Dissolving the Mid-Major moniker?

[danefan]

Should writers and pollsters dissolve the mid-major classification and Polls and consider all FCS teams for the FCS polls????

Discuss.....

[citdog]

NO

[danefan]

sorry Citdog...I added a 3rd option after you responded.

[Model Citizen]

Let's not blame it "writers and pollsters." It's the schools themselves (SIDs especially) that enable this sort of thing.

[danefan]

Let's not blame it "writers and pollsters." It's the schools themselves (SIDs especially) that enable this sort of thing.


No blame intended on anyone....but without the polls and writer's awards, there would be no classification...even if the SID's wanted it.

[henfan]

As indicated, this decision is entirely up to the PFL, NEC & MAAC. Danefan, it's not a chicken/egg deal here. If the three conferences didn't desire the label, the FCS media (particularly, the Sports Network) wouldn't refer to it. It was the conferences' collective decision, not the media's, to offer separate awards, post-seasons, etc. for the three low equivalancy leagues.

The better question would be would those three conferences want to be responsible for eliminating dozens of post-season All American awards for its student-athletes for the sake of removing the label?

[nmatsen]

How can any of you sit back and reasonbly put the "mid-major" in the same category as FCS? They are no where close to these programs. It makes me so mad. There needs to be a fourth option on there "make these schools drop to division III football." Essentially that is what 3 out of 4 of them are.

[Ronbo]

Should writers and pollsters dissolve the mid-major classification and Polls and consider all FCS teams for the FCS polls????

Discuss.....

I'll let you know after the Dane/Griz game.

[Pard4Life]

Drop it... pointless name... we don't consider Eastern Michigan 'mid-major' in I-A do we?

[danefan]

As indicated, this decision is entirely up to the PFL, NEC & MAAC. Danefan, it's not a chicken/egg deal here. If the three conferences didn't desire the label, the FCS media (particularly, the Sports Network) wouldn't refer to it. It was the conferences' collective decision, not the media's, to offer separate awards, post-seasons, etc. for the three low equivalancy leagues.

The better question would be would those three conferences want to be responsible for eliminating dozens of post-season All American awards for its student-athletes for the sake of removing the label?

Maybe the push was originally by the leagues, maybe it wasn't...but if the media decided not to recognize it now...the leagues couldn't do anything about it, could they?

[danefan]

How can any of you sit back and reasonbly put the "mid-major" in the same category as FCS? They are no where close to these programs. It makes me so mad. There needs to be a fourth option on there "make these schools drop to division III football." Essentially that is what 3 out of 4 of them are.
That is an overgeneralization by far. I'm not defending the bottom end of these leagues, but to say that the top of the NEC and occasionally the top of the PFL are not on the same level as some FCS teams (notice I say "some") is just ignorance.

But that isn't the question in this poll. The question is should the Mid-Major classification be kept and does it do anything?

[DetroitFlyer]

I have been screaming for this for years! You may have heard me say before, "There is no "Mid-Major" there is only FCS!" I believe this for all purposes, polls, press, All-American teams, etc. I do not know for sure where this started, but Don Hansen comes to mind.... I have already posted my feelings about this topic on his board. Please kill the "Mid-Major" moniker!!!!!

[Go...gate]

Yes. Get rid of it.

[*****]

Mid-Major is a creation for basketball and has no place for football.

Replace the Mid-Major awards etc. with Non-Scholarship awards.

[henfan]

Maybe the push was originally by the leagues, maybe it wasn't...but if the media decided not to recognize it now...the leagues couldn't do anything about it, could they?

I have a little perspective on this topic, being an original voter in the TSN Mid-Major poll and All American awards. The three leagues were indeed responsible for the unofficial nomenclature. The Sports Network, followed by the rest of the media, gladly obliging their wishes by creating a separate post-season bowl and separate All American awards.

Anyone who has a beef with the Mid-Major name, awards and post-season really needs to take it up with their AD and conference commish. None of it is going away until they say so.

