(05-24-2018 12:18 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 12:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  With a little more digging, it now appears to me that, with the possible exception of BYU (whose figures aren't public) there wouldn't be any schools outside the P5 that would qualify for the top division in football based on the criteria I laid out above. That wasn't what I was hoping for when I set the qualifying revenue threshold at $40M per year.

Even if you drop that to $30M a year, very few would qualify based on their most recent reporting. You would have to lower the threshold to $25M to have enough teams to form a sixth conference at the D-I level. And they would be literally scattered from coast to coast. Every A5 school would have qualified at the higher threshold, which underscores the disparity between the A5/P5 and G5.

The biggest reason for the limited number of qualifying G5 schools is the proposed exclusion of institutional subsidies from qualifying revenues. Four of the top revenue producers had subsidies in excess of $25M a year. UConn alone had a subsidy of $39M, and the Huskies qualifying revenues will take a hit soon when their share of the Big East exit fees disappears.

At best, assuming you grant automatic entry to the service academies and allow institutional subsidies to count, you could have an 8 team Eastern division (or separate conference) and an 8 team Western one. That would mean a top division of 81 schools. To make scheduling work, assuming you want to retain P5-G5 rivalries and give larger schools the ability to play 7 home games a year, you would probably need to allow D-I schools to play 2 games a year against D-II teams. I have no problem with that.

Those subsidies would not be so high if some of those schools weren't crippled by the paltry media revenues, a fraction of the distribution from the college football playoff, lower bowl payouts, lower NCAAT credits, etc.

No doubt. And possibly the 16 or so schools that would get to stay in the top football division would get some help in that regard. But still not enough to eliminate the subsidies entirely.

Those who qualify for D-I in other sports would get a little help, but probably not enough to boost their football into the top tier.

In addition to the service academies, the likely qualifying football programs would include Connecticut, UCF, Cincinnati, Temple, USF, ECU, Memphis, Houston, BYU, San Diego St, UNLV, Boise State, and Fresno State. Frankly, I'm hard pressed to think of any excluded football team that could hope to compete for a national title. Of course, there are probably at least 40 who are included who would also be unlikely contenders.

As for basketball, I think just about any school who could get past the Sweet Sixteen could qualify for D-I. I expect at least 200 schools would fall at least to D-II, voluntarily or otherwise. For most of those, the automatic NCAAT qualifier, and the revenue that comes with that, is the only reason they want to be D-I in the first place. That would probably help keep the number of members in football's D-II more manageable as well.

(05-24-2018 12:18 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 12:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  With a little more digging, it now appears to me that, with the possible exception of BYU (whose figures aren't public) there wouldn't be any schools outside the P5 that would qualify for the top division in football based on the criteria I laid out above. That wasn't what I was hoping for when I set the qualifying revenue threshold at $40M per year.

Even if you drop that to $30M a year, very few would qualify based on their most recent reporting. You would have to lower the threshold to $25M to have enough teams to form a sixth conference at the D-I level. And they would be literally scattered from coast to coast. Every A5 school would have qualified at the higher threshold, which underscores the disparity between the A5/P5 and G5.

The biggest reason for the limited number of qualifying G5 schools is the proposed exclusion of institutional subsidies from qualifying revenues. Four of the top revenue producers had subsidies in excess of $25M a year. UConn alone had a subsidy of $39M, and the Huskies qualifying revenues will take a hit soon when their share of the Big East exit fees disappears.

At best, assuming you grant automatic entry to the service academies and allow institutional subsidies to count, you could have an 8 team Eastern division (or separate conference) and an 8 team Western one. That would mean a top division of 81 schools. To make scheduling work, assuming you want to retain P5-G5 rivalries and give larger schools the ability to play 7 home games a year, you would probably need to allow D-I schools to play 2 games a year against D-II teams. I have no problem with that.

Those subsidies would not be so high if some of those schools weren't crippled by the paltry media revenues, a fraction of the distribution from the college football playoff, lower bowl payouts, lower NCAAT credits, etc.

