1-AA Writer Comments on USD, NCC

[Northern Iowa]

Excerpt from the most recent column of Otto Fad, 1-AA football writer for The Sports Network, touching on USD and the NCC and moving to Division 1-AA. Good reading. Particularly interesting paragraph in bold, by me.

Incidentally, here is the link to his weekly column:

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c...sc/otto_fad.htm

****************************************************

Standing pat

Recently, the University of South Dakota officially announced that it will remain in NCAA Division II and the North Central Conference, thereby eschewing plans to move to Division I.

Former NCC members Northern Colorado and North Dakota State University have already made known their intentions to pursue Division I membership, including I-AA football, while other state schools in North and South Dakota continue to look at the question of upgrading from Division II.

We respect the sovereignty of every school and state, but as with all debates, we believe that balanced, through investigation is the best way to get helpful answers to difficult questions. In the case of the USD announcement, it looks like USD made its decision then sought to justify it, rather than looking for the best answer to a most difficult and complicated question.

Below are examples of USD

[JBB]

Not much comment on this here, is there?

[Northern Iowa]

JBB,

As I said in a previous post, the nay-saying schools are just coasting. Ten years from now, they'll be wishing they had made the move.

After a couple hundred NCC championships (in any sport), who the hell is going to care anymore? Like Otto Fad said, it's a "fear change and avoid sacrifice" culture. Not something we'd like our young people to espouse. Hope they're proud of themselves.

NI

[The Sicatoka]

You want comment?

Try these:

The NCAA is meeting in 2004 to relook at classifications in athletics. Do we know what will come out of that? Does anyone? What if they change nothing? What if they change everything and because of it create "open enrollment periods" where the probation periods are waived? Do any of us have an idea of what the NCAA has in store? How could we when they probably don't.

UND has the student body vote (last spring) that gives UND the funds (via higher student fees) to convert the Hyslop Sports Center into a "campus wellness center." That phrase sound familiar? A campus wellness center is a requirement for a Division I university. (NDSU could transition now because theirs is currently built. Now NDSU must evaluate their BB/VB facilities which they are doing. Some reports say they plan to off-load the problem onto the City of Fargo by asking FargoDome to build a neighboring arena that they'd be primary tenant of.)

Under the plan, old Engelstad Arena would be converted to the new home of BB and VB. Swimming and diving would stay in Hyslop. Coaching offices would move to a new building in the parking lot between old REA and Memorial Stadium and a sports bubble would go over Memorial. The new building would also have athletic training facilities. UND has over 500 student-athletes on campus. They are training space crunched now.

Travel expenses and lack of a league are two spectres that still exist were UND to move, and even for NDSU right now. UND appears to be very quiet on this D-I topic lately but everything I've heard them say includes the disclaimers "for now" at the end.

Yes, they probably are waiting to see SDSU's decision. Why? Logistics. Travel. Costs. Conference. If there were more local/regional D-Is most of the problems cure themselves.

Has a school in ND ever turned on a dime regarding athletics? Why, Bison hockey was going to happen not that long ago if you believed Bob Entzion. Now, it's off the radar (according to Gene Taylor) until the existing programs are (re)established at the Division I level. I believe I heard Taylor say NDSU hockey won't even be brought up for ten years minimum. Could UND turn on a dime regarding Division I? There is precident based on the above.

UND has the 2005 NCAA Division II Mens BB national tournament at Ralph Engelstad Arena. I believe they have a 2003 national (?) swimming and diving competition at Hyslop. If UND were to jump now, would those awards be re-evaluated by the NCAA? Would the NCAA hold D-II championships at a provisional D-I site? I don't know. (Is there any history to look at on the subject?)

UND is taking a very tentative, measured, patient, publicly negative sounding approach to this. But not all of their actions (wellness center) match their words. It seems that they are "positioning" themselves.

