North Florida move to DI

[star2city]

After posting last night, I was almost certain Tony would post some vitriol damning Marcil’s proposal. After all, Marcil’s proposal damages the sanctity of the I-AA /Div II football segregation and the sacredness of the Bison’s so-called “March to Division I”. Sure enough, here was Tony's post (Reader's Digest condensed version ):

Huh. I wonder why Michael Marcil's view makes sense to anybody.

blah, blah

boo-frigging-hoo

blah, blah

Ninth graders could rip this proposal to shreds.

Since 1975, relative to the growth in size of Div I, Div II numbers are way down. For non-football schools, the financial risk/rewards of a Div I move are much more favorable than for football schools. The number of non-football schools that moved to Div I in the last decade or so is staggering: Belmont, IUPUI, IPFW, TAMUCC, Birmingham-Southern, Samford, High Point, Stony Brook, Hartford, Albany, Binghamton, Lipscomb, Campbell, Radford, Quinnipiac, Denver, Oakland, and Longwood, to name a few. These schools didn’t have an impact at the Div II level, and don’t even, with a few exceptions, have anywhere near the athletic department of an NCC school.

Marcil’s proposals addresses concerns of both football and non-football schools in Division II. Both sets of schools have concerns that are far different from each other. Within each set, the movement is toward each end of the of spectrum, not toward the center. A non-scholarship football championship for Division I/II gives those Div I schools something to play for, and lessens the downward scholarship trend in Div II. For consistency in argument, those in principle against a non-scholarship football championship should also be in favor of eliminating the IAA football championship (a lesser championship in a higher division).

[star2city]

I can't help but wonder whether a Title IX complaint may be down the road for schools which add "sports" like equestrian in a blatant attempt to meet the proportionality requirement while expending as little money as possible, aside from the cost of the scholarship.  I think we can safely assume that the school will not be purchasing a bunch of horses.  If they were going to expend that kind of money, they may as well have added a sport like gymnastics, which is an NCAA sport and which is fairly popular (in terms of participation) as a high school sport in this area. 

Somehow, I doubt that the equestrian team will be transported to the east or west coast for competitions very often, and the opportunities for competition locally would seem to be quite limited, although I must admit that the UMC-SDSU equestrian competitions are an exciting proposition.   

What's next, rounding up 27 women on academic or some other form of scholarship and claiming that they are actually a part of some fictional team like croquet or kickball?

The Fresno Bee had a long expose on Fresno State's equestrian team, due to a recent death of a member while practicing. The equestrian team helped the Fresno State equine department (equestrian athletes provided cheap labor - cleaned the barns - and those with personally-owned horses paid rent ) as well as helped pad Title IX numbers. Since the article requires registration, here's portions:

That might have been the end of the tragic story. An athletic, motivated young woman died doing what she loved best.

But questions that followed make this story more complicated: Did pressure to ensure gender equity for athletes under federal Title IX requirements play a part in the accident? Did warnings go unheard, or unheeded? Was safety compromised?

An Associated Press review of hundreds of pages of university documents, obtained through the California Public Records Act, and interviews with current and former university staffers, found that:

_ The equestrian team's head coach had quit shortly before Shana's fall citing safety concerns about the size of the team and limited facilities; university officials deny she made her concerns clear to them.

_ The equestrian team's numbers, highest in the nation with about 100 riders and 70 horses, were listed on annual Title IX compliance reports, and the former coach says the university felt pressure to keep a long roster to balance the numbers of athletes in men's sports.

_ University policy allows students who board their own horses at the campus barn to ride them in situations that some horse-program managers consider dangerous. Currently, almost all boarders are team members.

In recent years, college athletic departments have been adding large equestrian, field hockey and rowing teams, whose numbers of female athletes balance their football squads and other male teams.

"A lot of schools are adding girls' teams with lots of bodies in them ... just for the numbers because Title IX has turned into a numbers game," said Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education, a group representing 1,800 universities. "The question is, whether they have, in this pell-mell race to add teams, allowed safety and supervision to slip."

Ann Baer, Oklahoma State University's associate athletics director, agrees Title IX has become "about numbers. .... Equestrian is a sport where you can get a lot of people involved."

