1. Division I conference realignments. [Reference BD Supplement No. 6.]
BOARD ACTIONS:
It was noted that although the Board has expressed interest in the evaluation of the allocation of votes to particular conferences in the Division I governance structure, it appeared appropriate to do so following the resolution of issues concerning conference realignments and Division I postseason football discussions.
a. The Board expressed concern that the recent volatility in conference alignment discussions in Division I may influence the student-athlete experience because of the potential impact of conference changes on the NCAA governance structure and on conferences and institutions in satisfying Division I membership requirements.
b. It was noted that having a systematic, rather than piecemeal approach to addressing membership and governance concerns in the NCAA structure is essential.
c.
It was agreed that a written report along with a presentation of Division I-A membership criteria shall occur at the April 2004 meeting, which should include an examination of the principals for Division I-A membership requirements along with a review of the process for developing these standards to ensure the standards taken collectively have a logical nexus that benefits Division I as a whole.
<a href='http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_I/board_of_directors/2004/January/JointBOD_MC_report.htm' target='_blank'>http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance...D_MC_report.htm</a>
Many discussions on this board have centered around the problems of requiring 15k attendance for every home game.
What if they changed the 15k home rule to a 40k stadium rule? At 40 thousand seats, the expense to upgrade to that size places it out of the reach of your average 1-AA upgrade canidated. Schools like FAU will have an edge moving up by having a large stadium nearby, but so what.
Or a 25k paid ticket rule. This would require any school interested in moving up to have enough commitment to sponsorship that will allow them to be competitive in 1-A.
Any other ideas?
The concept that the NCAA would "kick out" a IA team for not making the attendance rule one time is ludicrious (it would likely result in year-to-year mass chao to the WAC/MAC/Sunbelt)...........in April they'll come to some agreement, with the most stringent probably being the currently worded proposal that allows for one restricted year after not making it. Also, KC, I sincerely doubt that they will use stadium size as a requirement now..........they seem pretty dedicated to the "15K" attendance concept, don't you think?
I think you're dead on eCk. The one year "restricted membership" rule was tabled while they voted on the MAC's proposal that would have allowed a team to stay I-A by making their attendance twice a decade. However, there does seem to be some movement to not simply kick out a team for not making it in a single season. I think the one year "restricted membership" rule will pass easily.
I also think you're dead on about the stadium size. That's part of the previous rule and I doubt they're going to bring that back into the picture. The bottom line is that, despite wishful thinking on the part of certain MAC and Sun Belt members, schools are going to have to get their attendance above 15k or start playing I-AA football in the 2006 season.
exCincy Kid Wrote:Also, KC, I sincerely doubt that they will use stadium size as a requirement now..........they seem pretty dedicated to the "15K" attendance concept, don't you think?
I guess it will be open season to any criticism if the new 1-A standards from attendance, scheduling, and scholarships.
Maybe they'll change the 15k rule a requirment ti 50% of the conference, or a one-time make, so once you make it in 2004 or 05, you can't be demoted in the future.
The NCAA actions here have been interesting, because the stated goal of the legislation was to prevent the migration of IAA wannabe's to IA, not to exclude long-standing IA members. Now, many of us (myself included) were skeptical of that stated objective being true, and the NCAA's eventual decision on how they implement the "15K rule" will tell us that answer.
I do think that when they get down to "brass tacks", they will realize the negative impact a stringent requirement would have on the student athletes unwittingly impacted..........in the end, you'd think that there would be some consideration of them, wouldn't you? And, if they do care at all, there has to be some type of time period (maybe only a year in addition to the year of not making the threshold) in which the school gets is "act together", partly in order for the conferences to make scheduling adjustments (if necessary) and for the student-athletes to make decisions on transferring, etc. What a mess it could be!
OK, so you add in this probationary year. What does a conference do? Does it plan for the school to be in or out? Does it schedule with or without that team? And what about that team's OOC opps? They still won't know if the team is in or out until the probationary year is over. From the end of one season to the beginning of another is not enough time to make this adjustment in scheduling college football games. Do they then get ANOTHER transition year, a lame duck year, as a D1A team?
It's such a bad idea in the first place and they clearly have not thought through all the ramifications for the schools who will be affected--both the ones who might drop and their opps. They have a mess on their hands.
Perhaps MAKO as a lawyer wouldn't mind speculating on this for us, because I think it is really ripe for a lawsuit from those affected.
1. The legislation punishes an entire conference of student athletes for the problems of a few schools, possibly damaging the I-A status of every school in the league unfairly, as axeme notes. In a worst-case scenario, the dropping down of teams CAUSES the dropping down of other teams that had been in good standing prior to the enforcement.