That's not an uncommon approach. They waited to build an indoor football arena until after the kinks were out of the neighbor's. What'd they learn? Build your football arena at grade. It's cheaper than pumping out 12 feet of water.

Roger Thomas has said he's patiently watching to see what happens to NDSU during this transition.

Yes, NDSU and UND are different as Dr. Chapman says.

NDSU has the wellness center so it could announce and transition, but faces other potential facilities issues. Those will come at the same time that the Athletic Department needs to raise $2 million additional annually for base costs.

UND has to finish its wellness center in concert with modification to old REA. Then they will have not one but two BB facilities of over 6000 seats, and one is the best arena Kansas coach Roy Williams has ever seen. UND will have the facilities in place. Then the struggle is just to raise the additional operating revenue.

It looks like two different approaches.

It also looks like UND is trying to learn from the struggles of its neighbors and risk-manage them ahead of time.

Patience, "for now."

There's a lot to play out from now until (I'd guess) 2004.

[jimdahl]

Coaching offices would move to a new building in the parking lot between old REA and Memorial Stadium and a sports bubble would go over Memorial.

Forgive my stadium construction ignorance, but what does "a sports bubble... over Memorial" mean? I've heard that a lot, and never really understood it.

Are we talking some sort of dome-like roof? That seems like a pretty expensive retrofit. Whenever I hear about the "sports bubble", I always picture a big plastic bubble that makes Memorial Stadium look like a giant snowglobe (not what everyone's really talking about, I suspect)

[bisonguy]

Jim,

If UND's "bubble" is anything like the "bubble" NDSU has been talking of putting over Dacotah Field, it's like the roof at the Metrodome. Imagine the Sports Bubble in Fargo only larger. I've seen a lot of NFL teams use these sort of facilities in their camps.

[The Sicatoka]

'bisonguy' is correct. It'd be like the Sports Bubble in Fargo or the Golf Dome in Bismarck.

They're fairly cost effective (indoor area gained versus costs) and can be taken down for spring and summer if you want to be outdoors.

The turf at Memorial is fairly new. That's part of the rationale. Plus, you'd create throwing space for football, baseball and softball in the winter and a lot of other benefits. As mentioned, NDSU is considering it as well.

I believe 'bisonguy' and I have pondered (somewhere around here) if the ND University System will go in as one "face" and try for a two-for-one deal.

[Northern Iowa]

Sicatoka writes:

You want comment?

Try these:

The NCAA is meeting in 2004 to relook at classifications in athletics. Do we know what will come out of that? Does anyone? What if they change nothing? What if they change everything and because of it create "open enrollment periods" where the probation periods are waived? Do any of us have an idea of what the NCAA has in store? How could we when they probably don't.

I gotta think that, if anything drastic or potentially disastrous to institutions considering changing affiliation status were to occur, Athletic Directors would know.

NI

[RD17]

I want someone to answer this question for me. How is it that Montana, the school everyone points to as a model of 1-AA success, has an athletic budget that operates in the red? A sold out 20,000 seat stadium for football and an appearance in the NCAA basketball tournament and they're losing money? What does this say for the rest of the division?

The fact of the matter is that, on average, no one in the NCAA runs a bigger athletic department deficit than the 1-AA football playing schools. There's a good reason why 1-A has increased from 85 or so schools to 117 in just a few years: 1-AA is a losing proposition.

There is no evidence to back Mr. Fad's contention that a move to Division I has a positive effect on enrollment. Enrollment increases occur because of a) an increase in an area's population density, b) an improvement or addition to a school's academic programs, or c) a large scale recruiting campaign on the part of the university.

Mr. Fad says "anything worth doing is worth waiting for and working for, at least in my opinion." Is putting a successful athletic department through a crippling transition phase to become a Division I bottom feeder worth waiting for? Gee, I can hardly wait to see my school go through 5-10 years of athletic purgatory to get into a classification that requires us to offer up our football team as the homecoming whipping boy for some BCS school just to pay the bills.