[DetroitFlyer]

fine columnist over at The Sports Network. Dopke also comes to mind. Like many on this board, those folks simply cannot accept that a team from the PFL, that funds football differently than they deem to be the right way, can compete with their "socially acceptable" team of choice. How anyone can think that there is not a organized, to various degrees, effort to keep the likes of the PFL down, is a complete mystery to me. The PFL chooses to shoot itself in the foot and the likes of TSN, Dopke and many AGS posters pile on as well. Then there is dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about, the highly organized effort to put a price on admission to the playoffs. I sure wish that I had the blinders on that many of you folks seem to wear on a daily basis!!

[henfan]

Mid-Major is a creation for basketball and has no place for football.

Replace the Mid-Major awards etc. with Non-Scholarship awards.

"Non-scholarship"?! Does that mean that the Patriot & Ivy Leagues would be eligible, since they don't offer scholarships? xoopsx

Maybe the 3 leagues will instruct the media to begin referring to their bowl and post-season awards as the D-I Equivalancy Challeged level.xrotatehx

[henfan]

The PFL chooses to shoot itself in the foot and the likes of TSN, Dopke and many AGS posters pile on as well.

Dopke had nothing to do with it. It was purely the creation of the PFL, MAAC & NEC, who requested that the Sports Network use the name in sponsoring a separate poll, awards and bowl. These 3 conferences were simply responding to the competitive differences that they believed separated their leagues from the rest of I-AA, based on their commitments to FB. They understood that their athletes would seldom get the shot at I-AA post-season All American honors, their teams would rarely appear in polls or get a shot at the I-AA post-season. The Mid-Major label was what they came up with.

As members of the 3 leagues continue to invest more resources in FB and narrow the competitive edge, the leagues may eventually no longer feel the need to use the label they created. It'll be better for the FCS in the long run, but it may take the PFL, MAAC & NEC some time to agree to that.

Personally, I could care less which they decide to go. I'd support whatever the leagues want to do. It won't affect my alma mater one iota. IMO, 'Mid-Major' is no more or less appropriate/accurate than 'Non-Scholarship'. I'd prefer the conferences refer to themselves only as FCS and leave it at that. Actually, I'd rather that 'D-I' just be known as 'D-I', but apparently that isn't going to happen either.

[DetroitFlyer]

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Search.asp

OK folks, let's just see how smart you are! Which one of the following program is playing at the "D-I Equivalancy Challeged level."

School #1: Football Revenues - $873,711, Football Expenses - $873,711

School #2: Football Revenues - $1,363,883, Football Expenses - $912,746

Care to guess which two schools I have referenced above?

I'll give you a hint, one plays in the Southern Conference and one plays in the Pioneer Football League!

Some of you, ( in fact most of you ), need to get off of your high horses and face the reality that some schools can compete in FCS by funding football with a different model than traditional scholarships! Scholarships, or the amount of money spent on football, should not be the litmus test you want to make it out to be....xmadx

[DetroitFlyer]

Don Hansen was at it long before TSN! The schools and TSN might have piled on afterward, but I do not believe that the schools invented the term.

[FargoBison]

Until these conferences start funding more scholarships and playing more non-mid major and less lower divisional teams they deserve the lable they have. I know some of these mid-major programs have made great strides but I don't think the label should change until entire conferences change their way of playing FCS football.

For example San Deigo is a mid-major because they play in the PFL, they play a weak schedule and in an conference that doesn't seemed committed at all to raising itself like the NEC is and I think the NEC still has a ways to go.

Nobody is holding these conferences back, they can be just like any other FCS conference if they want. All they have to do is play more FCS non-mid major teams and beat them and they will get all the respect they want.

[henfan]

Flyer, you're completely off your rocker! Dude, you've got some serious misplaced aggression issues. Most of all, you're going after the wrong guy.

I was not disparaging the PFL, NEC or MAAC with my comment about 'Equivalancy Challenged', merely pointing out the ridiculousless of titles like 'Non Scholarship' and 'Mid Major'. Truth be known, all FCS FB teams are 'equivalancy challenged' compared with our BCS counterparts. As I indicated, I'd rather that all the titles just go away and we be left with 'D-I'. I'm also realistic and understand why that is not likely to ever happen.

