VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07/22/03 11:44pm
Author: BMF
Author Host/IP: 66.125.89.198
Subject: Is D-1AA watching? Does coalition affect D-1AA?

Tulane University President Scott Cowen hosted a teleconference Tuesday announcing a coalition of non-BCS schools. Thirty-six of the 52 non-BCS schools were represented. Forty-four non-BCS schools are particpants in the coalition. No D-1AA schools participated.

I listened to a recorded 35 minute-ish post-teleconference q&a session with the media. Here's briefly what I picked up:

The purpose of the teleconfernce had 3 objectives. These included:
1. To see if the non-BCS schools had common interest regarding access, academic standards, and reducing the cost of Division 1A.
2. If it was possible to join as a group to pursue these common interests, and
3. To see if they can start today... (a la symposium on Sept 9th?)

Apparently, there was unanamous agreement.

Many major newspapers called in to ask questions. Those media outlets represented were USA Today, NY Times, Houston Chroncile, Denver Post, Salt Lake Tribune, Orlando Sentinel, LA Times, and a couple that I missed. Most media reps were women. Regardless of gender, I was a little put-off that some in the media seemed ignorant (lacking understanding) of the problem.

Key points expressed during Q&A (per my perspective):
- There is no level playing field for football, there is for every other D-1 sport. There is no reason why there cannot be for footall.
- The cost of participating in D-1A has increased due to new criteria passed last year (scholarships offered, number of football scholarships required, attendance requirment (and related marketing effort?), must sponsor 16 sports vs. 14, minimum number of total D-1A games to play, minimum number of D-1A games to play at home).
- D-1A criteria are "incideous" (Bill G of University of Buffalo) and work to decrease overall D-1A membership..., a la "if a conference member fails to meet D-1A criteria then it affects other conference members ability to meet D-1A criteria."
- "Why not object to D-1A crteria as they were developed?" There was little inside perspective to what was being considered and few persons listened to those observed and spoke up.
- "Why come together now?" Because there seems to be increased public objection to the BCS,
- The coalition is not eliminating any method to fulfill the common objectives, including an anti-trust suit or US Congressional hearings,
- The BCS has characteristics of a cartel, and
- Pursuit of a lawsuit would only be considered as a last resort and there is no preference for this approach.

My questions/commentary:
It appears the coalitions' effort will be two pronged:
- revisiting D-1A criteria with the NCAA (cost driven) and
- fighting the BCS for consideration into their quasi national championship deciding series (access related).

Related to possible revisions to the NCAA criteria... if revisiting the criteria is really based upon the cost to compete at the new criteria and/or are not based upon something more logical/relevant such as academic standards...should D-1AA level schools be considered too as part of the coalition? Afterall, I am sure many/most/all D-1AA schools would like the opportunity to particpate at the highest level too.

With the above in mind, the ability to compete at the D-1A level is largely shaped by financial ability and desire. It is not based upon athletic ability, or academic standards, or something else seemingly logical. The financial ability is made possible by the influence of a large public contingent desirous to follow specific programs and which directly and indirectly provide the large revenue streams. And, the publics desire is largely guided by past exposure and not any of the above.

With that said, IF...., if other more logical D-1A criteria were to be pursued... in an effort to avoid being arbitrary, should such new/revised criteria make it possible for non-D-1A schools to compete at the upper level too? Is the distinction between D-1A and D-1AA arbitrary? If the non-BCS schools are the have-nots... does the coalition effort to change the D-1A criteria make the D-1AA schools have-nots too.

Now..., I am not saying Cal Poly should be playing Tennessee or Miami or UCLA. But, I do question arbitrary criteria that prevents this ability..., should Poly or any other D-1AA merit the ability.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.