The way it is now it seems like it's set up to waste money.
Forcing schools to sponsor unpopular sports.
Also holding back sports that could receive more support from fans.

Take soccer 9.5 scholarships wildly popular among young people.
But a school can sponsor Golf,Tennis and part of a third sport.

Schools are under a lot of pressure so changes will probably happen.
I say change it to total scholarships given .
A compromise could be if under sixteen offer some Varsity non- scholarship.

I think Soccer,Lacrosse and Hockey would benefit.
Schools could choose to keep or even add sports with that option.
A conference like the Summit could have non-scholarship tennis for example.



Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

For one, they need to let football and basketball become semi-pro if they so choose and stop the illusion that they are amateurs. Maybe at a few places it is but that's it.

Second, they need to administer Title IX by scholarship money, not by scholarship number. It's ridiculous that certain men's sports have to be cut to even it out for women's sports. Just make sure the money is even on both sides to promote a diverse sports culture on campus.

Here are your changes! (Note a 10th full time Football assistant has been added, also early signing period in December)

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...onal-bill/

Who do you guys think early signing in football advantages?

I'm not understanding the advantage if its 6 weeks before the normal signing day.

If its done before the senior season yes I see more of an advantage for the players locking in security. Have it May before senior season.

(04-11-2017 03:45 PM)MJG Wrote:  The way it is now it seems like it's set up to waste money.
Forcing schools to sponsor unpopular sports.
Also holding back sports that could receive more support from fans.

Take soccer 9.5 scholarships wildly popular among young people.
But a school can sponsor Golf,Tennis and part of a third sport.

Schools are under a lot of pressure so changes will probably happen.
I say change it to total scholarships given .
A compromise could be if under sixteen offer some Varsity non- scholarship.

I think Soccer,Lacrosse and Hockey would benefit.
Schools could choose to keep or even add sports with that option.
A conference like the Summit could have non-scholarship tennis for example.

Men's sports are hurt disproportionately but the high number of football scholarships.

Cutting FBS to 75 scholarships and adding some for other men's sports like Soccer would be a good start.

This article from SB nation says early signing will help the small schools because of less poaching.

It will also help smaller schools that take non-qualifiers because most P5 can't afford to wait around on late qualifiers. Most G5 take a few with a gamble they can eventually matriculate through a junior college.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...e-football

I say allow schools who have sports in the D1 level, but not a full D1 to move up without a conference invite. Imagine all the hockey schools moving up to D1? These schools could be affiliated their sports to other Conferences. Football schools could be affiliated to MVFC, Big/A-Sun, NEC, and so forth. Schools with basketball could form new conferences respectfully, or join conferences that needs more schools like WAC, Summit, A-Sun, Big South, NEC and so forth. Why? The travel for the schools could get expensive. Raising their profile by being in D1 could grow for them to a point that they can support the schools. We do have several D2 schools that have D1 sports that do sponsor men and Women's soccer that could move up as well to fill in spots. We are seeing conferences on the west coast having schools from the east coast as an affiliate for a single sport. Moving schools up to help move sports that are not spread far apart could help. Look at Conference Carolina? They sponsor D1 women's bowling could move up as a whole, and they sponsor sports that could help any of the east coast schools for that sport. The Missouri D2 conference also sponsor women's bowling that have Drury, Lindenwood, and so forth. The MIAA have Central Oklahoma, Northeast Oklahoma, Lindenwood, Central Missouri, Fort Hays State, Emporia State, Lincoln, Missouri Southern, Missouri Western, Nebraska Kearney, Northwest Missouri State, Pittsburg State, SW Baptist and Washburn. MIAA sponsor's D1 women's bowling. Affiliates for bowling are Drury, Elmhurst, Maryville (MO), McKendree and Nebraska Wesleyan.

Some of these schools could got to the Summit, but Southland could split between the Texas and the Louisiana and Arkansas schools to create new conferences.

Summit, Southland and the new Texas centric conference can split up these schools. Some could go to the Horizon and so forth.

If you are talking membership here David, I think there should be a new Division 1 that requires all of its members to be a full member of an FBS conference.

That would require the WCC and Big East to go hybrid to stay in the game which they are capable of doing with their basketball and metro locations.

MVC if we haven't figured it out already is going to be screwed with its rural location. Some of its members may find a spot eventually in the MAC though.

(04-11-2017 07:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  If you are talking membership here David, I think there should be a new Division 1 that requires all of its members to be a full member of an FBS conference.

That would require the WCC and Big East to go hybrid to stay in the game which they are capable of doing with their basketball and metro locations.

MVC if we haven't figured it out already is going to be screwed with its rural location. Some of its members may find a spot eventually in the MAC though.

I am talking about D2 schools who already have a sport or more than one sport in D1 to move up. Azusa Pacific might find a home in D1. Lindenwood have more than one sport in D1 which includes women's hockey. They are in a metro market of Saint Louis.

I say put sports in two categories revenue and non-revenue.
Why should a self-sustaining program have to be equaled out by a money losing program? That is not equal at all equal is costing the same for scholarships.

U Conn has three revenue sports M & W basketball and football that I know of.
so those would be exempt of title nine.

UND might be Hockey and basketball and maybe football?

Some schools might not have any program in the revenue exempt from title nine category.

Keep the sports required but as long as the number of athletes is enough allow some to be varsity non-scholarship.
Giving more chances for kids and keeping the scholarship levels even.

Why does David st want a thousand d1 programs with high schools and JC's being able to compete ?

(04-11-2017 08:34 PM)MJG Wrote:  Why does David st want a thousand d1 programs with high schools and JC's being able to compete ?

Why? Not every conferences offer the same sports. The conferences wind up being a few less. If you have schools that are big enough in the footprint that offered the sport? Bring them up for the spot to help sponsor that sport. It could save money that way. Why have Stony Brook competing on a west coast conference for a sport?

(04-11-2017 08:46 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 08:34 PM)MJG Wrote:  Why does David st want a thousand d1 programs with high schools and JC's being able to compete ?

Why? Not every conferences offer the same sports. The conferences wind up being a few less. If you have schools that are big enough in the footprint that offered the sport? Bring them up for the spot to help sponsor that sport. It could save money that way. Why have Stony Brook competing on a west coast conference for a sport?

D1 is already watered down and crappy enough with the 32 conferences it has.

That's why.

FBS split with WCC/Big East picking up football is the ticket. A super division of 175 schools for all sports.

(04-11-2017 08:46 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 08:34 PM)MJG Wrote:  Why does David st want a thousand d1 programs with high schools and JC's being able to compete ?

Why? Not every conferences offer the same sports. The conferences wind up being a few less. If you have schools that are big enough in the footprint that offered the sport? Bring them up for the spot to help sponsor that sport. It could save money that way. Why have Stony Brook competing on a west coast conference for a sport?

Because the discussion was about ways to improve the current model.
Letting schools add soccer, Hockey, and lacrosse if they desire without being penalized.
You bring up random schools no one has heard of distracting from the point of the thread.
Nothing against Eastern South Dakota ST they will make a fine FBS school.
Instead of derailing every thread start your own touting the merits of these fine schools I have never heard of.