2004 D2 scholarship reductions?

[bisonguy]

For those that haven't seen it yet, it looks like there will be a vote to reduce scholarships next year in D2. 2003 NCAA D2 legislation

Proposal 39 :Resolution -- Financial Aid -- Maximum Institutional Grant-in-Aid Limitations

Approved.

Looks like tough times may lay ahead in D2

[jimdahl]

It does seem to be a question not of "if" but rather "how much". The long slide in D-II continues...

[The Sicatoka]

There are some interesting comments on DII from the new NCAA president Miles Brand.

Brand consistently complimented Division II for its development and execution of a strategic plan and for reform actions relating to academics and amateurism. "Division II seems to have its act together," Brand told the Management Council.

[bisonguy]

The topic is revisited- NCAA D2 scholarship reduction

Looks like the PSAC and NSIC are the driving forces. I was suprised to see a MIAA team support a reduction in scholarships, though.

A couple interesting quotes:

Division II right now is so proud of the balance between academics and athletics," said Roger Thomas, athletics director at the University of North Dakota, which is widely regarded as one of the primary "haves." "We're trying to do that and still put out a good product that people will want to come and see. To me, the scholarship thing, it's kind of like an investment that pays us back dividends if we recruit the right kind of kids and get them to graduate. If we diminish that, it just diminishes the whole thing."

As for competitive parity, Thomas said that the question isn't as easy as it seems. He said that North Dakota, because of its extremely remote nature, needs the 36 grants more than do programs that are located in more densely populated football hotbeds.

"Scholarships in this area of the country are critical moreso than recruiting because we're so sparsely populated," he said. "The population of our state is diminishing, our high-school graduate numbers are declining, and we've got to go further to find talent to convince those kids to attend our school and to play. And you have to help them. That's why the scholarship piece is a real life-blood for the schools that are out here in the tundra."

Thomas said that North Dakota likely would reallocate the money as well, possibly using it for scholarships for the school's nascent Division I women's ice hockey program.

To that, however, Thomas added a note that confirms the importance of the issue.

"We're building a women's ice hockey program at the Division I level, and we're building scholarships there, so we might reallocate the funds there," he said. "But it also might tip the balance because we're surrounded by the schools that are looking at Division I-AA football. And that's one of their big complaints, that this type of philosophy in Division II causes them to look at something that's more competitive. In their eyes, (Division II) is sliding more to the Division III, NAIA nonscholarship type of thing."

Division II members North Dakota State and South Dakota State Universities have said they will join I-AA, along with the University of Northern Colorado.

Many in Division II would say those schools are going exactly where they belong -- that their programs are vastly oversized compared to the rank-and-file of the division.

Lockrem's conference voted for the study even though it has no predetermined position on reducing football scholarships. He believes administrators should put aside short-term issues and look far into the future, especially when it comes to divisional classification.

"Administrators should have a long-term vision of what they really want their institution to be," he said. "With North Dakota State, they went through this athletically and also academically and they thought that being a Division I institution would fit more in their vision of what they want to be 50 years from now.

"And I think that's really the burning question: 'What do you want to be 50 years from now?' "

As Division II institutions consider that long-term question, it's a safe bet that they will have a few more financial aid studies to guide them along the way.

[tony]

Sicatoka, yeah Kupchella got ripped for saying that DII doens't have the problems that DI has because it's stupid thing to say. That Brand is trotting that same tired old horse out just raises more questions in my mind about DII's leadership. DII has lower graduation rates, lower academic standards, virtually no standards on professionalism except that you can't have an agent, and has just as many problems with athletes as DI - except nobody gives a rat's ass. Heck, there was one DII school that had multiple athletes murdered within the last year. Two other schools I know of had athletes running drugs. If Nebraska players got into two separate bar fights, that would maked national news. If it happens in Grand Forks, nobody is going to care. Face it, DII is the new NAIA - except the NAIA never claimed to be holier than everybody else.

If you really think that Kupchella and Brand are right, stay in DII - don't let NDSU force you into giving up your virtue.