The conferences will do away with the Mid-Major title when they are ready to do so. It doesn't make sense to get riled up about it in the meantime.

[GannonFan]

Until these conferences start funding more scholarships and playing more non-mid major and less lower divisional teams they deserve the lable they have. I know some of these mid-major programs have made great strides but I don't think the label should change until entire conferences change their way of playing FCS football.

For example San Deigo is a mid-major because they play in the PFL, they play a weak schedule and in an conference that doesn't seemed committed at all to raising itself like the NEC is and I think the NEC still has a ways to go.

Forget the scholarships - that's inmaterial. Play the better schedule and win and even if your team is made up of all walk-ons who only volunteered for the team when signups were passed around the dining hall on the first day of Fall semester and you'll get in the playoffs. Simple. xthumbsupx

[danefan]

Until these conferences start funding more scholarships and playing more non-mid major and less lower divisional teams they deserve the lable they have. I know some of these mid-major programs have made great strides but I don't think the label should change until entire conferences change their way of playing FCS football.

For example San Deigo is a mid-major because they play in the PFL, they play a weak schedule and in an conference that doesn't seemed committed at all to raising itself like the NEC is and I think the NEC still has a ways to go.

Nobody is holding these conferences back, they can be just like any other FCS conference if they want. All they have to do is play more FCS non-mid major teams and beat them and they will get all the respect they want.

I think some of you guys are misinterpretting the question posed. Its not whether you think the currently referred to Mid-major teams are as good as the other FCS teams. Clearly, some are creeping closer, but there is still an overall disparity.

But why can't they just be referred to as lower-end FCS teams? Why do they need to be a separate classification?

[DetroitFlyer]

For me, especially given my rather strong opinions and convictions relative to FCS football, this is one hostile board. Many probably wonder why I even bother to post my thoughts given the hostile responses I am going to generate.... Not only do I post, I even support this board with my hard earned dollars. My comments are typically not meant to be personal. I do tend to key off of certain comments that strike a nerve once in a while! Having a minority opinion in a large community can be a bit challenging at times. Nonetheless, I still enjoy the banter and the challenge of helping folks to see things from my perspective. We may not ever agree, but that does not mean that I am angry at you personally. It is only a message board for Pete's sake, ( no offense intended to any of you Petes out there ), ( LOL ). And I still think the "Mid-Major" moniker should be killed.

[danefan]

I have a little perspective on this topic, being an original voter in the TSN Mid-Major poll and All American awards. The three leagues were indeed responsible for the unofficial nomenclature. The Sports Network, followed by the rest of the media, gladly obliging their wishes by creating a separate post-season bowl and separate All American awards.

Anyone who has a beef with the Mid-Major name, awards and post-season really needs to take it up with their AD and conference commish. None of it is going away until they say so.

OK, so for constructive purposes (because I don't think I can edit the poll now) consider the question to be:

"whether Conferences, AD's, Writers and Pollsters should dissolve the mid-major classification?"

[henfan]

OK, so for constructive purposes (because I don't think I can edit the poll now) consider the question to be:

"whether Conferences, AD's, Writers and Pollsters should dissolve the mid-major classification?"

It's still not the right question, IMO. I don't intend to put words in your keyboard, but the question should read, "Should the PFL, NEC & MAAC abandon the use of the term 'Mid-Major' and all that it implies (i.e.- Mid Major Bowl, Mid Major All American awards, and Mid Major Poll)?

If those three leagues did not support the label, the Sports Network would not sponsor separate bowl, poll and awards. If wrong-headed sports reporters wanted to continue referring to the schools as 'Mid-Major', so be it. There's nothing anyone (except their editors & readership) could do about that.