[Northern Iowa]

RD17, Dude:

Your school will be a Division I bottom feeder only if you allow it to be.

Regarding Montana and operating in the red, where else (in any division) is that NOT the case? Only at Notre Dame and a handful of other places does an athletic department experience positive cash flow. For the rest of us, the state, fans, students and donations through the Athletic Club pick up the tab. Let's get over this "losing money" thing, please. Athletic department deficits are a fact of life virtually everywhere. Does that mean you drop your sports?

Who the heck is in it for the money, anyhow? If that were a requirement, we would be watching fifteen teams play games with each other on Saturday.

Also, most schools operate in the red because they are funding gobs of other, non-revenue generating sports. If revenues from football at Norhern Iowa went to football only, the team would swim in cash. Given Title XI and the necessity to field myriad Olympic sports (and thus be attractive to a wider variety of students), the ledger will virtually never be balanced.

Quoting you, there's this madness: The fact of the matter is that, on average, no one in the NCAA runs a bigger athletic department deficit than the 1-AA football playing schools. There's a good reason why 1-A has increased from 85 or so schools to 117 in just a few years: 1-AA is a losing proposition.

I spit up my coffee laughing. Pardon me. Where does this come from? Have you seen the double digit million dollar deficits from some of our 1-A football brothers like Texas Tech, San Jose State, New Mexico, and others? The individual red ink at any of these and other places, unfortunate, though, that it is, towers over any five of the worst 1-AA football schools.

And, regarding those that have made the jump to 1-A, such were the values of their athletic departments at the time. More power to them. If they can be successful in 1-A, that's wonderful. There's nothing wrong with trying to upgrade. Many probably wish they were still in 1-AA. Using your line of thinking, for virtually all of them (Middle Tennessee State, Troy State, U of Lousiana-Monroe, North Texas, Boise State, UNLV, Nevada, Idaho, etc.), 1-A is a losing proposition. That's not necessarily so. Respectfully, you need to get some perspective.

Nowhere is it written or implied that Division I-AA is a money-making enterprise. If SDSU and UNC and UND are in it strictly for the money, they are delusional. I know they're not, though.

History lesson for you: Division 1-AA was developed in the mid 70's as a cost saving alternative for universities and colleges who wanted to field football teams without the heavy financial burden it takes to operate the way, say, Florida State does. That is our heritage. And it's a good one. There may be deficits, as there are at probably all NCC schools, but they're nothing like those at many, many 1-A institutions.

You, again: There is no evidence to back Mr. Fad's contention that a move to Division I has a positive effect on enrollment. Enrollment increases occur because of a) an increase in an area's population density, b) an improvement or addition to a school's academic programs, or c) a large scale recruiting campaign on the part of the university. You're right. But there is plenty of evidence. Look at all the successful 1-A programs. You're sadly discounting the role athletics plays in a school's enrollment. As far as 1-AA is concerned: A) Fans of football, for example, will go to Northern Iowa because they can count on a positive football watching and following experience. My wife is a huge football fan, went to high school is western Iowa and went to UNI because their football program was (and still is) the most consistently successful program in the state of Iowa. B) Success in athletics reaches students and student-athletes far beyond your region. Many successful 1-AA schools, like Northern Iowa and Western Illinois and McNeese State and Montana becomes small "meccas" for football players who want to experience success on the gridiron. And, for years, there were University of Northern Iowa billbords in the Chicago area that attracted untold numbers of students, not just student-athletes. Schools like UNI were once striclty regional, but now are national, thanks in large part to athletics. Chad Setterstrom, a UNI offensive tackle, was featured on the front page of the USA Today sports page. If he was going to South Dakota, that probably wouldn't have happened. Because UNI competes for the 1-AA championship, year in and year out, they have a positive recognition factor. And it's not just football, volleyball and wrestling are huge at UNI and regularly finish in the Top 20 in their fileds, thereby attracting quality students and student-athletes. C) A school's facilities have much to do with attracting students. Nothing more to say about that other than the UNI-Dome is a heck of a place to see any event.

