<a href='http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040717/1019883.asp' target='_blank'>NCAA rule presses UB on attendance</a>

I know their problem...they rely on that idiot Bill Maher to run their athletic department.

Touchdown Rrrrrooockets! Wrote:I know their problem...they rely on that idiot Bill Maher to run their athletic department.

He's only the interm , and only been there for about a year now after our old AD left. We will probably get a new one soon since we just got our new president (started 1/04) and a new Provost (started 3/04).

I think the Bulls will end up with 30K plus for Syracuse, which will give them an excellent shot at making the requirements (if they end up even being relevant in their current format, which I'd say is very questionable). I still expect the NCAA to stick with the 15K rule, but relax the adherence criteria to more like an average over 2 years or having 2 years to make it before you go on probation. Just my guess.

ex Cincy Kid Wrote:I think the Bulls will end up with 30K plus for Syracuse, which will give them an excellent shot at making the requirements (if they end up even being relevant in their current format, which I'd say is very questionable). I still expect the NCAA to stick with the 15K rule, but relax the adherence criteria to more like an average over 2 years or having 2 years to make it before you go on probation. Just my guess.

Just my guess, but if the NCAA was to change the rule to 2 years in a row before probation, THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE SO. The MAC tried 3 years in a row which was rejected earlier this year. I see any move to change the impact of an attendance requirement going in a different direction.

Most likely, in my opinion is either an elimination of the attendance requirement or a delay until 2006 or 2007 to let the new conferences gel.

Quote:Buffalo has won only two home games - both against Ohio University - the last three seasons.

Couldn't let this sentence just stay hidden in the article without a copy and paste. :angel:

Quote:standards. The proposed penalties were if a school doesn't qualify in the first year, it would be placed on probationary membership

Hand slap. "Shame on you"

Quote:A second year of noncompliance means bowl ineligibility

This is just plain silly. First of all, I highly doubt that any of these schools would be struggling with attendance if they were winning enough to earn a bowl game.
Secondly, if a team wins ten games in Division 1a and only averages 14k, what does that have to do with bowl eligibility?

Quote:third year means the institution would be reclassified to I-AA but wouldn't be allowed to compete for the I-AA national championship

I'd be willing to bet that some of these schools would be much better off in 1-aa football.

I believe that some people are too caught up in the classification as some sort of social status. If you don't have the resources to compete at a high level, why play at that level?

I mean, suppose the non-BCS D-1a schools split off from the NCAA and form their own association, complete with bowl games or a playoff. Is that not the same as dropping to 1-aa, except playing bigger name schools?

I could personally live with a playoff of teams:

Fresno State
BYU
Toledo
Miami
Southern Miss
Marshall
Colorado State
Boise State
Memphis
Bowling Green
Houston
Texas Christian
East Carolina
Northern Illinois
Louisiana Tech
Hawaii

Certainly that doesn't have the bite that a playoff with Ohio A&M and MeatChickin U and Free Shoes U would bring, but those schools aren't letting us in their party anyways.

Let them have their bowl coalition.
We will call ours the Playoff Coalition.

We could all join the NAIA. It would certainly skyrocket the NAIA's image back into bigtime status that they've never enjoyed.

The only hitch is, I doubt that the NCAA is going to be real interested in our basketball teams or other sports teams if we pull out of the NCAA in football.

But the point is, if this is done, what does it matter what the NCAA considers Div 1-A? We aren't competing for the national title with them anyway. Well, not realistically anyway.

Quote:We could all join the NAIA. It would certainly skyrocket the NAIA's image back into bigtime status that they've never enjoyed.

Considering that the NAIA has almost no rules governing academics or recruiting, it does not surprise me that a Marshall fan suggested this option.

Considering that you are an a($$)hole, it does not surprise me that you would hijack another thread with a completely irrelevant flame.

Herd Swimming Wrote:Considering that you are an a($$)hole, it does not surprise me that you would hijack another thread with a completely irrelevant flame.

You should be used to it from Papa Lou by now.

Herd Swimming Wrote:

Quote:standards. The proposed penalties were if a school doesn't qualify in the first year, it would be placed on probationary membership

Hand slap. "Shame on you"

Quote:A second year of noncompliance means bowl ineligibility

This is just plain silly. First of all, I highly doubt that any of these schools would be struggling with attendance if they were winning enough to earn a bowl game.
Secondly, if a team wins ten games in Division 1a and only averages 14k, what does that have to do with bowl eligibility?

Quote:third year means the institution would be reclassified to I-AA but wouldn't be allowed to compete for the I-AA national championship

What he posted in the article is not correct.