Scholarships are going to get slashed in football. Furthermore, it is my prediction is that UND will provide no leadership in maintaining 36. For better or worse, NDSU is like the USA in its approach to problems. UND is like France.

[The Sicatoka]

tony:

Yeah, you could look at it that way. You could also look at it that NDSU gave up before the last fight, when it didn't get its way, and UND is trying one last push for a "diplomatic" solution to salvage DII. It's all in how we choose to spin it. Rather than wasting effort spinning, let's look at what was said. I think you'll like that because it will vindicate a great deal of what you have postulated.

Note carefully Roger Thomas' words:

"We're building a women's ice hockey program at the Division I level, and we're building scholarships there, so we might reallocate the funds there," he (Thomas) said. "But it (further reductions) also might tip the balance because we're surrounded by the schools that are looking at Division I-AA football.

That, I believe, is the first sign that UND is quietly considering breaking away from DII and assuming a DI(AA) path. Combine those words, the current reductions under consideration, and the hockey conference fiasco that was discussed here earlier this winter, and I can see where at least considering it has to come into play.

UND is one letter (and two faxes of it) away from being in its provisionary year (2003-2004 season) similar to NDSU. They have until late August. It should be an interesting summer. On that I'm sure you'll agree.

Let me ask you about this:

That Brand is trotting that same tired old horse out just raises more questions in my mind about DII's leadership.

Mr. Brand (the former Indiana president who fired Bob Knight) is the president of the NCAA, all of it. I'm not sure how you connect his statement with DII leadership. Could you expand on that? I don't want to read something into your statement that isn't there. Thanks.

One last thought (and I know tony hates weasel-words) but let me go back to President Kupchella's position paper once again:

If NCAA rules were to become less mercenary and more educationally rational; if the rapid escalation of the cost of Division I sports were to be reversed somehow; if the restrictions on schools making the move were made less severe; or if very many NCC schools make the move to D-I; then we could well give it some extra consideration.

[tony]

Sorry, Brand's remarks are even more stupid than Kupchella's then. He was aiming his remarks to DII's leadership who purr like little kitties whenever they get the least bit of stroking.

Those remarks you quoted from Thomas illustrate UND's lack of leadership very well. "If this and that and the other thing, we *might* get off our asses and do something but don't count on us providing any opposition to the further dliution of DII because we could use some more money for women's hockey."

You talk of a diplomatic solution - what is the best that you're hoping for? Scholarships are going to get cut next year and more weak, tiny schools are going to join DII. NDSU, and anybody with an ounce of sense, could see this a mile off. UND is going to wait for the inevitable to happen and then react to it. That's not admirable - that's ridiculous. Guys like you are going to keep saying that NDSU is rushing headlong into something without waiting to see what is going to happen (rushing for the last 20 years).

NDSU fought scholarship recuctions to 40. NDSU fought scholarship reductions to 36. NDSU fought the first try at 30 and won. There is no way that they'd be able to stop it this time - meanwhile, you are acting like UND should be shocked and saddened by another round of scholarship reductions. Shocked because you didn't see that it was a 100% certainty? Saddened because your leadership scuttled the last, best chance for a DI NCC?

[The Sicatoka]

Those remarks you quoted from Thomas illustrate UND's lack of leadership very well. "If this and that and the other thing, we *might* get off our asses and do something but don't count on us providing any opposition to the further dliution of DII because we could use some more money for women's hockey."

Those remarks could also be spun (as you are spinning) as, "We hope that DII realizes what it is doing to itself and stops. We'll point it out one last time and try to convince them to stop." Spinning that as lack of leadership would be just as easy as spinning NDSU's approach as being quitters (on a long, past positive relationship) when they don't get their way. I'm tired of spin.

You chose to ignore the Thomas statement that is the first sign of softening on the issue by any official of UND, namely, "But it (further reductions) also might tip the balance because we're surrounded by the schools that are looking at Division I-AA football" When he says "tip the balance" what do you think he means?