By the time Fresno State's McGee quit as coach, she said, she felt "pressured to keep building the team, but there wasn't the budget or NCAA allowances to add enough coaches and other support. It grew out of the seams, and I couldn't go on like that."

The Fresno State equestrian team budget this year is $540,176, barely up from $539,287 in 2002-2003. McGee said she asked for more barns and rings and sought to increase the ratio of coaches to athletes - by reducing the roster of riders, pushing the NCAA to allow more than three coaches, or setting up an informal system of coaching with graduate assistants and older students

[tony]

Star2City, Mr. Marcil's proposal won't harm DI-AA or NDSU in any way because it's not going to happen. If you can't address my arguments, I'm fine with that. I wasn't expecting much more than what you countered with.

The main problem I have with Marcil's proposal is that it doesn't make sense.

Would I be for letting DII teams play football in DI-AA if they want? Sure I would.

Would I be in favor of letting DI teams play DII football? I have no problem with that either.

However, a DII team playing in DI-AA division would have to be subject to DI-AA's rules - including those in regards to transfers and initial eligibility. A DII school playing up would simply be a non-voting member of DI-AA. A DI team playing down would be a non-voting member of DII but should still be held to DI's higher academic standards.

OTOH, I'm not in favor of forcing DI-AA schools to play DII football nor am I in favor of subjecting DI-AA to DII's governance. DII hasn't impressed me with their competence. Each year they try to out-stupid what they did the year before and they generally succeed

If you are really worried about DII's numbers not growing as fast as DI's or DIII's, I have some proposals that will work MUCH better than what Mike Marcil suggested. Heck, the status quo works better than Marcil's proposal.

Here they are:

1. DII should court NAIA teams and make DII more attractive to them. There must be 70 football-playing schools in the NAIA. Get them into DII and split the division into DII-A and DII-B and hold two playoffs. This way you could have a 36-scholarship division and an 18-max scholarship division. We already have a playoff for non-scholarship football teams (it's called DIII).

2. Try to convince DI to raise their admission standards so that the only DII programs allowed to move up are legitimate DI material (maybe they have to offer 120 total scholarships or something).

3. This is off the subject but if I were king of DII, I'd scrap regionalization and the SSI and any other dumb ass ideas they've come up with since 1988.

4. Let DI teams / conferences play down in one of the DII levels and let DII teams play up a level if they want, subject to the conditions I outlined earlier.

This works better on all levels because:

- DII gets up to 70 new football-playing members.

- DII would actually be shouldering some of the burden of improving their division instead of begging for handouts. Nothing like doing some work yourself to instill pride in a product.

- All the non-scholarship/low scholarship schools get their own playoff system.

- DI-AA football schools might actually go for this (unlike Marcil's proposal which almost no DI schools are going to appreciate).

- The NCAA ends up with a more reasonable gradation in scholarship levels (DIII=0, DII-AA=18, DII-A=36, DI-AA=63, and DI-A=85).

Of course, #2 would be tricky, but at least I tried to address the basketball issue instead of trying to pretend it's not there. Both DI and DII have common ground on this. DII doesn't want to lose more members and DI doesn't want every dinky DII school with a BB team to move into DI.

Heck, if DII and DI-AA had done some or all of these things a couple years ago, NDSU might not have gone DI.

BTW, I think it would be great if NDSU added equestrian - sounds kind of expensive though. Gymnastics would be cheaper and add just as many women athletes but equestrian fits better with NDSU's mission; which as some of you love to point out, involves crops and livestock to some degree.

[The Sicatoka]

From the beginning of this saga (the departure of three NCC members over the last three years), I have both preached that there is a "missing level" in the NCAA because it hasn't kept up with the changing times in collegiate athletics since the formation of divisions in 1973. I believe it's that "tweener" level: Bigger than MSU-Moorhead, smaller than the biggest 100-or-so NCAA schools (the schools with the $15 MM+ budgets). I called it "all sports I-AA" at one time.

Now I'm not so sure.

Title IX set requirements that in some ways are more difficult to meet than the NCAAs. Title IX is Federal law. Almost every NCAA member takes Federal dollars so they are subject to it. Why have two sets of bureaucracy?