The paltry media rights reflects the value of the product to the buyer.

If you think the price is too low from established middlemen, become your own. That's what Pac-12 did with third tier rights, it's what MWC did for a time. It is what CUSA is doing with their games not selected by the TV "partners".

There is a common refrain of but look at the ratings, but we aren't an advertising economy for media rights.

Da Ohio State University gets paid the way it gets paid because it is an accepted belief that if a cable company declined to pay the carriage fee to carry the network(s) showing a significant number of games involving the Buckeyes that there would be people calling the local satellite installers to take their money.

On a Razorback message board I saw a person telling about how their local cable company didn't have a deal (yet) with SECN and said they had called their alderman to try to get the cable company's city agreement revoked.

If there are no other games of conference interest on yeah SMU can snag some casual viewers in Texas, but not many of them are going to switch TV providers because of not having access to SMU broadcasts.

(05-23-2018 03:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 01:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 02:25 PM)ken d Wrote:  One of the reasons I went back to attendance, rather than revenue, was that it was easy to understand (even if it is also easy to fudge). And the more I looked at it, the revenue floor most likely to be used by folks like JR is going to include almost the entire P5 anyway (no matter how they are sorted into conferences). The fact is, I wasn't ready to go to war over whether Wake Forest and Georgia Tech should be kicked out because they are the only 2 P5 schools below $70 million.

Neither am I inclined to just grandfather the 65 P5 members to the exclusion of all others. And I sure as hell don't want to draw the line in a way that excludes the service academies (assuming they want to be included). I don't want to exclude any programs that can make a halfway decent case that they could be able to qualify as a top four team in a given year.

What I want is a result I can live with at a cost in angst and tears that I will soon get over. The 25K attendance number lets me do all that I really want, and if it is coupled with a requirement going forward to have a conference invite there is little chance of the kind of crippling bracket creep that has resulted in a 130 member FBS.

But, it also requires that I decouple football from basketball in deciding how big the tent is. I don't see how you can exclude a conference like the Big East from a "national" championship tournament because they choose not to compete in big time football.

So I said you can be in a D-I conference in basketball without having to also be D-I in football. Selfishly, I wanted a basketball D-I to be big enough to accommodate a 64 team championship tournament, which you couldn't do if you must be top division in all sports.

I have no illusions that schools who don't make the cut will just sit back and accept their fate. But I want to see a solution in my lifetime, and I think I (actually someone with more gravitas and reputation) could sell my thresholds to enough takers to make that happen.

The ability to compete is directly tied to revenue thresholds. Now do some less well endowed programs occasionally make a run? Yes. But they are an extreme anomaly and their coach is usually gone the next year. Boise's mini run under Peterson said more about Peterson than it did Boise.

In the end KenD it will be a combination of financing and market value that includes some of the G5. As for the service academies they made their decisions clear early on when the Big 12 and ACC were sniffing around. Height and weight restrictions however have been modified in the past year so it may be worth asking them again.

Now as to dividing requirements for an upper tier football association from those of an upper tier basketball only tier I have absolutely nothing against that concept. A separate set of thresholds for basketball programs is definitely in order. You can't co-mingle sports where one accounts for 85% of the total revenue on average and the other 14.5% of it.

IMO that is the concept that needs to be sold.

I have no problem with any of the following schools inclusion in the P upper tier: Air Force, Army, Boise State, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado State, Connecticut, East Carolina, Fresno State, Houston, Memphis, Navy, Nevada, Nevada Las Vegas, North Dakota State, Ohio, San Diego State, South Florida, or Wyoming. And I tried to be a little broader in scope than I am naturally inclined to be. Some of those are a reach on attendance and revenue but they do reach a part of the U.S. that other schools don't.

Your biggest obstacles will happen in states that aren't recruit rich where protectionism rears its head. I would think for instance that Penn State and Pitt probably wouldn't be excited over the inclusion of Temple. So the politics of it all is going to be state and region specific.

