I-AA football looking for an identity

[exbearkat]

I-AA football looking for an identity
By Jason Barfield/Sports Editor

MONTGOMERY - Southland Conference commissioner Tom Burnett has heard it too many times - the Southland Conference is one of the top Division II conferences in the nation.

It sounds like a great compliment. The only problem is, the Southland is actually a Division I league and competes as a I-AA football conference.

"There just seems to be more negative than positive on I-AA," Burnett said Wednesday at the annual Southland Conference media day at Del Lago Convention Center in Montgomery. "I hear coaches refer to I-As as just Division I, well we are Division I as well. I think people are getting too caught up on the two A's. That carries over into baseball and the other sports and people think they are not Division I teams and that is just not the case. On the recruiting trail, I am hearing from our coaches that I-A coaches are referring to our schools as Division II and they are using that to recruit against us."

(CONT.)
http://itemonline.com/articles/2005/07/28/sports/todays_sports/sports01.txt

[colgate13]

That seems to be the media day theme this year. I was just reading about how it was discussed at both the Big Sky (http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2005/07/20/sports/sports02.txt) day and the Gateway (http://www.pjstar.com/stories/072705/COL_B73M6BBR.077.shtml) day. Some are pushing for a I-A PCS change from I-AA as early as next year!

[Pete's Weekly]

Seems more like a disgruntled and underqualified conference president to me. '...My schools cannot afford to move up to IA ... so the NCAA should alter the course of all DI football just so it can be free for me & mone ...'. Nice to hear that a president of a major conference has just told his coaches and administrators that their institutions are inferior. Does he not realize that the NCAA allows 12-games for IA schools now & that they are all going for games against I-AA programs ... and he is the president of a I-AA conference? Does he not realize that a $250k to $400k I-AA team stands a much better chance of getting a game against a major IA, than does a $500k to $700k IA mid-major ... and he is the president of a I-AA conference? Does he not know that a $200k payout does nothing whan you are a IA club, but a $200k payout at the I-AA level can be a "life saver"? Burnett is given a gift & he does not even appreciate it.

Defeat this grass roots campaign while you can!! This will end up being more than a name change ... and we all know it. After all, was the creation of I-AA only a "name change"? What is he going to say when I-AA teams become IA & we lose our partial scholarships. For every one problem-recruit you hope to steal from a major ... you will lose 100 quality partial qualifiers. I would be interested in knowing if Mr. Burnett ever played any collegiate sports. As if the Big Sky even has a microscopic chance of successfully competing against the PAC-10, Mountain, & WAC for 'serious' recruits. (as if the Mountain & WAC stand a chance against the PAC-10 for that matter). Whom is he going to cry to next year when people say that "the BCS is superior to the PCS"? Is his mommy still around?

It is a never ending battle that will be resolved when the NCAA is willing to allocate more budget dollars into marketing the divison ... aka: education. The elimination of inter-divisonal games is an even better idea that is long overdue.

[colgate13]

The elimination of inter-divisonal games is an even better idea that is long overdue.

Say wha? Why? :confused:

[Retro]

The best remedy to inform and educate people who think I-AA is Div II is for several I-AA teams to beat some promonite I-A teams this fall and then during the postgame interview, the I-AA player or coach emphasize what we are!

[bisonguy]

What is he going to say when I-AA teams become IA & we lose our partial scholarships. For every one problem-recruit you hope to steal from a major ... you will lose 100 quality partial qualifiers.

Huh????? Where in the NCAA DI manual (http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2004-05/2004-05_d1_manual.pdf) (that includes both I-A and I-AA) does it even mention the term partial qualifier? There's only qualifiers and non-qualifiers in DI. For that matter, what are the differing academic requirements for DI-A and DI-AA student-athletes?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It is strange that it's been whined about in 3 straight media days. It seems to be much more of an issue where the schools are in the shadow of BCS (or close to it) conferences. Out East this isn't much of an issue - you almost never hear of Rutgers, Penn St. or BC out-recruiting Delaware, Lehigh, or Colgate for some plum recruit.

The name change isn't a big deal to me (or us "biased east coasters"). But I do agree that more should be spent on marketing I-AA. If a name change can help with that, great - just like a helmet or logo change can spur new interest in a football program. But to think that the big, mean ol' BCS or WAC schools won't continue to lie about Montana, Portland St. or Sam Houston St. just because of a name change, that's just foolish. I mean, Colorado hired hookers to party with recruits - I'm now going to believe that they're not going to lie to recruits just because a name has changed?

[bisonguy]

I-AA can split their equivalencies.

Ralph, I know that. I was referring to the term "partial qualifier", which is no longer used in DI. I believe DII still has partial qualifiers, but DI only has qualifiers and non-qualifiers when it comes to academics.

After reading it over again, Pete seems to have just used the term incorrectly- I first thought it was being used to differentiate between I-A and I-AA academic standards. :o

[Pete's Weekly]

Yes, bisonguy the use of the term "partial qualifier" is sort of misleading, and I apologize, as that term is usually reserved for incoming players out of HS & the amount of their participation. BTW: I do believe they can consider a 4th-year player as a partial. I was refering more to the the fact that I-AA scholarships can be used over any number of players, as long as the total equivelancy does not exceed 65 full scholarships. Many young programs would not be able to become competative in I-AA without partial scholarships. Although a IA institution can offer a player a partial ... they would be foolish to do so, as the NCAA counts that scholarship as full ... thus 1 of the 85 allotted.