You talk of a diplomatic solution - what is the best that you're hoping for? Scholarships are going to get cut next year and more weak, tiny schools are going to join DII. NDSU, and anybody with an ounce of sense, could see this a mile off. UND is going to wait for the inevitable to happen and then react to it. That's not admirable - that's ridiculous.

What is dishonorable about making an attempt to salvage something that has worked in the past? Back to the "diplomacy" analogy, don't you keep talking and trying until it is rock-solid sure that nothing else will work? Until a vote happens it's not inevitable.

NDSU fought scholarship recuctions to 40. NDSU fought scholarship reductions to 36. NDSU fought the first try at 30 and won. There is no way that they'd be able to stop it this time - meanwhile, you are acting like UND should be shocked and saddened by another round of scholarship reductions.

UND should be saddened (not shocked because of history) if it happens, because they tried to make another case and no one listened.

Shocked because you didn't see that it was a 100% certainty? Saddened because your leadership scuttled the last, best chance for a DI NCC?

It's not certain until the vote happens. (However, I'd bet the same way you'd bet. I hope you're not surprised.)

Claiming UND's leadership "scuttled" the effort is spin. Do you believe a DI(AA) NCC was realistic, UND taking the position they did or not? The enthusiastic, fond of the NCC and nostalgia, side of me believes it would be possible and a good thing. The pragmatic side of me crashes me to reality, namely because ....

Most of the NCC just can not afford a move to DIAA. USD took its stance, without having DI hockey, because of budget concerns. (Yes, SDSU took a different stance.) Augustana? See USD. Minnesota (the state) is running a $4,200,000,000.00 budget deficit and is cutting higher ed funding. Where can SCSU, MSU-Mankato, and UM-Duluth find more revenue to fund it? And with Creighton in Omaha and UN-Lincoln just 60 miles away, would the state of Nebraska fund it for UN-Omaha? UNO made statements about going to the MIAC (DII) rather than going IAA.

A "best scenario" from the beginning would have been UNC, NDSU, SDSU, USD, and UND. That's five, and five does not a new conference make. What would be your solution?

[tony]

True, five teams wouldn't make a conference but it's a much better start than anything you can come up with now, isn't it? Besides the likelihood that at least one other NCC team would have stuck with the NCC is at least 100 times more more likely than DII not cutting scholarships or letting 20 or more NAIA teams join up within the next five years. Nobody would force an NCC school to add more scholarships for football, the cost of all other sports and travel remains approximately the same, so an NCC school would basically get DI for the price of DII if they want.

Here's what I don't understand: if further scholarships cuts are reason to go up, then why didn't UND see the writing on the wall last year - or six years ago like every Bison fan I know? What you don't seem to grasp is that scholarship reductions are going to happen because it now makes sense for the majority of DII. You can't finesse your way out of it now because the cuts are coming as a result of letting all those weak conferences get into DII. It's simply too late to do anything about it now except take a good hard look and decide which division you belong in. Maybe I should get off of Thomas's back for not doing anything (but mumbling) because nothing he can do will stop it and further delay probably won't hurt any more - the damage has already been done.

For my own part, I'd rather have NDSU and SDSU go it on their own so I'm only bringing this up to rub your nose in it.

[Bison_Kent]

The Big Sky is not as dead as people once thought for NDSU & SDSU. If UND would have been smart, they would have joined NDSU in forces to join that conference. But if you snooze, you loose. SDSU saw the opening and joined forces with NDSU. WDAY reported that three schools right now favor NDSU & SDSU getting in. Two teams were dead against them and three teams were undecieded.

I am just speculating that Montana, Montana State, and Idaho State are the three in favor of adding the NDSU & SDSU. The two farthest away teams are probably the two against the additions in Northern Arizona and Sacramento St. Weber St., Eastern Washington, and Portland St. are most likely the undecides yet. If these three vote yes, UND will be the one lost in the shuffle due to the idiocity of Roger Thomas. Where are they going to go except stay in the declining D2 or should I say DIII, Class A?

[The Sicatoka]

Maybe we'll just agree to disagree on this: Was it inevitable versus don't you try one more time.