Your final paragraph: Mr. Fad says "anything worth doing is worth waiting for and working for, at least in my opinion." Is putting a successful athletic department through a crippling transition phase to become a Division I bottom feeder worth waiting for? Gee, I can hardly wait to see my school go through 5-10 years of athletic purgatory to get into a classification that requires us to offer up our football team as the homecoming whipping boy for some BCS school just to pay the bills. You're "required" to offer up your program at a Big Ten school's Homecoming? Your extrapolation here defies facts. The fact is that fans and donors and alumni don't want to return to campus at Minnesota, for example, to pay to see them play Northern Colorado. Fans, donors and alumni at Michigan don't want to pay to see the Wolverines play Illinois State at Homecoming. To them it's not a game. They want Purdue or Indiana or Illinois or Northwestern. Fans, donors and alumni do not want to pay to see Northern Iowa play Augustana or Morningside or St. Cloud State. Additionally, fans, donors and alumni do not want to trek back to Grand Forks to see them play Wisconsin Lutheran at Homecoming. If UNI is ranked (and they usually are), they want to see Western Illinois or Youngstown State or Southwest Missouri. Instances where the above "sacrificial lamb" scenarios occur are almost non-existent, so you can't use this argument.

And why does the transition to 1-AA have to be "crippling"? More than half of 1-AA teams were once Division II or small college teams. Most have made the transition well and, for most, it has been worth the effort. The transition should be exciting. You start by knocking off an established 1-AA team here and there while in the probationary phase (not an impossible task and also functions as a reputation builder) and eventually work your way to be in a position to tackle a Wyoming or Idaho or a MAC team. Next thing you know, you're in a conference, competing for the championship.

Finally, regarding the NCAA Pow Wow in 2004, as it relates to football, I'm going to guess that discussion will have to do more with 1-A's that should be in 1-AA than the reverse.

Anything good IS certainly worth waiting for. If you're coasting, you're going downhill.

NI

[JBB]

There aent that many schools left in D2 that have D1 potential. Most have already moved. I agree with the statement that there is going to be far more movement from D1 to D1AA than from D2 to D1AA.

[The Sicatoka]

Might JBB and I agree on something?

Yes, there will be movement from DI(A) to DI(AA). A lot of that movement won't be by the choice of the schools.

The NCAA has stated that there are FB programs on the "watch list." These programs have not been meeting the minimums for IA membership. The most common problem is not meeting the minimums for "number of fans in the stands."

Total number of those cases? I don't know. In the article I read it was under a dozen I believe.

JBB: Legitimate question: You state: "There aent (sic) that many schools left in D2 that have D1 potential." What do you consider to be or what are the factors in figuring Division I potential?

[RD17]

Northern Iowa,

I stand by everything I said. I believe it is you that needs a dose of perspective.

Regarding Montana and operating in the red, where else (in any division) is that NOT the case? Only at Notre Dame and a handful of other places does an athletic department experience positive cash flow. For the rest of us, the state, fans, students and donations through the Athletic Club pick up the tab. Let's get over this "losing money" thing, please. Athletic department deficits are a fact of life virtually everywhere. Does that mean you drop your sports?

Who the heck is in it for the money, anyhow? If that were a requirement, we would be watching fifteen teams play games with each other on Saturday.

Also, most schools operate in the red because they are funding gobs of other, non-revenue generating sports. If revenues from football at Norhern Iowa went to football only, the team would swim in cash. Given Title XI and the necessity to field myriad Olympic sports (and thus be attractive to a wider variety of students), the ledger will virtually never be balanced.