But we aren't going to get there overnight. The best way for the G5 to promote up is through natural accretion. I don't think Central or South Florida have long to wait and East Carolina if not buried behind Duke and Wake would already be there. Their obstacle is that networks don't want to have to pay any more high dollar rates for another school in North Carolina, never mind that they may be the 2nd or 3rd best draw there.

But what you give a whiff of is a basketball fan who sees the need of a football upper tier but cringes over what it might do to your precious hoops.

I actually think having an upper tier for basketball independent of football criteria is the "only" solution. So basketball only conferences need to be realigned so that the upper tier may consist of 4 strong football conferences and 2 to 4 hoops only upper tier conferences.

But as fewer play football the football first conferences will only become more selective in who they let in. With diminishing availability of quality players they will only become more protectionist in nature.

And BTW: The only way that existing P5's will be culled is if their conferences cease to exist and they are left behind in a consolidation.

I'm puzzled.

NDSU has a budget of $25 million of which $17 million is self-generated (ie. not school money nor student fees).

Ohio $31.8 million, $11.6 million self-generated

Houston $51.4 million, $26.3 self-generated

Colorado State $39.7 million, $17.5 self-generated

Fresno $44.8 million, $25 million self-generated

Nevada $31 million, $21 million self-generated

But no love for my boys at A-State $43 million, $30 million self-generated

Where do you get your numbers from? I'm having trouble getting anything close to a complete list.

USA Today

(05-23-2018 02:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 01:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm not sure that streaming will deliver the results that you believe will happen. I do think they will have fairer estimates of each schools marketability. But my fear is that it going to be used to shrink the overall pie.

TV will shrink the overall money pie if they can, sure.

The TV networks, using streaming data among other things, will eventually find out for college football, as the TV providers have found in the UK for the Premier League, that the number of fans who will pay specifically to watch their favorite teams is quite a bit smaller than the number who would watch if the broadcast was free or part of a giant bundle that includes all of their TV channels. No doubt they've found that some teams have a high percentage of fans who will pay, while some other teams that are assumed to be popular have a surprisingly small number of fans who will pay to watch.

The data similar to that last sentence is what the TV providers will use here to chisel down the amount they pay to college conferences or teams. It might be used in a "divide and conquer" strategy in which the TV guys, hoping to pay the most attractive schools more and the rest of a conference less, openly disclose their data to prove to the public and the conferences that a few teams in each "power conference" are extremely valuable to TV while the rest are in a range that is between a little and a whole lot less valuable. That strategy may work, because the members of a college conference are not tied together as business partners as closely as NFL franchises are tied to each other and to the league as a business.

I think it will depend on what we are defining as "the pie".

We are never going to see 100 million people receiving a cable sports channel/streaming package again.

Those who don't care about sports are already understanding they can lower their outlay by getting rid of packages that include sports.

The golden egg goose of non-sports fans paying the cost of sports may not have passed on from this world, but that poor hen isn't very healthy.

Right now we have a market disconnect.
A person can have a season's worth nearly all college football content for less than the price a of a season ticket at probably 90-100 of the 130 FBS schools. That disconnect exists in the pro sports realm as well.

The cost to the consumer for video content is going to rise. The question is does it rise enough to replace the old model? Does it rise more?

A high demand product will get a higher price.

In the UK, getting 10 sports channels will run you $45 per month, bring your own broadband connection. For $15 more you can add 21 general entertainment channels.

It will be what the market will bear.

(05-23-2018 01:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I totally understand your point of view and why you feel that way. I'm not sure that streaming will deliver the results that you believe will happen. I do think they will have fairer estimates of each schools marketability. But my fear is that it going to be used to shrink the overall pie.

I railed against the market footprint model in '09 three years before I came to the board. I saw it as a well designed ploy to pry leverage away from conferences, especially old established conferences as they urged us to expand peripherally and paid other conferences to raid what had been solid states in an effort to break up a conference's complete hold over their larger states.