RT has given the signal that DII may make the move to "tip the balance" of UND's mindset (see above). Believe it or not, that would probably work more in NDSU's favor. I know Bison fans don't want to hear this, but UND would probably be a better DI "travel partner" for NDSU (versus SDSU). Logistics in and out of Grand Forks are better than those in Brookings (having to go through Sioux Falls). That matters to outside conferences. Being able to show outside conferences certain facilities in Grand Forks versus Brookings would matter as well.

Conference? Who knows. Maybe Big Sky wants to go to 12 teams so it could split east/west. All we are doing is speculating. Based on articles in papers however, BSC seems interested in seeing if the NCAA is going to push Idaho back down to IAA (because of FB attendance criteria). They also seemed more interested in UCD (because of SacSt). UNC would be logical as would Southern Utah, based on geography (maybe not logistics).

I know the BSC didn't flat out say "no" to NDSU and SDSU but they told them to "explore other options." That, to me, almost reads as a polite way of saying the same thing.

Bison Kent: If I were to guess, I'd guess that the further west the current BSC member is the more against "eastern" (meaning Dakotas) expansion the school is.

And before anyone jumps on me with all of this, yes, I'm still terrified of the vast unknown of money/costs.

[tony]

We can disagree but not on whether further scholarship reductions are going to happen. They're going to happen and I can give you three reasons why: budget shortfalls, influx of smaller schools, and the defection of DII's best football programs. When 70+% of DII schools have under 5000 students and don't fund 36 scholarships, it's unclear to me why anybody would think that scholarship limits are going to remain the same. And in NDSU's case, remaining the same isn't even acceptable - you are probably not aware of that point. 45 scholarships is what NDSU wanted for DII and that's never going to happen.

What we can disagree on is whether UND should move up or not. My feeling: UND should stay in DII and walk their talk.

One final thing: you tend to read behind the lines: Roger Thomas said "he might do something if this and that" doesn't mean squat to me - to you it means UND is already to go DI. Holy cow! The day Roger Thomas makes an unqualified comment about anything is the day that I'll pay attention to what he says. I'd prefer not to guess what people are thinking. They know best, why don't they come out and state it? Same thing with the Big Sky - they ARE looking to expand and that's what that meeting decided. You say they were actually saying that NDSU will never get into the Big Sky. In fact, they did not. They want to see if Idaho will move down and it's becoming clear now that they won't. They've solved their attendance problem by scheduling games on neutrul sites with Pac 10 teams and having it designated a home game - kinda of like NWMSU did this year.

[The Sicatoka]

Roger Thomas said what he said. That's the first thing I've heard any UND official say that wasn't strictly "stay DII." It's worth noting. Does it mean anything? Like I've said, it should be an interesting summer.

The BSC is looking at possible expansion. You're reading into that. And I never said "NDSU will not." I'd give them a chance, but others have better chances. (It's travel that is the sticking point.)

Idaho may have solved the current problem, but the NCAA is looking at defining a home game more closely to prevent Wyoming from playing a home game in Memphis again. This would most likely affect Idaho's plan as well.

A specific definition of home contest will be included in proposed legislation ....

[Bison_Kent]

The meeting in February was a meeting of Big Sky athletic directors and presidents. It is the presidents of each university that decide on the expansion of the league. I do agree that if UND & NDSU were looking together instead of SDSU, but UND wasn't interested. It takes a 2/3rds majority to get into the Big Sky which means 6 of the 8 need to vote yes. With 3 already in favor of SDSU & NDSU getting in, it will require getting 3 of 5 to say yes. NDSU & SDSU are like Portland St. and Sacramento St. These two schools were former Division II schools that the Big Sky added approx. 10 years ago. At that time, I am sure Montana and Montana St. didn't want these schools for travel reasons for themselves. Since it is likely Montana and Montana St. voted to let them in to the conference , it is likely their influence can be heard in these newer members. The two newer members have not really been the great additions like the Big Sky had hoped. They wanted to expand to larger metro areas and choose these two schools. Also, with President Chapman's Montana St. influence, I think will lead to the changing of the minds of some of these schools. It might be let these two schools and you can remain. If not, we might vote you out.

