• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!

Future of DI football

T

talhadfoursteals

Active member
There is a great deal of speculation occurring throughout the nation with regards to college football. Whether or not a split between the haves and have nots will transpire and, if so, when?

Right now, it is looking like any team that can make serious cash is positioning itself, if it already hasn't, to get an invite into one of the major BCS conferences. The Haves are on the verg of breaking things wide open, that'll force the NCAA to reclassify major college football. There is a great deal of speculation about what will occur, but right now, most people in the know, keep hinting that Division I NCAA football will end up being split into three different classifications. All teams would remain DI, from what I understand, but will be classified differently; example: BCS, FBS, FCS. The BCS will be made out of the top 70 teams, which I feel would include Utah and BYU. The FBS would incompass the next 70-100 DI programs and then finally the remaining teams will be relegated to the lowest tier. I have a sickening feeling that the Big Sky, with 14 members (Idahlol is coming back, their only options are independence or the Sky, and why not the Sky since you, Idahlol is already on par with most Sky programs. If Weber could take accurate attendance figures, the two schools attendance figures would virtually be even) will be dismembered between two tiers/classifications. Is Weber in a position to get into the top tier? This split could affect basketball.

From what I can tell, the MWC, CUSA, MAC, SBC, are automatic members of the second tier. The top tier would be members in the Big 12, Big 10, Pac-12, SEC, ACC and what use to be the Big East (minus Boise and San Diego State) along with independents BYU and Notre Dame. The third tier would be the left overs from the FCS, probably be easier to put the second and third together but you would still have the same problem that exists now, teams from the MW and C-USA would dwarf Patriot or Northeastern schools. Which FCS conferences would merge into the 2nd tier? Would it be a bowl or playoff tier (hoping playoff, bowls have ruined college football)? Could the entire Big Sky make a jump?

I feel that the MVC, CAA, Southland, Big South, and Big Sky members would make up the remaining, open spots in the 2nd tier. However, 6 to 8 current Big Sky members might left behind. Is Weber in a position to belong or get left behind? Do we even have to worry, since the Sky from top to bottom is a strong football league (UNCO does struggle).?
 
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1?loc=interstitialskip" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very interesting stuff. Look how subsidized a lot of the FCS and lower level FBS schools are. Almost like there isn't a difference between the two grroups. Fullerton is on to someting and has been for some time.
 
Looks like Weber is one of the poorest programs, not only in the Sky, but in the entire DI. Nice seeing that our subsidy isn't an enormous amount of our budget.

What is USA Todays definition of subsidy? Is this state support only or does it also include tuition, student fees, other institutional/conference support? It would be my guess that every school in DI receives some sort of institutional support, even if it is limited, other than state or taxpayer support.
 
From the article:

Subsidy: The sum of students fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money. The NCAA and others consider such funds "allocated" or everything not generated by the department's athletics functions.

Percent subsidy: Percent of revenues come from allocated sources.
 
sadkitty64 said:
Looks like Weber is one of the poorest programs, not only in the Sky, but in the entire DI. Nice seeing that our subsidy isn't an enormous amount of our budget.

What is USA Todays definition of subsidy? Is this state support only or does it also include tuition, student fees, other institutional/conference support? It would be my guess that every school in DI receives some sort of institutional support, even if it is limited, other than state or taxpayer support.
Click to expand...

Not quite that bad. 5th out of 9 Big Sky schools in total revenue isn't necessarily "one of the poorest." Also if you go by Revenue - Expenses, we are 3rd out of 9. As far as subsidizing % we are 4th.
 
It's hard to predict how college football will eventually divide itself. Traditionally, the NCAA has set the requirements for each division and then allowed the individual schools to determine at what level they wanted to play. The higher the level, the greater the commitment required as far as scholarships, attendance level, number of sports, etc.

However, the BCS schools have established the precedent of independence from the NCAA in many ways -- they established their own post-season cartel with the BCS bowls; they are now negotiating the terms of the upcoming four-team playoff; and they have negotiated their own television contracts and created their own television networks. They also pressured the NCAA into allowing them to offer stipends to athletes, a decision that each individual conference gets to make.

So in my view, it is a very short walk across a very thin line for those top 60 or 70 schools to create their own independent governing body outside the NCAA for football. This would allow them to pay players openly and do away with a lot of the "extra benefits" rules that so often land the big power house schools on probation. If you are Ohio State or Alabama, why do you want to continually subject yourself to the negative publicity of being under NCAA scrutiny because some booster is paying your guys or giving them special benefits under the table? Just do away with the rules entirely, and be above board about the fact that college football at that level is nothing more than minor league football, except the players can't be paid what they are worth.

So if you accept the premise that the top schools break away from the NCAA in football, then that gives the lower tier schools much more freedom to rein in spending and expensive requirements to remain "Division I." The top tier might be reformatted to require only six men's and six women's sports, no more than 65 scholarships for football, limits on travel (no more than 50 players can travel to road games, e.g.), etc. The remaining schools could set up their own "Division 1" playoff system to match those of the current FCS, Division II and Division III schools. They could band together to negotiate their own television contract and mandate revenue sharing to level the playing fields.

The opportunities are many under this scenario. The best thing the Big Sky schools can do in anticipation of all this is recommit to football at a high level: continue to invest in new facilities, build the fan base through marketing, and, most of all, develop competitive programs. In the end, it is likely that each institution will have to make its decisions about how much of a commitment they want to make to football, and at what level. Those schools that are best prepared by building now will have the most flexibility whenever the big "reorganization" takes place.
 
everything about this thread topic is a reason i would rather personally drop college football from my list of things i care about and just watch nfl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top