Since we're tossing out proposals, I propose an NCAA system that eliminates "divisions" and is more of a "cafeteria" type of plan:

- 5 levels of football (no more than 80, 60, 40, 20, 0 scholarships, and stepped student-athlete eligibility requirements)

- 3 levels of basketball (no more than 15, 10, 0, and stepped student-athlete eligibility requirements)

- 2 levels in about everything else ("about" because there may be exceptions I am unfamiliar with; scholarships levels set by sport, and stepped student-athlete eligibility requirements)

I'd set student-athlete eligibility standards based on "level of play" with the catch that your whole athletic department, all sports, must meet the eligibility requirements of the most stringent level you are playing at. Plus, I'd like to see that a school's student-athletes have similar academic entrance profiles to the schools general student population.

Under my proposal, a school can fit their programs to their unique situation. However, they still must be compliant to Title IX: You want that 80 scholarship football program? You have to have 80 womens scholarships in other sports and all the student-athletes have to meet the "80 scholarship football" eligibility requirements. Want to play 20 scholarship football but 15 scholarship mens basketball? Welcome to 35 womens scholarships and (I'd suspect) the the "15 scholarship basketball" eligibility requirements for all.

[RD17]

I don't believe there is any way to reform college athletics and have it work because it is impossible to save schools from their own stupidity. IMO, 30-50% of the schools in every division are playing at a level above what they can support financially.

No matter how many times schools are told that it's foolish to 'sell' home football games in a comical effort to avoid being reclassified, or that it's foolish to switch divisions when you don't have a conference to play in, or that it's foolish to try to compete in D2 football when you can only afford 5 scholarships, someone is always going to try.

The best thing that could happen in college sports is if the BCS schools were to break away and form their own super-conference or a whole new association. This would force the rest of the schools to realize that not everyone is capable of competing at the highest level and it would make them take a realistic look at where they stand on the college sports landscape instead of holding on to a pie-in-the-sky dream that one day they'll be in the Big 10.

[aff]

Since we're tossing out proposals, I propose an NCAA system that eliminates "divisions" and is more of a "cafeteria" type of plan:

- 5 levels of football (no more than 80, 60, 40, 20, 0 scholarships, and stepped student-athlete eligibility requirements)

- 3 levels of basketball (no more than 15, 10, 0, and stepped student-athlete eligibility requirements)

- 2 levels in about everything else ("about" because there may be exceptions I am unfamiliar with; scholarships levels set by sport, and stepped student-athlete eligibility requirements)

Its a good idea, but it won't work because of basketball. Under your plan you could theoretically have a D-I school with a total of 26 (Highest number for basketball is 13, not 15 ) scholarships. If you could do this I think that the entire NCC and NSIC, as well as almost every other school in the country would promote their basketball programs to D-I because of the relatively low number of scholarships you have to implement to do it. I like the idea of having football scholarships be independent of other sports, but maybe have the cafeteria have 5 levels of football scholarships, and then 3 levels of everything else including basketball. This would help to ensure that D-I basketball is flooded by all of D-2's basketball and wannabe basketball schools.

[The Sicatoka]

Highest number for basketball is 13, not 15 ...

The current DI womens basketball maximum is 15.

[aff]

I wasn't trying to be an ass, I was just saying that most schools priority would be men's D-I basketball, which only allows 13 scholarships, so there would be 26 total.

[star2city]

Tony:

I actually think you put together a rather well-thought out proposal. Maybe Marcil will become its advocate.

A requirement that Div I should have to limit the number of schools moving up from Div II is some type of performance scoring system (i. e. averaging within the top 20 for five years in the Div II Athletic Director's Cup, for instance). This would limit the number of non-football school moving up that have not paid their "dues."

[The Sicatoka]

I wasn't trying to be an ass, I was just saying that most schools priority would be men's D-I basketball, which only allows 13 scholarships, so there would be 26 total.

I consciously chose 15 for "equality"; Title IX and all you know.

I also shuffled the football numbers (current: 85, 63, 36, 0).