I wish UND would have said yes to I-AA when NDSU need. It might have helped both parties. But UND stated that they wanted to be in DII and stay there.

Time will tell when and if NDSU gets into the Big Sky. But it is for sure will be without UND. I don't think there will be a 12 team league. It is just to hard to schedule that in a playoff Division. There would need to be a championship game between the two halves and I don't think that will happen. This may give one team a week off before the playoffs begin if the top two teams are from the same half. It would be unfair to that team and to the team that would go to the championship game.

I think Idaho wrote its own fate when they left the Big Sky. Most university presidents would not want them back. They left once. What makes them think they might not try to leave again after getting a 10 year winning steak in I-AA? They did it once, most likely they will do it again.

Travel is becoming a minor issue. Most teams have to fly to the others in the league anyway with the exception of Montana to Montana St. and Montana to E. Washington (there may be one or two others that are close enough to drive, I'm not sure). When you can go to two teams with one trip, I don't see the problems. Of course, this leads UND and NDSU back to a better travel relationship but SDSU isn't terrible. I think it is a 3 hour drive from Fargo to Brookings. The major issue that the Big Sky is going to look at is attendance and money. Will adding NDSU & SDSU, add to the overall money coming into the conference? If you look at attendance of both schools in both football and basketball, the answer is yes. NDSU would rank in the top 20 in football if the attendance would be the same as last year. SDSU would be in the top 20 (of the I-AA teams) in basketball in the country. NDSU & SDSU would most likely out rank half the current Big Sky in money generated.

The issue of Southern Utah and Northern Colorado would gain the Big Sky little in attendance and notarity. Fargo is a large city that also supports its university. Brookings is smaller but there is much support there as well and Sioux Falls is very close.

Sorry for being so long but I thought I would make several points in one message.

[star2city]

The issue of Southern Utah and Northern Colorado would gain the Big Sky little in attendance and notarity. Fargo is a large city that also supports its university. Brookings is smaller but there is much support there as well and Sioux Falls is very close.

Big Sky Officials will always be in denial about this, but they seek expanded media coverage in cities such as Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Denver. The media market they want coverage in, more than any other market, is Denver. To them, a two paragraph story on the seventh page of the Denver Post sports section is worth much more than headlines in the Fargo Forum or Grand Forks Herald. So, in spite of UNC having absolutely pathetic attendance at any other event other than football, Big Sky Conference officials and presidents crave the minor coverage that Denver media would bring if UNC joined. Is it any coincidence that UNC has not been forward in pursuing the Big Sky? There is a certain benefit to UNC in being coy about their real desires, as they are being patient, playing hard-to-get, not over-extending their bargaining position, and not appearing desperate.

[star2city]

Getting this thread back to the topic.

This quotation from Roger Thomas seems to have been ignored in the above debate:

Since the division is in a mood to study, Thomas suggested that it put different alternatives on the table.

"I would hope someday that there might be more freedom for people to choose levels," he said, referring to a high-scholarship/low-scholarship football classification split. "I know the NCAA doesn't want to go out and create a bunch of new levels -- there's already a bunch -- but we should see if we're meeting the needs of the schools.

"It's certainly happened before when we created levels in the first place. If we're reviewing scholarships, I don't think it's out of the question to look at all of the angles."

To me, what Roger Thomas is advocating is a splitting of Div-II much along the lines that Div-I is already split. For example:

Div-II-A : Allow 40-45 football scholarships

Div-II-AA: Allow 15-20 football scholarships

Div-II-AAA: For non-football playing Div II schools

Take the 24 team playoff, split it in half, and have 12 teams in Div-II-A and Div-II-AA playoffs. Div. I would probably even kick in additional money just to keep Div II teams in Div II. Everybody is happy, as each institution can more naturally find the level of play best suited to their own needs. A similar structure already exists in Div I to separate the Davids from the Goliaths, why not in Div II?

