing up should have to fund 90% of the maximum allowable schollies and they should play all but two or three of their games against other DI-AA playoff eligible schools.

Fourth, DII doesn't have the same eligibility standards. DII teams playing up should not be allowed to give a scholarship to a student for, say, track and then have them play football. Athletes given DII scholarships should not be allowed to play DI football.

89rabbit
May 9th, 2005, 04:13 PM
If you like what the task force is talking about, I think you need to be able to answer these questions.

1. What is broke with the current system for a majority of NCAA schools?

2. How does what the task force is proposing, fix what is broken for a majority of NCAA schools?

3. If it is ok to have an NCAA with a la carte athletics, are you ok with EVERY school in the nation (and this includes NAIA) playing D-I sports in Football, and Basketball and D-III in everything else? If so please explain how that is a benefit for a majority of the current D-I members of the NCAA.

4. If D-I football has a problem that needs to be fixed, why are all the members of the task force from D-II schools?