Honestly, in my opinion, RD17 brings up the best point so far: "I don't believe there is any way to reform college athletics and have it work because it is impossible to save schools from their own stupidity. IMO, 30-50% of the schools in every division are playing at a level above what they can support financially."

[tony]

I agree with RD17 that college athletics will not reform themselves. I do not agree that university administrations are to blame (if that is what he meant).

If an administration does anything to mess with the athletic programs, the alumni go crazy. Heck, UND fans should know what kind of pressure can be brought to bear on a university president who decides to mess with something like a hockey jersey or decides that "co-curricular" means that athletes and students, being one in the same thing, should be held to the same entrance requirements. Of course, that's the other problem; most people think their university is a shining example of how things should be done, and it's only other schools that have the problem.

Like it or not, the only thing that will reform athletics is action by the U.S. Federal Government. For as much as people whine about Title IX, if it weren't for that legislation, college athletics for women would not exist in any meaningful way. BTW, don't even bother telling me how much you hate Title IX because my point is that action by the US Federal Government is effective. Universities would not have developed college athletics for women on their own because as soon as a university president decided it would be the right thing to do, he'd find himself in a shitstorm without an umbrella.

If the people of the United States have the will, we could reform college athletics by denying federal money to universities who do not reform. Congressional action, of the threat of it, is the only way college athletics will reform in the current climate.

In the short tem, the one thing most likely to trigger action by Congress is having the BCS split off from the NCAA. Bereft of any meaningful controls, the BCS schools would probably spin out of control. However, Congress would slap them down before they get a chance to go crazy because the non-BCS schools have a lot more influence on national politics than the BCS. Not to mention that the folks calling for reform would have the moral high ground and splitting off from the NCAA would be seen as a coup by college athletics over college academics. IMO, the BCS would be in for a Bibilical-style spanking.

-------------------

PS The Sicatoka, are you sure you want all-sports division just under the BCS and just above DII? Better tack on the "except hockey" clause right from the beginning.

The fatal flaw common most, if not all, your proposals is that they don't take into consideration what non-BCS DI schools want.

[The Sicatoka]

PS The Sicatoka, are you sure you want all-sports division just under the BCS and just above DII? Better tack on the "except hockey" clause right from the beginning.

The fatal flaw common most, if not all, your proposals is that they don't take into consideration what non-BCS DI schools want.

I didn't think anyone cared about college hockey.

There are only seven (?), BC, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Notre Dame, BCS schools playing college hockey, or just over 10% of college hockey. How do we know they wouldn't come "down" to play?: There are lots of "logistics" issues relating to specific sports and teams that participate in a "full DI-AA" approach. That's why I stated I've started to wonder if a "cafeteria" plan isn't better.

OK, you hinted: What is it, in your opinion, that "non-BCS DI schools want"?

[tony]

Hahahaha! Don't you know my style yet, The Sicatoka. I try very hard not to mince around. I wasn't implying anything about what DI schools want, just noting that you (and Mike Marcil) never made a convincing argument that DI schools would support any of your proposals. These proposals seem to developed merely to complete this question: "Wouldn't it be great for athletics at UND (or in the NCC) if the NCAA..." At least this is an improvement from the past, when the question most often being completed was: "Wouldn't it screw over NDSU if the NCAA..."

Anyway, your question was what do non-BCS DI schools want. I'm no expert, but I'll try to answer it.

First, and above all, DI schools want to play DI basketball. NDSU is kind of exception in this matter because for the supporters of the move, football was the driving force.

Second, in my opinion, DI schools want to play DI (or DIII) football, not DII. It's hard to back this up though. Sure, 90 of the original 130 DII football playing schools left the division, but was it basketball that drove them out? I do know that several DI-AA schools were pushing to eliminate DI-AA/DI-A distinction altogether. I'm not sure what the ramifications for a playoff would be (presumably the BCS schools would opt out), but DI-AA schools already feel stigmatized as not really being DI. Playing DII football would be much worse in that regard.

