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.