The Sicatoka Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 The most important development in the last week, I believe, remains the recent statements by the man considered the most influential man in college athletics, namely NCAA president Dr. Miles Brand. He says it might be time to restructure football within the NCAA framework. "I have heard that the outcome of the vote on Proposal No. 28 (the DII scholarship reduction from 36 to 24) may prompt some institutions to consider leaving Division II. If the proposal is approved, I understand that larger programs might contemplate moving to Division I-AA; if it fails, smaller programs might reclassify to Division III or give up football," Brand said. "I hope that our Division II membership can pause and take the time to be wise in the wake of this vote. Indeed, I hope we can regard this vote as a starting point for creative discussion about how we are to deal with the different levels of football, not only within Division II, but also within Divisions I-AA and III. "If we have issues about how football fits within each division - and I see abundant evidence to that effect - then we must ask whether an overall better structure can be devised. "Too many athletics programs are over-reaching in terms of classification based on how they view a single sport: football. Too often, the victims of this over-reach are the student-athletes and coaches from women's and men's nonrevenue sports. Have we arrived at a time when we need to examine whether football classification should be viewed differently from membership classification in general? That is an immensely challenging question, but we should not be afraid to ask it." OK, let's devise that better structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donalexander Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 I think you can start with allowing schools to remain at the Division II level in all sports except football, which would then move up to the I-AA level. If Division I schools can play down a level in football, then other schools should be allowed to play up a level if they are financially able to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbo Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 thats a great idea but if they would do this they should do it asap, i was listening and reading local and national sports stories and they have all sadi on the d2 issue is that there could be up to 20-30 schools trying to go d1aa if this scholarship redux happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RD17 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I see two big problems with allowing Division II schools to play in I-AA for football. First of all, most Division II schools that can support 36 scholarships and would be interested in I-AA football are also maxed out on their scholarship money for the women's sports they carry. If a school wants to play I-AA in football and add 27 scholarships, where are the requisite scholarships in the women's sports going to come from? The only option would be to take scholarship money away from the non-revenue men's teams or add more women's sports. I just don't see how very many [i-AA football/Division II for other sports] schools would be able to support anywhere close to 63 scholarships. The other issue is the NCAA's federated structure. Division I, II, and III operate basically as separate entities. The three divisions vote on their own rules and any time you have schools operating their athletic programs across divisions, problems are inevitably going to arise. Example: What happens if a kid gets into a school on a D2 track scholarship because he couldn't qualify at a D1 school. The kid then decides he wants to play (I-AA) football. Is that allowed? There are all sorts of examples like that I can think of. And I do realize that obviously UND plays D1 hockey as a D2 school, but the reason that works is because many of the regulations were grandfathered in or adjusted to be made to work. Football would be a whole different can of worms if you allowed schools to play that sport in a different division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Would it ever be possible for football to NOT be a part of the NCAA? I'm thinking of the BCS schools here. But could this also be a way around Title IX? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 Title IX is Federal law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Title IX is Federal law. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There you go again with those semantic tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I thought Semantics was a dance class at NDSU!?!?!?!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Would it ever be possible for football to NOT be a part of the NCAA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansel Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Didn't Lincoln (MO) play NAIA football for a while, while being D2 in the rest of their sports? NAIA = 24 scholies Sounds like a solution for the PSAC and RMAC crybabies, if it can be done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 I tossed an idea out in the past. I could probably shoot it to ribbons today and some problems with it have already uncovered above. Just the same let's look back at it. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawkota Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Why can't student-athlete eligibility requirements be uniform across all NCAA divisions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 Why can't student-athlete eligibility requirements be uniform across all NCAA divisions? Good question. If the NCAA actually enters this realm, why assume anything (like I did with staggered standards)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan01234 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 A very easy way to do it would be to get rid of all scholarships in the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 A very easy way to do it would be to get rid of all scholarships in the NCAA. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now thats just crazy talk!