Third, DI schools want the exclusivity of being DI. That's part of the value of being DI. For example, NDSU can go to a recruit and say, "If you come here, you'll be playing DI ball." Only two other schools in MN, ND, and SD can say this. If the "cafeteria plan" went into effect, this value would not only be significantly diluted - for example, we'd probably end up with 30+ schools in the tri-state able to say the same thing - but the non-DI would also be able to bump up their scholarships to make recruiting more difficult.

[The Sicatoka]

Why should Marcil have talked for why DIs would go for his proposal? It was just a proposal in the NCAA News. The arguing comes after the proposal. (Gee, that sounds almost like marriage.) But onto other things.

Yes, DIs want to play basketball. It's about the TV money.

Next, the conversation about football: I believe is best had not from a "Dx" perspective but from a number of scholarships perspective. As you say, "DI-AA schools already feel stigmatized as not really being DI." Eliminate the "Dx" labels. Let the schools pick the level they want to play and lose the stigma of an arbitrary Roman numeral. (See Marcil's commentary on "II" and my "cafeteria" plan proposal.)

As far as exclusivity, hasn't DI already lost its exclusivity? When schools like Rider and Elon and even smaller schools are "DI", where's the exclusivity? (It's the same dilemma faced by DII when the "UM-Morris"-types showed up.)

Here's what I would hope all NCAA members want:

- to provide, at worst, a net of no effect on the overall institutional budget (no institutional general revenues to underwrite athletic programs; these are extra-curricular, or at most co-curricular, programs)

- to provide high-quality educational opportunities

- to provide competitive athletic opportunities (and not just have the sport to meet an NCAA or Title IX requirement)

If NCAA member schools all held to those simple core values I believe a cafeteria-type plan would work.

Sadly, I suspect my hopes are far from reality. (See the post by "RD17" above, especially the first sentence.)

[RD17]

I agree with RD17 that college athletics will not reform themselves. I do not agree that university administrations are to blame (if that is what he meant).

In most cases it is overzealous alumni that are to blame for schools making foolish decisions with their athletic programs. The same thing that makes college sports great (the passion people have for their schools) is what drives the insanity and irresponsibility when it comes to making decisions regarding athletics.

Like it or not, the only thing that will reform athletics is action by the U.S. Federal Government. For as much as people whine about Title IX, if it weren't for that legislation, college athletics for women would not exist in any meaningful way. BTW, don't even bother telling me how much you hate Title IX because my point is that action by the US Federal Government is effective. Universities would not have developed college athletics for women on their own because as soon as a university president decided it would be the right thing to do, he'd find himself in a shitstorm without an umbrella.

This simply isn't true. Title IX, as originally passed in 1972, simply states that no institution that receives federal funding can discriminate on the basis of sex. I don't think anyone would argue with the logic in that. Title IX didn't become an issue until the early 90s when the Clinton administration decided to add the proportionality interpretation.

Why is that important? Because the major boom in women's sports at the high school and college level occured in the 70s, before Title IX was enforced as it is now. Women's sports were evolving just fine on their own without making it next to impossible for schools to carry a full array of men's sports and without these assinine "quotas" that we essentially have now.

If you're a supporter of Title IX as it is enforced now, surely you'd have to agree that the best way to acheive proportionality would be to cut scholarships and roster sizes in half at all levels of college football. This would allow for more opportunities for women and save the olympic men's sports from further cuts. Fair is fair, right?

In the short tem, the one thing most likely to trigger action by Congress is having the BCS split off from the NCAA. Bereft of any meaningful controls, the BCS schools would probably spin out of control. However, Congress would slap them down before they get a chance to go crazy because the non-BCS schools have a lot more influence on national politics than the BCS. Not to mention that the folks calling for reform would have the moral high ground and splitting off from the NCAA would be seen as a coup by college athletics over college academics. IMO, the BCS would be in for a Bibilical-style spanking.

Third, DI schools want the exclusivity of being DI. That's part of the value of being DI. For example, NDSU can go to a recruit and say, "If you come here, you'll be playing DI ball." Only two other schools in MN, ND, and SD can say this. If the "cafeteria plan" went into effect, this value would not only be significantly diluted - for example, we'd probably end up with 30+ schools in the tri-state able to say the same thing - but the non-DI would also be able to bump up their scholarships to make recruiting more difficult.

