(08-14-2014 11:21 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:18 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Most of the schools of the original CFA are the ones now in the power conferences, and they are the ones with the mega TV deals, as PTNC so blithely put it. In time, some schools will elevate themselves, and some may descend. But the process will be much more difficult, which is what the larger schools want. Division 1 is too large.

Division 1 needs a redefinition IMO. Any school that wants to be Division 1 should play all the major sports at the highest level. If they aren't able to commit to that, they shouldn't be in Division 1 in any sport.

What do you consider to be major sports?

Good question for another whiny fan who thinks things revolve around him.

Several years ago when the MAC board was on sportsonly, there was another ignorant fan WVUChad. He too was easily confused by the facts that contradicted his solipsism.

(08-14-2014 01:08 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:21 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:18 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Most of the schools of the original CFA are the ones now in the power conferences, and they are the ones with the mega TV deals, as PTNC so blithely put it. In time, some schools will elevate themselves, and some may descend. But the process will be much more difficult, which is what the larger schools want. Division 1 is too large.

Division 1 needs a redefinition IMO. Any school that wants to be Division 1 should play all the major sports at the highest level. If they aren't able to commit to that, they shouldn't be in Division 1 in any sport.

What do you consider to be major sports?

Good question for another whiny fan who thinks things revolve around him.

Several years ago when the MAC board was on sportsonly, there was another ignorant fan WVUChad. He too was easily confused by the facts that contradicted his solipsism.

The major sports are football and basketball, since those are the sports that have funded every atheltic department in the nation for decades. But both should be played at the Division 1 level - or neither should be. No more Division 1AA, or FCS, if you prefer, where schools play one sport at one level, and another sport at another level. No more schools that don't support both sports at the Division 1 level being allowed to play one at the Division 1 level. No more should we have 200 more Division 1 schools playing basketball than football. If they don't play Division 1 football, they shouldn't be allowed to play Division 1 basketball, or any other sport at the Division 1 level.

You could add baseball, since it's called America's sport, and soccer, considering the rising popularity of soccer in the US, and it's popularity worldwide, if you like. But if a school doesn't play football and basketball at the Division 1 level, then they have no business playing any sport at that level. If baseball and soccer are added to the criteria, it would be the same if a school didn't support all 4 sports. Although IMO football and basketball are the only ones needed, since they are the major source of funding for all athletic departments.

As for your complaints about my sentiments, I hear and ignore. This is my opinion on the matter. You don't have to agree with it. I could care less either way.

Quote:But the process will be much more difficult, which is what the larger schools want. Division 1 is too large.

You could say that. However, you'll take national champs or champ-contenders of hockey out of D1 because they're not "good enough" in football? Oh, Butler? Sorry dude, you're out.

I like the concept of DIAA for football. One shouldn't kick a college out of D1 if say, they have a great D1 BBall & Hockey team, but oh -- sorry, it's just about football -- you're D1AA... or to this discussion, you're a low-end mid-major. I don't think College Sports Divisions should be based on football-only, in which everything follows.

Problem with the P5/BCS Conferences being the ONLY D1 -- or making it so they don't play mid-majors (automatically makes another sub-division in D1 for mid-majors) -- is that the "underdogs" are going to be Indiana, Wake Forrest, etc in football. If you freeze-frame now: No Boise State, no NIU, no CUSA champ, etc as a big mid-major to crash the parties and be the underdog winner to take out a big team early in season or in a big bowl. You ELIMINATE that.

Plus, you'd basically cut D1 football in HALF. And exposure & interest in the mid-major programs? Down. People would rather go to Indiana to play football than Boise, NIU, Central Florida, San Diego State, etc., where they'd otherwise usually think "maybe" at most to Indiana if they didn't grow up there.

OOOH, so it'd make the Indiana, Wake Forrest, and other bottom-BCS-Conf teams better? Yeah, about 5 years later, yeah it would.