2. The MAC is currently a conference in the population known as I-A. Thus they should be afforded all rights and privileges of the others. However their restricted access to major bowls and payouts and difficulty getting home games against power-conference schols are definitely contributing factors in keeping attendance low. Thus the parties who support this rule could have a direct effect on who gets killed by it. Especially as the incentive to schedule games at smaller schools would be even less than it is now.
Theoretical example: If NIU's attendance is down next year, one reason would clearly be that despite excellent attendance and skillful play, they were denied a postseason opportunity.The disillusionment affects the fanbase, which dwindles and the team is stripped of I-A status.
Marshall would have no problem meeting 40K, our stadium is 38K right now. Im sure they could put in another 2 K somewhere.
As much as you guys slice & dice this , there are really very few teams & conferences impacted by this. Thats why its an uphill struggle for the MAC. TOO MANY FOLKS dont care about you. Its about the BIG BOYS keeping their's and bringing financial accountability to everyone who survives this. Those who drop won't be missed. God, I said before this is not rocket science !!
Don't disagree with you, Paladin (on the bib boyz not giving a rip about the plight of the downtrodden of the IA football world), but unless they end up making significant compromises on "sharing the pot of gold" called the BCS (which they won't), they don't really have much of a vested interest in making life "hell" for the MAC, Sunbelt and WAC conferences that are most affected. After all, many of them have already scheduled the Kent's and EMU's in future schedules, and the impact on the "year to year" shuffling would affect student-athletes in a manner that could prove embarrassing (not to mention just plain messy) to the NCAA. So, in the end I look for compromise.
Also, I find it rather humorous how so many fans of certain non-BCS teams (no doubt with programs averaging comfortably over 15K), seem to endorse this effort. So, I ask some of you Herd and UCF guys this question: So, to you it makes sense to possibly bounce an extremely competitive program like BG (who has attendance issues), even though they are something like 6-1 vs. BCS programs the last 3-4 years, have beaten ranked BCS teams, and defeated a BCS team in a bowl, and have averaged around 8-9 wins a year the last few, yet UTEP is welcomed with their 20K plus home attendance average (even 28K in some year), yet they have won something like 5 games total in the last 3 years? It doesn't make much sense to me.
I could see it if conferences like the MAC felt that programs like Kent and EMU were a detriment to the conference (you could argue that their poor crowds were on reason we lost a high profile MAC football program, although that was undoubtedly a minor issue), then yeah, let the conferences boot them out. But, if not, and they are meeting all other NCAA requirements, why on earth should the NCAA deem fit to pronounce the "Death penalty" on a program averaging 12K instead of the "deemed" 15K required in the proposed legislation.
[QUOTE]Also, I find it rather humorous how so many fans of certain non-BCS teams (no doubt with programs averaging comfortably over 15K), seem to endorse this effort. So, I ask some of you Herd and UCF guys this question: So, to you it makes sense to possibly bounce an extremely competitive program like BG (who has attendance issues), even though they are something like 6-1 vs. BCS programs the last 3-4 years, have beaten ranked BCS teams, and defeated a BCS team in a bowl, and have averaged around 8-9 wins a year the last few, yet UTEP is welcomed with their 20K plus home attendance average (even 28K in some year), yet they have won something like 5 games total in the last 3 years? It doesn't make much sense to me.
Who said UTEP is welcomed?
I would like to see Miami and Toledo take an invite if it was offered
:)
As far as bouncing BG or anyone else in the MAC been there done that.It's time to move on.Everyone keeps saying the MAC is stable and has been around for 50 years it will survive.Those same people also say CUSA will fold etc......If you are fine with staying in a conference that has seen 10-1 and 9-2 teams not play in bowl games year after year then so be it.
herdya Wrote:Everyone keeps saying the MAC is stable and has been around for 50 years it will survive.Those same people also say CUSA will fold etc......If you are fine with staying in a conference that has seen 10-1 and 9-2 teams not play in bowl games year after year then so be it.
I say the MAC has been around for over 50 years and will survive, however I can't remember ever saying C-USA will fold and I don't think it will.
As for the teams that have missed out on bowl games......that is being worked on and there is significant progress. It would be a different story if nothing was being done about that.
I think a key everyone is missing is "benefits Division I as a whole". If you think Division I has about 117 teams, you are less than half right.
Yes, I guess some folks around here have projected the demise of C-USA........at one time I think it was fair to say that they were in some trouble, but they did some successful "raiding" of their non-BCS conference mates and although weakened, (esp in hoops), are certainly a viable non-BCS football league. To be fair (to myself), I never engaged in predicting the doom of C-USA........my comments have been more to the fact that losing their elite hoops programs is much more damaging that those concentrating their thoughts on football realize. For that reason, I have been more than skeptical that Marshall will find a $$ bonanza in C-USA. I do believe Marshall and its fans will be happier there, so c'est la vie.