Read the above two paragraphs and think about what you're saying. On the one hand, congress would need to step in on the basis of some moral high ground to stop the BCS schools from breaking away from the NCAA and forming a new level of college athletics established only for the elite schools. On the other hand, it is totally acceptable for NDSU or SDSU to enjoy their exclusivity as a D1 school??? What if Ohio State and Michigan decide that their value as an athletic enterprise is being diluted by the NDSUs and SDSUs of the world moving into Division I? Is it not OK for those schools to enjoy their "exclusivity" if they so choose?

[tony]

Why should Marcil have talked for why DIs would go for his proposal? Any proposal for changes that affect, and would require the vote of a majority of, non-BCS schools should take their point of view into account IF YOU WANT THE PROPOSAL TO BE ENACTED.

If all you want to do is sigh about the state of college athletics, the affect of money on BB (DI-AA was formed BEFORE big money basketball, btw), and the lack of fiscal responsibility on the part of NCAA members, then, by all means, make proposal after proposal.

BTW, I fail to see how your cafeteria proposal does anything at all to further your core values. In fact, I have a hard time seeing any relationship between the values and the plan.

To see what I mean complete these sentences...

1. A cafeteria plan would do a better job than a three-division NCAA at stopping schools from spending more than they make by...

2. A cafereria plan would provide more or better educational opportunities than the status quo because...

3. A cafeteria plan would provide more competitive athletic opportunities AND minimize the number of sports added just to satisfy the rules than the status quo because... (aren't these goals mutually exclusive?)

It's probably pointless to continue the discussion. I'm sure everything you write makes perfect sense to you. Not to me though.

[tony]

RD17, what did I say that wasn't true? I am using Title IX as an example of where Federal government brought about reform even when the alumni and college presidents were intransigent. If reforming college athletics was not Title IX's primary goal, that's beside the point.

I'd argue that you don't understand what I wrote about the consequences of the BCS splitting from the NCAA because of these statements:

1. DI schools like their exclusivity.

2. If the BCS split from the NCAA, they'd feel the wrath of Congress because they'd face the wrath of non-BCS DI schools as well as the wrath of the reform-minded segment of the population.

Those statements DO make sense. The first is a fact. The second is a supposition. There are people who want to reform college athletics but eliminating the exclusivity of DI is not even a subpoint on their agenda. They are worried about the huge budgets, the lack of institutional control, and the outrageous abuses that already occur in the pursuit of athletic goals.

Anyway, if the BCS schools split off, the reformers would have their ranks swelled by the angry alumni and administrations of every non-BCS DI school. They WILL have the moral high ground because they'd argue that the BCS schools were running amok. I think they'd be right (or maybe I should say, "We'd be right."

Here's what the BCS would be saying by splitting off from the NCAA, "We want to hire strippers for our athletes! We want to pay players! We want to go have unrestricted access to high school athletes! Heck, we want to be able to start our own college-affiliated prep schools in open enrollment states in conjunction with the NFL if we want! We want to engage in any and all excessive behavior denied us and, by God, we'll be damned if the NCAA is going to stand in our way anymore! Oh yeah, we want 100% of all the TV money, not 90%!"

That's why I said the alliance of reformers and non-BCS DI would have the moral high ground. They'd have it by default if nothing else.

[The Sicatoka]

Marcil's was a proposal. Propose first; argue later; vote after that.

A cafeteria plan would do a better job than a three-division NCAA at stopping schools from spending more than they make by... allowing schools to only sponsor the number and types of sports that make sense (educationally and fiscally) for them and the demographics they serve. Did I just possibly say cut programs? Quite possibly, yes. (More on that to follow.)

A cafereria plan would provide more or better educational opportunities than the status quo because... schools would no longer be forced to create and maintain athletic programs to meet an arbitrary minimum number of programs setpoint. At (sadly, far too) many schools this would allow reallocation of general institutional revenues and significant student fees back from athletics and into educational and research facilities and activities thereby creating better educational opportunities. The governing athletics doctrine would become Title IX ("no discrimination") and not some arbitrary "minimum of 14 sports" criteria.