If you don't make the 15k rule in year 1, you are placed on BOWL PROBATION FOR THE NEXT SEASON.

If you don't make it in year 2, you are FORCED TO 1-AA.


You have to make 15k every year to stay bowl elgible. And you only have one more year after that to get your act together else be downgraded.

Looks like I struck a nerve again...

Oh, BTW, Herd Swimming, I believe your last post was in violation of the AUP.

If the article's attendance figures are correct, Kent State seems to be the only school not within striking distance of 15K. They may be in serious trouble if these attendance requirements really do happen.

There has been some "talk" that some non-BCS conferences are in favor of shelving the 15K requirement completely in lieu of other (not attendance) requirements..........in fact, a well-informed poster said that this was C-USA's position on the matter.

So, who knows where this will end up....selfishly, I'd like some attendance component, as I think it's good for there to be some pressure on DI schools to keep their marketing efforts up and achieving 15K once in awhile doesn't seem too terribly pressing. At the same time, it shouldn't be such a stringent requirement (such as the one proposed) that ends up being THE defining requirement for playing IA football. If they stay with 15K as the "magic" threshold, then the MAC's proposed amendment (once every 3 years with a year of restricted membership thereafter) may have been rejected but seems very reasonable to me. (that is, unless the REAL goal of the rule is really to force out incumbent IA programs........)

Here's the question- Would dropping these "non performers" in the stands help other non-BCS schools' cases for a BCS bid? Would dropping schools who can't reach 15K make the remaining non BCS schools more appealing to the NCAA and it's greed mongers?

If the answer is no, then we shouldn't worry about it.

If the answer is yes, then the attendance requirements are worth looking at.

The BCS is all about the money, plain and simple. The BCS boyz have it, and they sure as heck don't want to share much of it. Even though we tend to fixated about which MAC (or name your school) school is averaging 14K vs. 24K, do you really think that the BCS boyz (and their fans) see any distinction? I sure don't think so...................any crowd under 50K to them is a "throwaway" crowd. I'm sure they would find it mildly amusing how some fans of schools with avg. attendance of 25K or so "throw stones" at those averaging 15K or 18K, etc. What does averaging 25K getcha in attendance...........something like 75th in the country or something??

So, to answer your question, KT, no, I don't think they draw a distinction, although I would grant you that having a DI school average under 10K is just plain embarrassing.

ex Cincy Kid Wrote:The BCS is all about the money, plain and simple. The BCS boyz have it, and they sure as heck don't want to share much of it. Even though we tend to fixated about which MAC (or name your school) school is averaging 14K vs. 24K, do you really think that the BCS boyz (and their fans) see any distinction? I sure don't think so...................any crowd under 50K to them is a "throwaway" crowd. I'm sure they would find it mildly amusing how some fans of schools with avg. attendance of 25K or so "throw stones" at those averaging 15K or 18K, etc. What does averaging 25K getcha in attendance...........something like 75th in the country or something??

So, to answer your question, KT, no, I don't think they draw a distinction, although I would grant you that having a DI school average under 10K is just plain embarrassing.

In the grand scheme of things, attendance means very little-

Case in point-

Pitt- Averaged 61,067 fans in 2004
Toledo- Averaged 26,780 fans in 2004

Toledo 35- Pitt 31

You could also make the same case about BG vs. Purdue attendance numbers.

ex Cincy Kid Wrote:The BCS is all about the money, plain and simple. The BCS boyz have it, and they sure as heck don't want to share much of it. Even though we tend to fixated about which MAC (or name your school) school is averaging 14K vs. 24K, do you really think that the BCS boyz (and their fans) see any distinction? I sure don't think so...................any crowd under 50K to them is a "throwaway" crowd. I'm sure they would find it mildly amusing how some fans of schools with avg. attendance of 25K or so "throw stones" at those averaging 15K or 18K, etc. What does averaging 25K getcha in attendance...........something like 75th in the country or something??

So, to answer your question, KT, no, I don't think they draw a distinction, although I would grant you that having a DI school average under 10K is just plain embarrassing.

I know, living in Big Ten country and being a MSU graduate, MAC schools are considered "small college" teams. I used the quotes because that is the exact phrase that is used over and over in conversations with Big Ten fans. There is little differentiation between MAC and Div II/III schools in the view of Big Ten fans.

A bad gate for MSU is 60,000, for the UM, anything under 100,000. If MSU or UM only drew 25,000 for a football it would be a disaster and heads would roll, starting in the AD's office. I bet it's the same for the CUSA and SBC schools in SEC and Big 12 country.