That is why A&M is now in the SEC. It is why the SEC was allegedly offered a deal in which they might have obtained N.C. State and Virginia Tech. It is why even before they had a stake in the ACC I strongly suspect a particular network who issued valuation on SEC prospects may have leaked information to the ACC that helped them to land Florida State. Which just so happened to become later the cornerstone of value around which their new conference home built a major conference denying the Big 10 product it could have leveraged for better rates when that conference poached Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Virginia Tech and Miami.

Had the SEC landed F.S.U. in '92 we would have the hammer on rates for advertising during football games on Saturday in the Sunshine state.

My argument then, as it remains, was that in the end the content model would shift to a % of households in the state that each school actually delivered and that as a result of that rates would eventually fall. It is why such acrimony exists between Texas along with the Big 12 members against A&M. (Not to say there aren't other visceral examples of animosity there.) UT realized that their leverage over Texas was being forfeited as the Aggies left for the SEC.

All of us have been victimized by a scheme to divide the product of regions, and large states to undermine leverage. The AAC does that nicely with incursions into New England, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and even North Carolina. And who controls the rights to the AAC? Have they not through the SEC / ACC and AAC not monopolized a whole region for themselves?

It was a hostile takeover of a sleepy cottage industry complete with product placement for the maximization of network profits where the best lines are hyped and the lesser ones sold off or maintained on the cheap.

My animus is for all the dopes who believe it is an evil plan of the P5 to takeover. It was not and is not. The ones who produce the marginalization of the G5 schools are in suits working for corporations. The ones who pick a committee to pick the 4 in the CFP have done a magnificent job of justifying the selection of the schools while selecting the best national draws to enhance their profits.

I push for a P4 Champs only model because that eliminates their ability to pick. And while not fair for all, at least it is fair for the schools in the those 4 conferences.

The P5 is not pushing for permanent marginalization of the G5. The networks are. It's more work for less ad money to hype those which are not already identifiable product for the non-alumni masses and gamblers. If you want to know just how much organized crime and government go hand in hand now then just reflect upon the courts ruling on legalized betting. It won't stop point shaving in college football anymore than it has prevented the NFL from paying the house on 85% of the bets every Sunday. It is why the NFL calls itself an entertainment industry and not a sport.

There are no bought players and fumbles scores and interceptions are reviewed. But holding and interference flags are not and that is how the game is handicapped. It'll be no different in college now. Besides they don't have to throw games like in the old days, just control the spread and everyone profits, including the fairness insurance of the % paid to the conferences involved. The betting line the public sees. The closing line merely shows where the most money was bet. The house wins against the closing time 85% of the time.

No, I understand and sympathize with your sentiments. I just think they are somewhat misdirected as your point of view also assumes that where we are headed is what our presidents want. It is not. But it is lucrative (for now) and it is easy to let the networks guide our realignment by offering us more and more to take team x y or z from conference 1, 2 or 3. We get the money and they do the thinking. The extent of our control are the parameters for acceptable schools. But even those have been pushed.

On this board it was once so bad that any P5 related thread would have half a dozen angry G5 posters harassing the wrong folks. It is another example of the politics of division. Get the electorate to fight each other and government can do as it pleases and nobody will notice. Red vs Blue, Liberal vs Conservative, Right to life versus Family Planning, pro gun vs anti gun, pro LGBT vs anyone who objects, etc, etc, etc. Have any of those hackneyed issues been resolved? No. And they won't be as long as they are a convenient tool with which to divide the masses while candidates backed in both parties by the same corporations march off to office to do the bidding of their masters.

When I make my observations I'm merely stating what I see, not what I desire. What I see is reality and and what I would like is merely fancy.

Now add to all of this, which is being done to organize a somewhat disorganized product (college football) and to shape it into a more marketable and profitable product (alumni desires be damned), the coming downsizing of State budgets for higher education due to perks being offered the retail corporations which include the State's portion of the sales tax, 50% of the counties property tax, just to get a Big Box to locate and to pay their building's cost at the expense of the State and its taxpayers and it doesn't take long to see how we the people have been gigged twice in the pocket to provide political favors at the expense of what we have loved so dearly, our local schools where our children are supposed to learn, and our colleges. Tack on the destruction of local family businesses who are the ultimate victims here and whose fully paid taxes are now missed with their empty buildings and closed doors and the travesty is only compounded.