Although it wouldn't be AS bad -- a good analogy would be if you split D1 basketball into different divisions with just the BCS Conferences (+ a few good mid-major conferences) -- and made THAT the 'real' D1 division in which the NCAA Tourney would be held. No real underdogs. The tourney would be shrunk to 32, due to "only quality conferences".

I think what makes college sports more fruitful & deep than NBA/NFL in many ways -- is that it's not just compacted into a few conferences -- it's spread out more... where you have true Cinderellas emerging, etc.

Eventually the money difference will do the same thing I just proposed. But it will be a lingering death for some schools. I don't see the difference between the 2, except for the time involved. I prefer a clean break.

And I don't propose making the P5 schools the only ones in Division 1. The other Division 1 football conference schools would still qualify. But the schools that don't play Division 1 football, like FCS schools, and schools that don't field football teams, would be out. That includes Butler, Gonzaga, Georgetown, Villanova, and other such schools.

Georgetown and Villanova could have avoided this at one time. They were offered the opportunity to upgrade their football programs, with automatic inclusion in Big East football, after a short probationary period. But they decided not to go that route, and Big East football died as a result. So they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Even if my proposal isn't ever going to happen, it will eventually anyway. The money will see to that. The schools that don't have big time football programs won't be able to compete long term with the schools that do, and it will sort everything out in the end.

(08-08-2014 09:06 AM)BlazerJoe Wrote:  The "Power 5" may as well call themselves Division 1, the rest of what used to be Division 1-A should be...well...Division 1-A, and change that ridiculous FCS moniker back to Division 1-AA.

no, they may as well call themselves the NFL minor leagues. and that's what's happening here; the NFL is using this bizarre elitist urge in the NCAA to continue their free talent farm. the big programs are either too stupid or too full of themselves to realize it, but that's what's happening.

each NFL team should be required to claim a former college football team as their farm team. eject all the farm teams from the NCAA, and let the farm teams play only each other. they're happier, we're happier, and college football lives.

(08-14-2014 07:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 01:08 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:21 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:18 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Most of the schools of the original CFA are the ones now in the power conferences, and they are the ones with the mega TV deals, as PTNC so blithely put it. In time, some schools will elevate themselves, and some may descend. But the process will be much more difficult, which is what the larger schools want. Division 1 is too large.

Division 1 needs a redefinition IMO. Any school that wants to be Division 1 should play all the major sports at the highest level. If they aren't able to commit to that, they shouldn't be in Division 1 in any sport.

What do you consider to be major sports?

Good question for another whiny fan who thinks things revolve around him.

Several years ago when the MAC board was on sportsonly, there was another ignorant fan WVUChad. He too was easily confused by the facts that contradicted his solipsism.

The major sports are football and basketball, since those are the sports that have funded every atheltic department in the nation for decades. But both should be played at the Division 1 level - or neither should be. No more Division 1AA, or FCS, if you prefer, where schools play one sport at one level, and another sport at another level. No more schools that don't support both sports at the Division 1 level being allowed to play one at the Division 1 level. No more should we have 200 more Division 1 schools playing basketball than football. If they don't play Division 1 football, they shouldn't be allowed to play Division 1 basketball, or any other sport at the Division 1 level.

You could add baseball, since it's called America's sport, and soccer, considering the rising popularity of soccer in the US, and it's popularity worldwide, if you like. But if a school doesn't play football and basketball at the Division 1 level, then they have no business playing any sport at that level. If baseball and soccer are added to the criteria, it would be the same if a school didn't support all 4 sports. Although IMO football and basketball are the only ones needed, since they are the major source of funding for all athletic departments.

As for your complaints about my sentiments, I hear and ignore. This is my opinion on the matter. You don't have to agree with it. I could care less either way.

Who's complaining? It was just a question. If you're only talking football and basketball, then pretty much all the FBS conferences would still be included. Once you start adding in other sports, then some FBS schools would drop off.

Leave it torchy to whine about my comment, which wasn't whining to begin with. That's why I have him on ignore, one of very few.