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan01234 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Now thats just crazy talk!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> DIII seems to get along ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 What is the date of the upcoming NCAA meeting when they will discuss reducing DII scholarships? That's this month isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RD17 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 What is the date of the upcoming NCAA meeting when they will discuss reducing DII scholarships? That's this month isn't it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The vote will be next Monday, January 10th. From everything I've been hearing, the measure to reduce scholarships will not pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 DIII seems to get along ok. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats D3, where they not looking to go pro and the college is a lot cheaper to pay for anyways. Can you just imagine how well that would go over with those REAL D1 schools. You know, Miami, Auburn, Michigan, UCLA, Texas. Could you just imagine how well no scholorships would go over at those schools?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan01234 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Thats D3, where they not looking to go pro and the college is a lot cheaper to pay for anyways. Can you just imagine how well that would go over with those REAL D1 schools. You know, Miami, Auburn, Michigan, UCLA, Texas. Could you just imagine how well no scholorships would go over at those schools?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The typical D3 school is small and private which means tuition is very expensive. I doubt D2 or DIaa players should expect much of a look from pro scourts either. I can imagine that players at high profile schools would qualify for federal aid and school sponsered scholarships. They'd want to play for the best coaches at the best facilities and get the best possible preperation for the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The problem with having each sport at an institution play at an arbitrary level is that everyone (schools, NCAA, fans) likes multi-sport conferences, which require schools to have an overall level. However, the new NCC commissioner's proposal of just having different classification for football is being discussed in the NCAA: Roger Thomas... provided a rationale supporting a number of Association-wide football "alliances" whose membership would be determined by the number of grants-in-aid the football programs provide rather than by an institution's overall division classification. That would result in new "alliances" that contain former IAA's and II's, sorted by football scholarships instead of geography/level of other sports. Since a lot of people here think a IAA transition would be suicide for all sports but football (I still claim it would be good for basketball also, but that's about it), this solution would mitigate that problem. I wouldn't hold your breath on this exact proposal, but its nice to see the NCAA continuing to discuss the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 Clearly it's being discussed by the NCAA and at the DI level: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/foo...ternative_x.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Clearly it's being discussed by the NCAA and at the DI level: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/foo...ternative_x.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It seems to me there are two different discussions going on. One is the removal of the current I-A and I-AA designations. This would result in a Bowl Championship Series and Playoff Championship Series. The BCS would of course consist of the current BCS conferences and maybe a few other teams. The PCS would consist of most of the current I-AA teams and a handful of teams that currently play I-A. I don't think this would affect DII at all. The second discussion centers on allowing DII teams to play football at the I-AA level. From my understanding, those would be the only divisions involved in the restructuring. I think the first proposal has a better chance of passing than the second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 But the discussions are happening at all levels. And when it comes to the NCAA who knows what will come out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FargoBison Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Clearly it's being discussed by the NCAA and at the DI level: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/foo...ternative_x.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I posted this on the other thread, but I think it fits better over here since it is what I think will happen if this proposel is to happen. D1 would break into the BCS(85-64 scholarships) and PCS(63-0). The BCS division would most likely break off into 12 team superconferences and the Big East would break off from the basketball only teams, leaving only schools wanting to play BCS football behind. The rest of the former BCS schools would then join up with the IAA schools and play in a 16 team playoff format. The IAA non-scholarship schools may also be able to move down to play in D2. And since the Big East would break apart the basketball only teams would then probaby raid the A-10 and MVC and start a new conference, those confernces then would raid the Mid-Con and Horizen leaving openings for NDSU, SDSU, and maybe a few D2 schools. But those D2 schools would have to act fast because if you missed the boat on getting into D1 then it would likely be gone forever. And all this could occur just so the BCS presidents can say that they have a D1 playoff format for football. I'm pretty sure most DIAA schools will agree to and probably even like this plan. IAA has an image crisis and is veiwed as being D2 some people. This would also make scheduling easier between IAA and IA teams since IA teams would likely face no penalty for playing the IAA schools since they would be just D1. This makes sense for both D1 and IAA. 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.