[bisonguy]

Star2City,

How many current D2 teams could or would want to fund 40+ scholarships? Most of those that could have already moved to DIAA(See NDSU). This "DIIA"

division might have twenty teams. Over half the division making the playoffs? Sounds like hockey to me (to clarify-that's a nudge-nudge, wink-wink smilie- it's been confused on this board before). If there are over twenty teams, it's likely they wouldn't be funding the full amount and many would try to lower the limit. DI kicking in money to keep teams in DII? That's hilarious. All DI would do is make more restrictions on admission and make teams meet certain criteria to ward off any mass exodus of DII into DI. The closest thing I could see to what you're suggesting is a DIIA of approx. 30 scholarships, and a DIIAA of approx. 10 scholarships. Your limits are way too high to work.

[UND92,96]

Let me preface this by saying that I realize that it will almost certainly not happen, but has there ever been any effort to add I-AA football to the list of sports which allow predominantly division II and III schools to "opt up," i.e. hockey, wrestling and the like? Unlike basketball and BCS-level football, there's no pot of gold to split amongst its members in I-AA football, so money probably wouldn't be the prohibitive factor from the perspective of existing I-AA football schools. In fact, some may welcome the additional programs for scheduling reasons. On the other hand, many others would probably resist due to added competition, among other reasons. And whether it is worth it to the NCAA and/or the existing I-AA football schools to make this change considering how few schools would probably be interested in moving up is another question.

It would seem to me that allowing the "opt up"--assuming it is coupled with assurances that the program would be fully funded-- would be more cost-effective from the NCAA's perspective than adding sub-divisions to division II.

[star2city]

How many current D2 teams could or would want to fund 40+ scholarships? Most of those that could have already moved to DIAA(See NDSU). This "DIIA"

division might have twenty teams. Over half the division making the playoffs? Sounds like hockey to me (to clarify-that's a nudge-nudge, wink-wink smilie- it's been confused on this board before).

There are over 150 Div II football teams in 2003. The following Div II 'power' conferences would almost certainly be in favor of retaining high scholarships:

Gulf South Conference (12 schools)

Lone Star Conference (13)

Mid-America Conference (10)

North Central Conference (8)

South Atlantic Conference (8)

Great Lakes Conference (11)

They are not a majority, but neither are the Big Six conferences within Division I. If these six conferences are the rule-makers in a Div-II-A, 40-45 scholarships would not be out of the question.

[The Sicatoka]

Some interesting words from NCAA press releases:

May 25, 2001

The Oversight Committee .... consider adding recommendations for enhancements for participation in Division I-AA.

The other models considered were those that would:

delete subdivision titles within Division I;

maintain current requirements;

create a new all-sports division within the NCAA;

eliminate classifications within Divisions I and II football to allow formation of alliances among schools and conferences that have similar philosophies;

and add a third subdivision for football (I-AAA) and fourth subdivision for universities that do not sponsor football (I-AAA).

July 24, 2001

The Division I-AA Football Governance Committee, also in a report to the Council, said its preference would be to eliminate subdivision titles within Division I.

[bisonguy]

Sicatoka,

I would be lead to believe the delete subdivisions would mean to have a DI, DII, DIII, and DIV. They would be defined as follows: DI would be DI, current DIAA would be DII, current DII would become DIII, and DII would become DIV. Maintaining current requirements sounds like what the NCAA would want to do(nothing). btw- it is 2003, isn't it?

Star2City,

Here's a little bit from the 1998 voting from -LINK

The day's most debated measure was Proposal No. 6, in which sponsoring institutions sought to decrease the permissible number of football scholarships in Division II from the equivalent of 36 scholarships to 30.

The vote defeating the proposal, 75-61 with six abstentions, mirrored the results of a survey early last year by the Division II Financial Aid Transition team, in which a majority of respondents said they preferred no change in equivalency limits but 40 percent of respondents expressed support for cutting football scholarships to 30.

As a result of that survey, the Division II Management Council declined to seek any change in the football scholarship limit, but member institutions subsequently proposed the cut.