BTW, I'm not sure that I could possibly answer the question I posed with a simple 'yes' or 'no' response. It's more complicated than that. I can understand why the 3 conferences would want to continue offering separate polls, awards & post-season bowl game. More opportunity is good for their athletes & schools. OTOH, if the ultimate goal is to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the FCS, they will need to lose the moniker at some point, which may require bigger investments in FB across the board.

[GoAgs72]

Most of the many years UC Davis was in D2, we did not have scholarships and competed in the same polls and playoffs as scholarship teams. I don't think we suffered for it. However, there were no autobids in D2 either. Every team should get into the playoffs based upon merit.

[DetroitFlyer]

OK, let's define "merit". Do you take the best 16 as determined by some subjective measure, ( polls )? Do you take the best 16 as determined by an objective measure such as GPI? Do you take the conference champions? Just how interesting would the playoffs be if all 16 teams came from two or three conferences? Would that build up the FCS Division and increase fan interest across the board? Trust me folks, FCS is not some elite division of college football. A casual football fan would be hard pressed to tell you who won the championship last season, even though that team is opening up 2007 at Michigan. The playoffs are much more interesting, regardless of the sport, if all eligible conferences are represented. If all eligible conferences are represented, does that mean beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "best" teams are in the playoffs? Of course not, but guess what, any other method does not do that either!

[henfan]

It seems this thread is veering off topic.

[ASU]

The Following was a post I made relative to Hampton not getting any publicity in the Washington newspapers:

Hampton deserves much better coverage. They have a well established
FCS football program that gets some qualify players. If the FBS crowd at
the newspaper could never write about them, they would be happy. The
FBS schools want to control all the college football money and coverage.
That is why this ridiculous system of 1-A and 1-AA was created. The big schools finding a way to take ALL the attention , All the Money, All the accolades, and set themselves up as "the Big Boys"....Making people believe that their schools are better....setting up a CLASS Difference, just like was done in India or many other countries. This should NEVER have been allowed to happen. All colleges and universities need to unite to take back their own destinys....before it is too late! The differences in the football Classifications should be abolished at once.

[FargoBison]

I think some of you guys are misinterpretting the question posed. Its not whether you think the currently referred to Mid-major teams are as good as the other FCS teams. Clearly, some are creeping closer, but there is still an overall disparity.

But why can't they just be referred to as lower-end FCS teams? Why do they need to be a separate classification?

Its the conferences that want this, they wanted the label and a good chunk of teams shy away from playing non-mid major FCS teams. If the NEC wants to shed the label just drop the playoff game with the PFL and start scheduling agressively as a conference. Set a goal as a conference to build up enough strength that will allow for your best team a shot at making it into the playoffs.

More funding would be nice to see as well but if you can compete with the limited resources you have it is only more impressive in my eyes.

[CSUBUCDAD]

I think there is way to much disparity between the FCS teams right now in terms of enrollment and finances to consider merging all into one.

[Seawolf97]

I agree to an extent , it comes down to how much a school is willing to invest financially in football or athletics in general. Enrollment I dont know. I see some figures about student body size posted on these boards and some of these schools are small but have play off caliber programs.
You are correct though there is a huge disparity in our division when it comes to talent.

[*****]

"Non-scholarship"?! Does that mean that the Patriot & Ivy Leagues would be eligible, since they don't offer scholarships? xoopsx

Maybe the 3 leagues will instruct the media to begin referring to their bowl and post-season awards as the D-I Equivalancy Challeged level.They give need-based grants so I lump them in.

The only non-schollies are the PFL and MAAC. Everything else is "schollie" in my book.

CSN has never given "mid-major" awards and never will.

[*****]

... the Sports Network would not sponsor separate bowl...The Sports Network sponsors a game? Or are you referring to the Cup they have given out the last few years?

[downbythebeach]

It is useless
What are they like 12 real non schollies
Thats just too few to have its own label

[henfan]

The Sports Network sponsors a game? Or are you referring to the Cup they have given out the last few years?

Correct. The TSN Mid-Major Cup has been awarded six times since 2001. Unlikely the Mid-Major Championship Game would be happening at all without the TSN's support.

http://images.sportsnetwork.com/football/college/1aa/TSNcup_2001/midmajor_cup_300_72.jpg

The 'non-scholarship' label is one of the most misused/dishonest terms in all of college sports, particularly as it relates to D-I college football.