I never stated that athletics should be a money making endeavor. There are obviously schools at every NCAA level that operate in the red. What I'm questioning is a matter of scope. Again, how is it that Montana's athletic department has a several hundred thousand dollar deficit with the success they've had? The most successful schools in 1-A, like Tennessee for example, don't run deficits. Successful D2 programs like NDSU don't have deficits in the hundreds of thousands. What is it about 1-AA that causes this?

Quoting you, there's this madness: The fact of the matter is that, on average, no one in the NCAA runs a bigger athletic department deficit than the 1-AA football playing schools. There's a good reason why 1-A has increased from 85 or so schools to 117 in just a few years: 1-AA is a losing proposition.

I spit up my coffee laughing. Pardon me. Where does this come from? Have you seen the double digit million dollar deficits from some of our 1-A football brothers like Texas Tech, San Jose State, New Mexico, and others? The individual red ink at any of these and other places, unfortunate, though, that it is, towers over any five of the worst 1-AA football schools.

And, regarding those that have made the jump to 1-A, such were the values of their athletic departments at the time. More power to them. If they can be successful in 1-A, that's wonderful. There's nothing wrong with trying to upgrade. Many probably wish they were still in 1-AA. Using your line of thinking, for virtually all of them (Middle Tennessee State, Troy State, U of Lousiana-Monroe, North Texas, Boise State, UNLV, Nevada, Idaho, etc.), 1-A is a losing proposition. That's not necessarily so. Respectfully, you need to get some perspective.

You may think my statement is madness, but if you did your research before spouting off, you would find out that my "madness" is the truth. Check out the financial section at the NCAA website. You will find out that my statement ("on average, no one in the NCAA runs a bigger athletic department deficit than the 1-AA football playing schools") is true.

The reason schools like Nevada and Idaho have left 1-AA is because it is a losing proposition. It is true that most of those schools are not doing better financially than they were in 1-AA, but they're smart enough to realize that if they're going to lose big money they might as well get to be associated with the big boys and not play in a division that is so poorly promoted that it's national championship game in football has worse TV ratings than the Division II game does.

You, again: There is no evidence to back Mr. Fad's contention that a move to Division I has a positive effect on enrollment. Enrollment increases occur because of a) an increase in an area's population density, b) an improvement or addition to a school's academic programs, or c) a large scale recruiting campaign on the part of the university. You're right. But there is plenty of evidence. Look at all the successful 1-A programs. You're sadly discounting the role athletics plays in a school's enrollment. As far as 1-AA is concerned: A) Fans of football, for example, will go to Northern Iowa because they can count on a positive football watching and following experience. My wife is a huge football fan, went to high school is western Iowa and went to UNI because their football program was (and still is) the most consistently successful program in the state of Iowa. B) Success in athletics reaches students and student-athletes far beyond your region. Many successful 1-AA schools, like Northern Iowa and Western Illinois and McNeese State and Montana becomes small "meccas" for football players who want to experience success on the gridiron. And, for years, there were University of Northern Iowa billbords in the Chicago area that attracted untold numbers of students, not just student-athletes. Schools like UNI were once striclty regional, but now are national, thanks in large part to athletics. Chad Setterstrom, a UNI offensive tackle, was featured on the front page of the USA Today sports page. If he was going to South Dakota, that probably wouldn't have happened. Because UNI competes for the 1-AA championship, year in and year out, they have a positive recognition factor. And it's not just football, volleyball and wrestling are huge at UNI and regularly finish in the Top 20 in their fileds, thereby attracting quality students and student-athletes. C) A school's facilities have much to do with attracting students. Nothing more to say about that other than the UNI-Dome is a heck of a place to see any event.

Once again, another misconception. Pick up the book Beer and Circus. It's written by an University of Indiana professor by the name of Murray Sperber. Sperber has done a ton of research and written a couple of different books that dispel the myth that successful athletic programs have a direct correlation with increased enrollment and alumni giving. You have the cause and effect backwards. The successful 1-A programs got that way because they already were the big schools (Michigan, Texas, etc.).

