LastMinuteman
1st String
Posts: 1,129
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 88
I Root For: UMass
Location:
|
RE: Why do we have to have revenue and non-revenue sports in the same conference?
FBS has a rule that at least 8 members of the conference must be all-sports members in order for the conference to qualify as an official FBS conference. (FCS has no such rule.)
Why is this a rule? Probably so that the ancient power conferences like the Big Ten can preserve the model they prefer without fear of being overtaken by an upstart. A football-only conference makes perfect sense. Combine the short season with the revenue potential and the way a bi-coastal conference opens up extra television time slots, and there's no reason not to have a conference stretching from Boston to San Diego or Hawaii. After setting up regional divisions it's one or two long distance trips per season, big deal. You just can't do it with all those non-revenue sports that play more games per season than football.
This is also why there's a minimum 16 sport rule to play FBS football (14 in FCS). What does a women's water polo team have to do with running a football program? Nothing, they just want to artificially inflate the cost of football, because the Big Ten and Pac-12 schools that sponsor 20+ sports don't want to be at a disadvantage. Title IX is perfectly agreeable to them for that purpose as well. Why do we have a minimum scholarship requirement for FBS football when no other sport has a minimum (including FCS)? And why is the minimum at such a high number (77)? No other sport even allows you to grant scholarships to 4th string players, let alone requires it. Some sports like men's soccer don't even permit your 1st string to be full scholarship, even if you don't play football and want soccer to be your premier fall sport. You can only give 9 of your 11 starters full scholarships. There used to be a minimum stadium size requirement, again only for FBS football. It's all to inflate the cost and make it too expensive for most universities to participate in.
|
|
03-05-2013 11:03 PM |
|
LastMinuteman
1st String
Posts: 1,129
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 88
I Root For: UMass
Location:
|
RE: Why do we have to have revenue and non-revenue sports in the same conference?
(03-05-2013 09:28 PM)msu_bears Wrote: FCS has a couple football only conferences: MVFC and Pioneer.
The CAA is essentially a football-only conference. That league only has 4 full CAA members, and it's organized as a separate legal entity from the rest of the CAA. They also have 4 America East members, 2 Atlantic 10 members, and 1 Big East member. If they have a 12th member coming, it won't be from the CAA.
|
|
03-05-2013 11:09 PM |
|
Captain Bearcat
All-American in Everything
Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
|
RE: Why do we have to have revenue and non-revenue sports in the same conference?
(03-05-2013 11:03 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote: FBS has a rule that at least 8 members of the conference must be all-sports members in order for the conference to qualify as an official FBS conference. (FCS has no such rule.)
Why is this a rule? Probably so that the ancient power conferences like the Big Ten can preserve the model they prefer without fear of being overtaken by an upstart. A football-only conference makes perfect sense. Combine the short season with the revenue potential and the way a bi-coastal conference opens up extra television time slots, and there's no reason not to have a conference stretching from Boston to San Diego or Hawaii. After setting up regional divisions it's one or two long distance trips per season, big deal. You just can't do it with all those non-revenue sports that play more games per season than football.
This is also why there's a minimum 16 sport rule to play FBS football (14 in FCS). What does a women's water polo team have to do with running a football program? Nothing, they just want to artificially inflate the cost of football, because the Big Ten and Pac-12 schools that sponsor 20+ sports don't want to be at a disadvantage. Title IX is perfectly agreeable to them for that purpose as well. Why do we have a minimum scholarship requirement for FBS football when no other sport has a minimum (including FCS)? And why is the minimum at such a high number (77)? No other sport even allows you to grant scholarships to 4th string players, let alone requires it. Some sports like men's soccer don't even permit your 1st string to be full scholarship, even if you don't play football and want soccer to be your premier fall sport. You can only give 9 of your 11 starters full scholarships. There used to be a minimum stadium size requirement, again only for FBS football. It's all to inflate the cost and make it too expensive for most universities to participate in.
fwiw, there's a good reason to artificially inflate the cost of football. College football is insanely popular ONLY because of the huge investments made by the teams currently on top. Why should they let a johnny-come-lately piggyback off the investments that they've consistently made over the past 100 years?
They don't want to make the same mistake that college basketball did. The socialist business model in CBB has caused 50 programs to jump to D-1 since 2000. Because none of them add any value to the sport yet, that's 50 more pieces cut from the same size pie. That is money directly earned by the investments that the Indianas, Louisvilles, Cincinnatis, and even the Ohios and Belmonts of the world have made over the past 50-100 years. But instead of going to the schools who earned it, they're going to prop up a bunch of leaches.
Personally, I like the idea that respectability is earned over many years.
|
|
03-06-2013 04:53 AM |
|
billyjack
1st String
Posts: 1,336
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 91
I Root For: Providence
Location: Rhode Island
|
RE: Why do we have to have revenue and non-revenue sports in the same conference?
(03-04-2013 05:21 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote: (03-04-2013 05:14 PM)CommuterBob Wrote: Each conference establishes its own rules. Most say if you play football, it must be in our conference. The NCAA allowed FBS to establish its own subdivision by requiring these FBS conferences to maintain a certain number of men's and women's sports as a minimum to conform to Title IX.
Basically, you'd have to change both the NCAA rules and each conference's rules to get what you're asking.
And doing so would be in the benefit of the schools. What you are saying that the status quo is the status quo simply because it is too hard to change.
I agree with your general idea of looking to change the status quo for the better. I really dislike when someone comes out with a good proposal but it gets shot down because "the NCAA has a rule that says..."; if it's a good enough idea then work to change the outdated rule. What you're describing is done in Hockey East. PC plays with best area schools like BC, New Hampshire and Merrimack. (The alternative would've been to force Rutgers, Seton Hall, etc, to introduce or upgrade their hockey). The only reason it can't be done in football too is because of an acceptance of the status quo and an NCAA system rigged and gamed by the giant schools.
|
|
03-06-2013 08:04 AM |
|