Supporters of the cut, led by Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference Commissioner Thomas R. Wistricil, noted another project team survey finding -- that 60 percent of Division II schools currently offer 30 or fewer scholarships- and suggested that adoption of the proposal would permit reallocation of funds to women's athletics for achieving gender equity.

I don't think the "power" conferences in D2 are unanimously in favor of not reducing scholarships. Here's a quote from the second place team from one of the top "power" conferences-

I could take those six scholarships (if the limit was cut from 36 to 30), anywhere from $60,000 to $75,000, and I could put them into upgrades for the football program," said Jerry Hughes, athletics director at Central Missouri State University. "I don't think it affects what kids you get. It just affects the amount of money each kids gets so that the parents end up paying more."

Now, what do you think the mediocre teams and bottom-feeders of these "power" conferences want to do? Do you think Augustana would want to raise scholarships? The vote in 1998 was VERY close. With the influx of smaller D2 schools and conferences like the NSIC, PSAC, and RMAC, I doubt the vote will be as close as it was last time(and definitely not the same result).

[The Sicatoka]

bisonguy: I know the date. I was doing some looking though what the NCAA was up to. Those were some eyecatching words no matter the date.

My conclusion after reading some past issues of NCAA news? The NCAA has no idea what it is doing.

[jimdahl]

There's a certain irony here that we've talked about before, but it bears repeating in this thread. We all agree that D-II is getting watered down by a bunch of lower-level schools moving up. Well, guess what? As the big D-II schools continue to flee to D-IAA, we're starting to upset big D-I schools by watering down their division. When D-IAA was formed, the financial incentives for lesser schools jumping to D-I were a very small fraction of what they are today. Now, D-II schools jumping to D-IAA eats directly into the big D-I schools' tv contract payouts.

We know that the top D-IA schools are looking for solutions, as Sicatoka has pointed out. Unlike D-II, in which the lower schools can dominate the debate by sheer number of votes, the big D-I schools will dominate this debate because they generate all of the NCAA's revenue.

Announcing "we're D-IAA now" doesn't make UND or NDSU have better athletics departments. D-II is becoming what D-III used to be. D-IAA is absorbing all of the old D-II powers and has scholarship limits similar to the old days of D-II. The divisions can have whatever names makes people happy, but as it all shakes out, NDSU/UND-like schools will continue to be in the 2nd division. Whether it's called D-IAA or D-II doesn't really matter much. The question is whether they'll fix the system so that schools can continue to play with similar schools in the future without having to climb into a newly formed division every 20 years.

I honestly believe that hard, enforced attendance requirements to determine divisions are coming. If not, I'm sure they'll come up with some other mechanism to address the problem of everyone wanting a piece of the D-I money pie.

[jimdahl]

One other point I should make is that the "division 2" group in which I think UND and NDSU belong is the group of schools currently classified D-IAA. UND and NDSU should probably have both been D-IAA from the division's inception, but geographic considerations prevented it. My understanding is that schools like UND and NDSU in other parts of the country joined D-IAA immediately because they were surrounded by other D-IAA schools. We were surrounded by powerful D-II schools, so stayed in D-II.

As athletics revenues have skyrocketed and travel costs fallen, it seems like we will eventually end up back with that group of schools that are, frankly, much more similar to UND and NDSU than the average D-II institution today.

[Bison_Kent]

You are right about why UND & NDSU stayed in D2. When I-AA began in the late 1970s, there was talks back then to have the schools added but there wasn't a conference in the close proximity. If I am not mistaken, there was talk back then to be added in the Big Sky. Both schools thought it was better at the time to stay in DII. Probably back then, it was. It allowed both schools to build championships in DII and both have increased athletic revenues, as well as student populations. Both schools are different then the were in the 1970s.

I agree with adding a new division. It seems like about half of the current DII can afford 36 scholorships. The other half would rather half that number. There is no middle ground. DIII allows no scholorships for football. However, I believe SDSU, UND & NDSU belong in DI-AA. They have the facilities right now, the revenue, and the fan support to be in this division.