You are right in saying that a school's facilities do play a role in attracting students. The thing is, a nice facility is a nice facility whether the school is Division I or Division III.

Your final paragraph: Mr. Fad says "anything worth doing is worth waiting for and working for, at least in my opinion." Is putting a successful athletic department through a crippling transition phase to become a Division I bottom feeder worth waiting for? Gee, I can hardly wait to see my school go through 5-10 years of athletic purgatory to get into a classification that requires us to offer up our football team as the homecoming whipping boy for some BCS school just to pay the bills. You're "required" to offer up your program at a Big Ten school's Homecoming? Your extrapolation here defies facts. The fact is that fans and donors and alumni don't want to return to campus at Minnesota, for example, to pay to see them play Northern Colorado. Fans, donors and alumni at Michigan don't want to pay to see the Wolverines play Illinois State at Homecoming. To them it's not a game. They want Purdue or Indiana or Illinois or Northwestern. Fans, donors and alumni do not want to pay to see Northern Iowa play Augustana or Morningside or St. Cloud State. Additionally, fans, donors and alumni do not want to trek back to Grand Forks to see them play Wisconsin Lutheran at Homecoming. If UNI is ranked (and they usually are), they want to see Western Illinois or Youngstown State or Southwest Missouri. Instances where the above "sacrificial lamb" scenarios occur are almost non-existent, so you can't use this argument.

I should have stated my point more clearly here. I was using homecoming whipping boy as a metaphor for guarantee games. The necessity of 1-AA schools playing body-bag games (another metaphor ) to help finance an athletic program is appalling to me. It's simply a form of athletic prostitution. Tell me, did it make you proud of UNI when their football team went to Iowa State and Oklahoma St. the last couple of years for a beating and a paycheck? I'm sure that the exposure UNI gained from playing these games was priceless.

And why does the transition to 1-AA have to be "crippling"? More than half of 1-AA teams were once Division II or small college teams. Most have made the transition well and, for most, it has been worth the effort. The transition should be exciting. You start by knocking off an established 1-AA team here and there while in the probationary phase (not an impossible task and also functions as a reputation builder) and eventually work your way to be in a position to tackle a Wyoming or Idaho or a MAC team. Next thing you know, you're in a conference, competing for the championship.

The transition to 1-AA is crippling because of it's length. Lots of schools have made the transition in the past, but the circumstances were much different because the provisional periods were so much shorter. 8 years of being ineligible for postseason men's basketball, are you kidding me? That's 4 recruiting classes you have to convince to come to your school with no postseason carrot to dangle in front of them.

[star2city]

The kind of reasoning espoused by USD - "stay put because the transition is too tough" sends a message of fatalism, of acceptance of one

[bisonguy]

[Northern Iowa]

OK, RD17. Now you pizzed me off!

Just kidding.

Good thoughts, but consider:

I never stated that athletics should be a money making endeavor. There are obviously schools at every NCAA level that operate in the red. What I'm questioning is a matter of scope. Again, how is it that Montana's athletic department has a several hundred thousand dollar deficit with the success they've had? The most successful schools in 1-A, like Tennessee for example, don't run deficits. Successful D2 programs like NDSU don't have deficits in the hundreds of thousands. What is it about 1-AA that causes this?

Again, virtually every program operates with a deficit; some are huge, some are small. I would challenge you on your statement that you never said athletics should be a money-making endeavor, since the focus of virtually your entire post seems to be about finances. Also, regarding budget deficits, it's not a matter of scope, but rather, one of scale. What causes the deficits, you ask? All the 1-AA teams sponsor Division I athletics in all their other sports. It's just more expensive than in Division II. And, the need to field women's teams (of which I am a full supporter) and Olympic sports teams.

***

You may think my statement is madness, but if you did your research before spouting off, you would find out that my "madness" is the truth. Check out the financial section at the NCAA website. You will find out that my statement ("on average, no one in the NCAA runs a bigger athletic department deficit than the 1-AA football playing schools") is true.

