The Sicatoka Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 UND president Kupchella and UC-Davis president Vanderhoef are interviewed in the NCAA News this week. Topic? NCAA divisions and division membership issues. http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/asso...al/4121n09.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 That certainly does give some confirmation of Kupchella's current outlook vis-a-vis reclassification. "There are alumni and others who say they've been watching the deterioration of Division II over the years, and pretty soon you don't have the caliber of teams you'd like to play in the division"No surprise here, the alums are putting on pressure because it seems like all the other good D-II schools have reclassified so we're all asking why UND hasn't. "There's no reason to go Division I-AA other than the status of being Division I," he emphasized. "But I see paradoxes. The year we won the football title, ESPN reported the viewers of that game doubled those who watched the I-AA final. Then you hear people say we ought to move to Division I-AA to get more visibility." This is the trickiest part; I-AA has more scholarships, but is really another second-tier division, it's still not big-time BCS football. Of course, I'm talking football only, but my biggest concern when former NCC members were reclassifying was that it involves moving football to a better division in which we still could be competitive, but sacrifices the competitiveness of many more minor sports, as Kupchella alludes to: Kupchella said the cost estimates of a Division I reclassification run high. Not only would Division I membership criteria require a larger investment in scholarship commitments, but becoming a member of the nearest Division I conferences -- the Mid-American or Big Sky -- also would drive travel costs beyond Kupchella's comfort zone. "It's not a pretty picture," he said. "I don't think we could all of the sudden shift $3 or $4 million into athletics, so we'd probably either cut sports or play as poor competitors in some. When discussing this issue a couple years ago, I was generally a proponet of UND moving with the former NCC schools. I still claim that as a fan I prefer for the basketball teams to have their goal be a conference championship and an appearance in the Big Dance rather than a D-II NC; and that I was willing to see programs other than football and swimming&diving suffer, but I can certainly understand Kupchella's concerns about the impact for a lot student-athletes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonguy Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Isn't the Mid-Continent Conference a little closer than the Mid-American? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Isn't the Mid-Continent Conference a little closer than the Mid-American? I suspect he was only including multi-sport conferences that sponsor football, one of the few sports that would stand a chance of being nationally competitive after a reclassification, since it would be in the I-AA subdivision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonguy Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 But the MAC is I-A ?? Doh -- my mistake. While that definitely slipped by me, it now seems most likely that Kupchella was listing the closest possible conference in each I-A and I-AA; I guess only Kupchella could tell us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 Isn't the closest I-A conference the Big Ten? The MAC? Hey, that's just some crazy notion from some guy. Then again, how much longer is the MAC going to be a I-A conference (in light of the new attendance minimums for I-A)? MAC teams Kent State, Eastern Michigan, Ball State, SUNY-Buffalo, Akron, and Central Michigan didn't average 15000 in 2003. Ohio made it by 824 (and that's not a good margin). There's half the MAC right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 Hemenway said the three-division structure is something NCAA members are comfortable with in part because that's the structure they've known for 30 years. The question, he said, may be whether intercollegiate athletics has changed to such a degree that the three-division format doesn't serve the membership as well as it has in the past. Robert Hemenway is chancellor at the University of Kansas and chair of the Division I Board of Directors. That sounds to me like a guy who's had the idea of divisional restructuring cross his mind and he sits on the DI Board of Directors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I simply think Kup meant to say Mid Continent instead of Mid American. That particular confusion has happened multiple times both on here and on bisonville. How many times must it be said? For schools already in DIA, the 15000 average attendance will never be enforced. The MAC is not splitting up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 How many times must it be said? For schools already in DIA, the 15000 average attendance will never be enforced. The MAC is not splitting up. From the original linked piece: Division I is polishing its recently brightened bar between I-A and I-AA. For something that some believe won't be enforced, they sure talk it up in the article. Alternatively, if it won't be enforced anyway, (right?,) UND's athletics programs are a better fit with the MAC than the BSC. The BSC doesn't offer baseball, softball, or swimming and no BSC member plays hockey. Alternatively, the MAC offers things UND doesn't have: mens soccer, tennis, and wrestling, plus womens field hockey, plus three MAC teams play hockey in the CCHA. UND wouldn't be "searching for a home" for existing programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 OTOH, the MAC is located in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, quite a ways away from UND. They're not expanding at the moment, either. Perhaps if some teams leave for bigger conferences, but right now, no. Also, I've been saying this for a while now: for current IA teams the 15000 rule won't be enforce. However, for new teams, it will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 Come January, with the chair of the Division I Board of Directors saying things like (not a direct quote of him, but): The question, he said, may be whether intercollegiate athletics has changed to such a degree that the three-division format doesn't serve the membership as well as it has in the past.I'd say, as to what may happen, all bets are off. Why? Look at the mindset of the same man: "There seems to be more and more blurring of the lines between classifications." Then look at what NCAA president Dr. Miles Brand says: In particular, he said, Divisions I and II -- because the line between them is much less distinctive than it is between Divisions II and III You have to wonder what their solutions would be. Go to the old (no divisions) system? Add divisions for more resolution and clarity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 OTOH, the MAC is located in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, quite a ways away from UND. Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona are close? They're not expanding at the moment, either. Perhaps if some teams leave for bigger conferences, but right now, no. Hasn't Marshall already left for Conference USA? I was really bored one night. I computed the average lat-long of BSC schools and MAC schools. BSC Average 42.93N 115.36W MAC Average 40.84N 83.74W Grand Forks is at 47.92N 97.05W The MAC, though centered slightly further south than the BSC, is closer east-west. Plus, airline connections (NWA via Detroit) would be easier. Still, it's an admittedly out-there pipe dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 However, the MAC schools themselves are all close to each other while the BSC schools are spread out. That means the BSC schools would be more likely to accept a school that is farther away. I want to say that Marshall is going somewhere, but is MAC for now. I know that Louisville and Cincinati are going to the Big East, so it's possible that Marshall could "upgrade" to CUSA. Also (replying to your other post) how would you determine champions in a non-divisional system? Simply have all 400 (or whatever) teams in one giant playoff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 How were champions determined before 1973 (the current divisional system)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 How were champions determined before 1973 (the current divisional system)? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was in Hattiesburg, MS recently and saw signs at the stadium saying that USM was the "Small College National Champion" in 1958. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 How were champions determined before 1973 (the current divisional system)? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Four regional bowl games were played, then a college division "national champion" was declared via a poll. What I find interesting is that when you consider how often a team not considered the favorite wins the dII national title, e.g. Delta St. in 2000, UND in 2001 and GVSU in 2003, such a system would appear to not be particularly accurate. Last year, for example, more than likely North Alabama would have played Valdosta St. in a bowl game, and then would have been declared national champion, and I think we know now that they were not better than UND or GVSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 So if we were to see the end of divisions, I think we'd also see the end of national champions. That would leave only conference champions (and championship games) as well as groups like the BCS to hold their own championships. I kinda like the idea myself. It puts more importantance on conferences and conference games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowledge Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Thanks to conversations with different coaches and administrators from some NAIA schools, I forsee a restructuring of all divisions of college athletics. I don't see the NAIA lasting much longer. I know that the NAIA is close to many peoples hearts but if you look and see that the NSIC and the MIAC were both NAIA once upon a time. On the whole the NSIC and the MIAC are now much more successful. That NCAA tab does pull many kids to programs. The NAIA rules system of scholorships and eligiability is hurting its academics and its product. If the NAIA disbands schools like the University of Mary will not want to give up its scholorships for athletics therefore forcing them into DII or higher. Mary, Jamestown etc.. could never compete against UND, NDSU etc... in football and rarely in basketball. I think that there will eventually be a restructuring of the NCAA whether that means that there will be NCAA DI -- DIV or whether they will leave the labels the same adjust from there. That's just another reason that eventually UND will "move up" and maybe a reason why some of those schools not meeting crowd size requirements may "move down" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aff Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 "It's not a pretty picture," he said. "I don't think we could all of the sudden shift $3 or $4 million into athletics, so we'd probably either cut sports or play as poor competitors in some. Man, with quotes like that I'm sure the big sky presidents are calling around trying to make sure that UND is in the sky. Whats your president thinking saying stuff like that in an NCAA magazine that I'm sure the big sky presidents all read? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 Man, with quotes like that I'm sure the big sky presidents are calling around trying to make sure that UND is in the sky. Whats your president thinking saying stuff like that in an NCAA magazine that I'm sure the big sky presidents all read? I'd say he's being honest about the true cost of athletics. I've said all along that the cost is the primary concern. Didn't both Montana and Montana State run million-dollar red-ink athletic budgets recently? Didn't NDSU admit that they started this fiscal year with projected revenues nearly a million dollars short of known expenses? Kupchella's saying to do it right, the UND way (winning), he'll need that much. Guess what. He's probably right. Here's what else he's said recently: He said such a move would require a $70 million endowment in order to generate $3 million annually in new funding to pay for the athletic program. He sounds like a man who wants to know he'll be able to pay the bill before he orders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 He sounds like a man who wants to know he'll be able to pay the bill before he orders. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What kind of crazy thinking is that? Sounds like he needs to enroll in the SmokeyJoe Chapman Accounting and Management School (SCAMS-101). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonguy Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I'd say he's being honest about the true cost of athletics. I've said all along that the cost is the primary concern. Didn't both Montana and Montana State run million-dollar red-ink athletic budgets recently? Didn't NDSU admit that they started this fiscal year with projected revenues nearly a million dollars short of known expenses? Kupchella's saying to do it right, the UND way (winning), he'll need that much. Guess what. He's probably right. Here's what else he's said recently: He sounds like a man who wants to know he'll be able to pay the bill before he orders. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whether or not Kupchella's numbers are worth anything, however, is another matter : From:http://www.UND.edu/president/html/stateofu/stateofu04.html We Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I think UND was talking only about science and engineering (the only two where expensive technology plays an important part of research) while NDSU was talking about all programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonguy Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 I think UND was talking only about science and engineering (the only two where expensive technology plays an important part of research) while NDSU was talking about all programs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> NDSU does not have over $20 MM in non-science or engineering grants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.