A cafeteria plan would provide more competitive athletic opportunities AND minimize the number of sports added just to satisfy the rules than the status quo because... (aren't these goals mutually exclusive?) Guess what. You're probably right here. Those two are most likely mutually exclusive. But programs are being cut already*, athletic opportunities are disappearing, due to budgetary issues. (Title IX is a great scapegoat for many.) Let's stop avoiding the unsavory subject of having to subsidize collegiate athletic budgets from the general institutional budgets and student fees and deal with it head on.

* Put "athletic department program cuts" into your favorite search engine and see what all comes back.

[RD17]

RD17, what did I say that wasn't true?

This is the part that isn't true, and if you go back and re-read my post, I pointed out exactly why:

For as much as people whine about Title IX, if it weren't for that legislation, college athletics for women would not exist in any meaningful way. Universities would not have developed college athletics for women on their own because as soon as a university president decided it would be the right thing to do, he'd find himself in a shitstorm without an umbrella.

On to the rest of your post:

I'd argue that you don't understand what I wrote about the consequences of the BCS splitting from the NCAA because of these statements:

1. DI schools like their exclusivity.

2. If the BCS split from the NCAA, they'd feel the wrath of Congress because they'd face the wrath of non-BCS DI schools as well as the wrath of the reform-minded segment of the population.

Those statements DO make sense. The first is a fact. The second is a supposition. There are people who want to reform college athletics but eliminating the exclusivity of DI is not even a subpoint on their agenda. They are worried about the huge budgets, the lack of institutional control, and the outrageous abuses that already occur in the pursuit of athletic goals.

I fully understand the point you're trying to make about exclusivity, which is why I'm contending that it's hypocritical to say that NDSU and SDSU deserve their right to exclusivity if they so choose, but the Michigans and Ohio States of the world do not.

Anyway, if the BCS schools split off, the reformers would have their ranks swelled by the angry alumni and administrations of every non-BCS DI school. They WILL have the moral high ground because they'd argue that the BCS schools were running amok. I think they'd be right (or maybe I should say, "We'd be right."

Here's what the BCS would be saying by splitting off from the NCAA, "We want to hire strippers for our athletes! We want to pay players! We want to go have unrestricted access to high school athletes! Heck, we want to be able to start our own college-affiliated prep schools in open enrollment states in conjunction with the NFL if we want! We want to engage in any and all excessive behavior denied us and, by God, we'll be damned if the NCAA is going to stand in our way anymore! Oh yeah, we want 100% of all the TV money, not 90%!"

That's why I said the alliance of reformers and non-BCS DI would have the moral high ground. They'd have it by default if nothing else.

On the other hand, I could easily counter that entire argument by saying that the BCS schools would be the ones taking the responsible approach.

Sure, many of them have huge budgets, but for the most part, their revenues exceed expenses. The BCS schools also do a much better job that the rest of DI with being Title IX compliant and sponsor the highest number of women's sports. (That's a statistical fact, not an opinion) On the other hand, you have everyone's poster child for I-AA success (Montana) running a million dollar per year deficit, and the rest of the DI football playing schools run deficits that are even larger (on average). Now just who is it that's on the moral high ground and who's running amok?

[UND Fan]

Another article in the Jacksonville, FL newspaper about the struggles of another school, Savannah State, that recently moved from DII to DI. Again, I don't know how to attach it but you can find it at www.jacksonville.com. Go to archives for May 23rd. I am sure someone will post it here soon.

Bison fans - my purpose is NOT to imply that you are going to have all of these same problems. It is just interesting reading!

[The Sicatoka]

Another article in the Jacksonville, FL newspaper about the struggles of another school, Savannah State, that recently moved from DII to DI.  ....

This one?

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/..._15677212.shtml

[Hansel]

[bisonguy]

somebison,

The OPE numbers are from 2002-2003.

I'm still trying to figure out how a football program can have expenses of $131,000 when their men's head coaches average salary is $53,000 and they have five assistant coaches, where the average men's assistant salary is $36,000.

The players must have to furnish their own shoes, tape, etc.

On a side note, it looks like some DII schools have(had) more football scholarships than DI-AA schools. [(36+28) > 63]