As for the MAC, actually I applaud efforts to get the poorest performing programs to work on marketing, etc.....because it does no good for the league's image to see schools routinely draw less than 10K fans. At the same time, I don't like the arbritary notion that if you have less than 15K one year (when you might have a horrible season, or horrible weather, or whatever), you immediately lose your IA status..........that's just "nutso"!
And Herdya, it may not be you, but if you bounce around a few boards, I think you'd find the sentiment of most Herd fans is that this rule (if enacted) is great "payback" to the MAC, hence many seem to revel in its possible implications. Since we're all still non-BCS, that's kind of short-sighted in my view.
I see the relaxation of the "5 home IA" games as evidence that the NCAA is coming to its senses here........perhaps more compromise will follow. Again, I don't have a problem with the 15K rule (we've always had some type of attendance requirement in IA since the 80's), I just want to see it implemented in a fair manner that won't "yo-yo" conferences like the MAC and WAC each and every year.
I'll take a stab at it MacLord but, my big disclaimer. This is just my personal opinion and not legal advice. Furthermore, I am far from any type of expert on either sports law, anti-trust law or anything relating to the NCAA. I take employment and consumer cases and that's about as far removed from this stuff as you can get. I'm certain that there are those who are well versed in these areas and could give you a much better answer than me. But, with that said, here's my personal opinion:
Suing the NCAA on behalf of either a conference or an institution would be very difficult. Why? Because the NCAA is a voluntary organization. Colleges join the association and contractually obligate themselves to abide by the NCAA's rules. There is no requirement to be a member of the NCAA and you could, theoretically, field a team without being a member of the NCAA. Indeed, there are many small, private colleges that field various sports teams (usually not football) and they are not NCAA members.
As for bowls, the NCAA has nothing to do with bowl matchups. Those are set by the bowl organizers. So what if a 10-2 NIU team didn't get a bowl? If a bowl organizer thinks a 6-6 Big 12 team will bring more fans, that's their right. They may be wrong in thinking that but nothing in the law requires you to make good business decisions.
A more successful means of challenging any NCAA action is from an individual athlete. But, the problem there is that I don't know of any college that promises scholarships for longer than one year. Both Toledo and Marshall cut sports programs in the last couple of years. Do those athletes have a cause of action against the Universities? The answer is no because, again, the scholarship is promised only on a year to year basis and the college has the right to revoke that scholarship at any time. So, if a team was told, "you will be I-AA next year and must cut 20 football scholarships", then those 20 athletes might think to challenge the NCAA rule but they'd be trying to obtain something they weren't promised - a scholarship next year.
MAKO Wrote:Indeed, there are many small, private colleges that field various sports teams (usually not football) and they are not NCAA members.
Yep its called the NAIA
And very well thought out MAKO
I'm not a lawyer, MAKO, but your reasoning seems "on the money" to me.
I suspect that the bigger problem (v.s losing lawsuits) for the NCAA is the PR nightmare that would be caused by a very stringent IA attendance requirement. You'd have long-standing IA members "up in arms", you'd have athletes (en mass) talking to the press how the NCAA robbed them of their scholarships, and of course as has been pointed out most of the non-BCS conferences would have scheduling headaches "up the kazoo".
Now, taken individually, the NCAA probably could care less, but the cumulative effect could be tough to bear, plus any lawsuit would be draw sympathy from the public, even if it didn't have a reasonable chance of being successful.
Translation: Look for compromise or relaxation (for IA incumbents) on the attendance rule....you've already seen the "gotta have 5 IA home games" pushed back a couple of years. Probably more to come.
I have tried to stay out of this thread, because it's too much like the conference realignment thing in that there's lots out there and we have NO control over any of it. I'm anxious to see how it goes, but it gets tedious trying to follow all the posts, so I've skipped a good many of them. However, eCK, one thing you mentioned I'd like to throw my 2 cents worth in. Personally, I'd LIKE to see 5 1A home games, but I'd like to see a cap on the number of home games as well. I think it's nonsense that SOME teams who shall remain nameless (OSU) can be in the hunt for the national title after playing EIGHT home games. My goodness, what team DOESN'T play better in front of their home fans??? I know it's about the money, but DAMN! Make 'em go on the road now and then, and you just might see some of the big names in non-BS stadia.
Pushed back some I doubt it ExCincy...... What I do look for if not a Grandfather clause, then for them to go down groups at a time. Right now there are 15 teams not meeting the 15 K mark. I would say 5 of those make it because they are right on the cusp. That leaves 10 that would go I-AA. I would say they send them to I-AA in a 3 yr phase out period, the first year the 2 worst teams go, the second year the next 4 worst teams go and the last year the last 4 teams go. That way scheduling isn't screwed up for that many I-A teams or the SOS isn't hurt.