[appfan2008]

I think refering to certain teams and conferences as mid major is fine...

but there should be no mid major champion... they are still part of fcs and you can not have two champions in one classifications

[DetroitFlyer]

I have been a vocal advocate of killing the "Mid-Major" moniker for years, but in FCS you still have the Ivy League Champion, and I think the Sheriden poll? crowns an HBCU Champion.... Kind of points to how disjointed FCS is compared to other divisions.

[OL FU]

I have been a vocal advocate of killing the "Mid-Major" moniker for years, but in FCS you still have the Ivy League Champion, and I think the Sheriden poll? crowns an HBCU Champion.... Kind of points to how disjointed FCS is compared to other divisions.

xnodx

Having the Ivies in a division called I-AA made sense. The division had a playoff and a championship but the name pointed to different qualifiers. FCS has championship in the name. What is the point of being in FCS if you don't want to participate in the championship. xeyebrowx

[GannonFan]

I have been a vocal advocate of killing the "Mid-Major" moniker for years, but in FCS you still have the Ivy League Champion, and I think the Sheriden poll? crowns an HBCU Champion.... Kind of points to how disjointed FCS is compared to other divisions.

Not sure what you can do about that. The Ivies are the Ivies and they had to be somewhere. The HBCU champion is actually irregardless of division - there have been DII teams who have won that before. And the NCAA mandate for teams with DI basketball teams to be DI in football if they play it created another group of thrown together schools. But frankly, other divisions have the same issues just less publicized. The non-BCS teams in the FBS are at a distinct disadvantage compared to the BCS teams. And in DII there are huge scholarship differences between schools resulting in significant differences in play on the field. DIII might be the only division where things are relatively equal.

[henfan]

DIII might be the only division where things are relatively equal.

Nope, not even at the D-III level. The disparity is so great among D-III schools and conferences that there's talk of forming D-IV.

http://zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070408/SPORTS/704080342/1006

There's always going to be wide disparities in resources and philosophies in any NCAA division. Despite what some claim, all things are NOT equal competitively in D-I, II or III and it's all resource related.xreadx

[DetroitFlyer]

Thanks for posting the Division III article. I especially liked the writer's use of the term "old guard"! I found it interesting that the author indicated that "Division IV" would sound "sub par". It will be interesting to see how that debate comes out in the end. Is there a similar discussion going on in Division II? I would think it is prone to the same issues. Frankly, this could be a great opportunity for FCS. If the FCS division could figure out a way to pull together and include everyone, granted, not an easy thing to do, it would help to further distinguish us from the lower divisions.

On a more practical level, how many kids that are non-college level athletes, choose to go to an FCS, Division II or Division III school because it has a sports program? I have heard of kids going to FBS schools because of the "big time" sports programs, but I have not heard of many kids going to Podunk U because they have a Division III basketball or football program.

[henfan]

Is there a similar discussion going on in Division II? I would think it is prone to the same issues.

There absolutely is. The situation in D-II is probably the most conflicted and volatile in the entire NCAA, especially where FB is concerned. There have been numerous articles on the topic over the last couple of years. Here's a good one:
http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_II/presidents_council/2006/April/S30_Attachment_B.htm

Fans of the Dakota schools are more well-versed on this subject, I'm sure. Some of the negative activity in D-II had a big impact on the Dakota schools' decisions to seek D-I reclassification.

[DetroitFlyer]

in spite of the 'turmoil" in Division II and III, there is no silly "Mid-Major" nonsense going on....

Thanks again for the article. The only constant I can see, is that NCAA Football, in general, is somewhat of a mess!

[Model Citizen]

in spite of the 'turmoil" in Division II and III, there is no silly "Mid-Major" nonsense going on....

Honestly, this is the only place this discussion is going on. The NCAA doesn't have "mid-major." Is this too difficult to understand?