The reason schools like Nevada and Idaho have left 1-AA is because it is a losing proposition. It is true that most of those schools are not doing better financially than they were in 1-AA, but they're smart enough to realize that if they're going to lose big money they might as well get to be associated with the big boys and not play in a division that is so poorly promoted that it's national championship game in football has worse TV ratings than the Division II game does.

Didn't realize I was "spouting off".

Anyway, Nevada and Idaho and others did not leave 1-AA because it's a "losing proposition". They left to pursue the brass ring in another division. As I said before, more power to them and all the best to them for trying. The contention that they were smart enough to realize that if they're going to lose money, etc., etc...... is pure speculation on your part and not rooted in fact.

Remember, too, that 1-AA was conceived as a cost containment option for programs that could not or did not want to operate like Michigan or UCLA. If UNLV and Boise State were uncomfortable with that and think they can succeed in 1-A, than that's good for everyone.

***

Once again, another misconception. Pick up the book Beer and Circus. It's written by an University of Indiana professor by the name of Murray Sperber. Sperber has done a ton of research and written a couple of different books that dispel the myth that successful athletic programs have a direct correlation with increased enrollment and alumni giving. You have the cause and effect backwards. The successful 1-A programs got that way because they already were the big schools (Michigan, Texas, etc.).

You are right in saying that a school's facilities do play a role in attracting students. The thing is, a nice facility is a nice facility whether the school is Division I or Division III.

Well, first, how many really "nice facilities" (especially football) exist at the Division III level? Most in Division II are smallish and somewhat lacking in appeal and, indeed, some in Division 1-AA are, as well.

Regarding the direct correlation thing, Yours Truly did not claim a direct correlation. Rather, I offered several scenarios that constitute indirect benefits of successful athletic programs with regard to enrollment. Beer and Circus or not, I still personally believe there to be a direct correlation. But, this is a personal opinion, and not based on fact. IMO only, if Murray Sperber has written "several" books on the topic, I would say he's somehow got a hard on against college athletics and a formidable outward bias. I characterize such thinking as "invincible ignorance".

***

Now the Queen Mother:

I should have stated my point more clearly here. I was using homecoming whipping boy as a metaphor for guarantee games. The necessity of 1-AA schools playing body-bag games (another metaphor ) to help finance an athletic program is appalling to me. It's simply a form of athletic prostitution. Tell me, did it make you proud of UNI when their football team went to Iowa State and Oklahoma St. the last couple of years for a beating and a paycheck? I'm sure that the exposure UNI gained from playing these games was priceless.

Certainly, anytime you take a licking the way the Cats did v ISU and OSU, there is little positive that can come from it. Nonetheless, UNI, for example, is 8-11 versus 1-A teams, including 3-0 versus MAC teams, 3-0 against Kansas State and two big wins versus Iowa State. Close games that raised eyebrows across the country include a wild 44-42 shootout loss to Wyoming; two close, disputed losses to Iowa State; and a 33-23 loss to Oklahoma State in which the Panthers tied an NCAA record with a 99 yard touchdown pass. The point is that the upper echelon of 1-AA can compete with them. UNI's record versus 1-A teams shows that your notion of "a beating and a paycheck" is spurious at best, uninformed at worst.

As a former player and captain of the team that beat Kansas State in 1985, I can guarantee you that no one on the team was thinking money when we played them. I didn't even know there was a payout. It is an opportunity to strap it up versus the alleged big boys and see how you measure up. That is one of the points in this entire forum that many are missing. It's about being satisfied with the status quo versus challenging yourself on a higher plane. No prostitution here. Oh, the money is nice, too.

Be careful when trying to extrapolate the experiences of some teams as being indicative of the entire Division.

***

Best of luck to all the NCC people in the next couple weeks. We in 1-AA look forward to the day when several of you are competing with us and against us. Hope it happens much sooner than later!

NI