What I am driving at with the elimination of inter-divisional games Colgate13, is the fact that they help blur the distinction between IA & I-AA ... which I am not in favor of. Also, they create inequities between the I-AA teams, as the payout is so much higher that those teams that choose not to play a IA team, or those that cannot get a game with a major IA team, (a serious money game) are put at a serious disadvantage financially, as compared to other I-AA schools. For example Montana may wish to play rivals Boise or Idaho ... but will not if they get $350k offer from Washington. Likewise, Youngstown may wish to play backyard rivals Kent or Akron, but will not if Pitt offers $300k this year & OSU offers $400k next. Also, let's not forget how much money a I-AA clubs saves by only having to pay out $40-$50k to bring in a DII ... this is equally unfair.

There are other alternatives ... maybe set a maximum per-game payout. Or, any payout over a certain amount can go to the conference, as opposed to the school. Similar to the NCCA Men's basketball tourney. As to the DII games ... maybe set a rule that no I-AA team can play a lower division opponent once that I-AA team has participated in a D1 game during that same season. Or maybe a date restriction. In any case, the key point here is to give all teams a fair chance to compete on the same level as the next ... and most importantly, to strengthen I-AA ball.

[NoCoDanny]

I mean, Colorado hired hookers to party with recruits - I'm now going to believe that they're not going to lie to recruits just because a name has changed?

That was alleged by a group that had an axe to grind against the program and no evidence was ever uncovered.

[colgate13]

Yes, bisonguy the use of the term "partial qualifier" is sort of misleading, and I apologize, as that term is usually reserved for incoming players out of HS & the amount of their participation. BTW: I do believe they can consider a 4th-year player as a partial. I was refering more to the the fact that I-AA scholarships can be used over any number of players, as long as the total equivelancy does not exceed 65 full scholarships. Many young programs would not be able to become competative in I-AA without partial scholarships. Although a IA institution can offer a player a partial ... they would be foolish to do so, as the NCAA counts that scholarship as full ... thus 1 of the 85 allotted.

What I am driving at with the elimination of inter-divisional games Colgate13, is the fact that they help blur the distinction between IA & I-AA ... which I am not in favor of. Also, they create inequities between the I-AA teams, as the payout is so much higher that those teams that choose not to play a IA team, or those that cannot get a game with a major IA team, (a serious money game) are put at a serious disadvantage financially, as compared to other I-AA schools. For example Montana may wish to play rivals Boise or Idaho ... but will not if they get $350k offer from Washington. Likewise, Youngstown may wish to play backyard rivals Kent or Akron, but will not if Pitt offers $300k this year & OSU offers $400k next. Also, let's not forget how much money a I-AA clubs saves by only having to pay out $40-$50k to bring in a DII ... this is equally unfair.

There are other alternatives ... maybe set a maximum per-game payout. Or, any payout over a certain amount can go to the conference, as opposed to the school. Similar to the NCCA Men's basketball tourney. As to the DII games ... maybe set a rule that no I-AA team can play a lower division opponent once that I-AA team has participated in a D1 game during that same season. Or maybe a date restriction. In any case, the key point here is to give all teams a fair chance to compete on the same level as the next ... and most importantly, to strengthen I-AA ball.

It's actually 63 total equivalencies...

but on to your main point. I think it is ridiculous to say that I-AA teams that can make money and/or even beat a I-A team shouldn't. Why should I-AA exist in a structure that limits how much money they could make from a game, or for that matter limits their ability to schedule games with other schools in Division I? Where's the good in that?

[SoCon48]

What I-AA needs more than anything else is for the "A's" to be removed from I-A, I-AA, as well as I-AAA (non scholarship). Let the chips fall where they may. Enough of this stigmatizing. A small school will always get its arse kicked when playing a big-time program with a few upsets and near upsets along the way whether the A, AA's, or AAA's are there or not.

[JohnStOnge]

I think there are too many formal and informal restrictions on interdivisional games rather than two few. I think such games are extremely interesting. If a I-AA chooses not to schedule them and finds itself at a financial disadvantage as a result...well...that's the choice it made. I see no reason to restrict some I-AA teams from choosing to play I-As or IIs because others choose not to.

And I think we could use more blurring of the distinctions between the Divisions. In reality, the distributions overlap significantly. I-A doesn't necessarily mean "better team" than I-AA and I-AA doesn't necessarily mean "better team" than II. I think games like the 17-14 nailbiter in 1994 between eventual II champ North Alabama and eventual I-AA champ Youngstown State are great. Same with games like the 1999 48-41 barnerburner between Georgia Southern and Bowl Bound Oregon State. College football would lose something if rules were in place to keep contests like that from ever happening.

I also liked it when Division II North Alabama topped Division I-A Louisiana-Lafayette in 1997...but that's kind of a local Louisiana thing.

Anyway, right now the game I'm looking forward to as a great open to the college football season is Northwestern State at Louisiana Monroe...to be televised on a Thursday night. I'd HATE it if there were some kind of rule in place to keep something like that from happening. The prospect of seeing an in-state I-A beat an in-state wannabe I-A really stimulates my interest and adds something to it.

What I'd like to see is more of a realization that each team has to be taken on its own merit. I'd like to see the NCAA I-AA playoff committee quit looking at a DII opponent as automatically weaker than a I-AA opponent when you've got teams like Valdosta State in II and Prairie View in I-AA. And I'd like to see I-A systems take into account the fact that a team like Georgia Southern is normally a tougher opponent than a team like Louisiana Lafayette.