[henfan]

The real life turmoil going on with D-II and III membership is far more serious than the issues a few message board posters have with the self-adopted D-I 'Mid-Major' title.

[walliver]

I voted "No". I have no objection with everybody being treated equally, but, unfortunately, that doesn't happen often. I remember about 5 or 6 years ago when Davidson appeared for a while in the TSN poll. Davidson didn't have that great a team. I suspect a poll voter who was not knowledgable about Davidson's program saw their record and gave them votes. Unless someone really keeps up with FCS football, it is very hard to compare records between levels of play (much like the lively debate on this board about San Diego last year).

[FargoBison]

There absolutely is. The situation in D-II is probably the most conflicted and volatile in the entire NCAA, especially where FB is concerned. There have been numerous articles on the topic over the last couple of years. Here's a good one:
http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_II/presidents_council/2006/April/S30_Attachment_B.htm

Fans of the Dakota schools are more well-versed on this subject, I'm sure. Some of the negative activity in D-II had a big impact on the Dakota schools' decisions to seek D-I reclassification.

We often get accused of being too hard on DII but life is so much better in the FCS, DII gave in way too much to the "have nots" and pretty much gave the "have" schools no other option but to leave.

Scholarships went from around 60 down to 36 and there is still plenty of grumbling about wanting to move down to 30 or even 24 becuase few conferences can afford to fund even 36. For example the NCC schools that are staying in DII will have to drop scholarships to 24 in order to join their new conference.

Another problem I had with DII was the regionalization of everything, the whole division was just too caught up on playing teams from only a certain region of the country. The playoff rating system was driven by being the best team in your region and didn't really promote playing schools from across the country like the FCS does. Also, not all regions were created equal so the top 16 teams rarely got in the playoffs.

[*****]

Correct. The TSN Mid-Major Cup has been awarded six times since 2001. Unlikely the Mid-Major Championship Game would be happening at all without the TSN's support.

The 'non-scholarship' label is one of the most misused/dishonest terms in all of college sports, particularly as it relates to D-I college football.There is no "Mid-Major Championship Game." The ECAC Bowl was happening before Sports Network came up with the Cup idea and the Gridiron Classic replaced it.

[blukeys]

We often get accused of being too hard on DII but life is so much better in the FCS, DII gave in way too much to the "have nots" and pretty much gave the "have" schools no other option but to leave.

Scholarships went from around 60 down to 36 and there is still plenty of grumbling about wanting to move down to 30 or even 24 becuase few conferences can afford to fund even 36. For example the NCC schools that are staying in DII will have to drop scholarships to 24 in order to join their new conference.

Another problem I had with DII was the regionalization of everything, the whole division was just too caught up on playing teams from only a certain region of the country. The playoff rating system was driven by being the best team in your region and didn't really promote playing schools from across the country like the FCS does. Also, not all regions were created equal so the top 16 teams rarely got in the playoffs.

I'm glad you brought this up. I really don't like the d-2 regionalization model.

As you have pointed out this discourages some interesting OOC matchups. It has become apparent to me over the last 10 years that the quality of the d-2 product has declined whereas the FCS product has improved steadily.

[blukeys]

There absolutely is. The situation in D-II is probably the most conflicted and volatile in the entire NCAA, especially where FB is concerned. There have been numerous articles on the topic over the last couple of years. Here's a good one:
http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_II/presidents_council/2006/April/S30_Attachment_B.htm

Fans of the Dakota schools are more well-versed on this subject, I'm sure. Some of the negative activity in D-II had a big impact on the Dakota schools' decisions to seek D-I reclassification.


Thanks for the articles John. The issues discussed actually sound worse than our problems.

Regarding the D-2 article and the attempts to placate certain unhappy schools in D-2, I found this quote interesting.

"Also, as an additional concession to those wanting to reduce aid, a new rule was passed that allows every conference to be represented in the playoffs as long as a team from that conference was ranked in the top 10 in the region.
Despite those concessions, schools that have benefited are not satisfied."

Seems there's a message there.