This whole mess is merely part of the systemic economic rape of the middle class that corporate conglomerates have wrought upon our people. They contribute more than we can to the elections funds, charge them back for campaign advertising collecting through one enterprise they own, the media, everything their other enterprises donated, eliminating the voice the of the people in government, and getting a damned tax write off to do it!

College football is a product, but the free market isn't determining its ultimate value. The free market will be the excuse however to cheapen the overhead of the networks who monetize us.

My frustration at times with you and others is that you are so focused on your situation, your relationships, and what is happening at your school, that you either miss, or worse deny, the scope of the betrayal of the public's trust that has led to the colossal abuse of some of our most venerated social touchstones, our schools.

The P5 is not to blame. The corporate raiders are, just as surely as if you were a union guy who had your pension fund raided, or a private investor who was bilked by Milken or Madoff.

I think you have associated me with the thoughts of others.

I for one have consistently been a voice for the proposition that the CFP is the best thing that has ever happened for the G5. I haven't been one calling it an evil cartel.

A G5 can make the playoff if they have a convincing resume to be top four. The access game was a P5 offering, not the result of a G5 "strike" and worst element of the revenue sharing for the G5 is not the percentage but rather the G5's own cut throat insistence on the performance money distribution. That's a G5 invention not something imposed on them and it is a significant departure from how the other 5 partner conferences deal with revenue.

I don't expect a 130rd share of the revenue generated in football because AState is FBS nor do I expect a 1/350th (or whatever the number is now) share of hoops revenue merely for being Division I and sponsoring football.

I shed no tears when a G5 who has a shot at an at-large craps the bed and loses in their first conference tournament game to a 261 RPI team. The power that be didn't force the conference to host a tournament.

I don't sweat over college teams paying their players because it isn't going to make any notable changes in the distribution of talent vs today unless some school chooses to bleed their students more.

There are quite a few posts from me over the past few years pointing out that the minimum standards for Division I are a joke. While everyone sits around trying to craft a new super duper football attendance or budget based system no one bothers to pay attention to the fact that the entry barrier to Division I is scant. A high caliber Division II can move from Division II to Division I with little or no new outlay for athletics. That's terrible. You can't shift from FCS to FBS without spending more.

Right now Division I requires: Sponsor 14 sports, award 50% of the scholarships allowed in the sports sponsored and mostly play Division I competition. Standards that pale to FBS with the requirement to sponsor 16 sports, award at least 200 rides, and play a minimum of 5 of 12 games at home with at least four of those vs other FBS.

Once upon time, we saw schools play as few as three home games on an 11 game schedule in I-A. We saw teams play one or none at home against a member of the division they were a putative member of.

Nothing wrong with bringing the Division I criteria in closer alignment with FBS criteria because that's more consistent with the Division I Philosophy Statement.

Team sports have to play 40% of their contests at home against other Division I teams is a good start. Awarding 90% of the maximum allowed aid in the 14 sports sponsored is a good start. It will discourage moving up and make it harder for schools not really trying to do anything other than possess the Division I badge to keep it.

(05-24-2018 01:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There are quite a few posts from me over the past few years pointing out that the minimum standards for Division I are a joke. While everyone sits around trying to craft a new super duper football attendance or budget based system no one bothers to pay attention to the fact that the entry barrier to Division I is scant. A high caliber Division II can move from Division II to Division I with little or no new outlay for athletics. That's terrible. You can't shift from FCS to FBS without spending more.

Right now Division I requires: Sponsor 14 sports, award 50% of the scholarships allowed in the sports sponsored and mostly play Division I competition. Standards that pale to FBS with the requirement to sponsor 16 sports, award at least 200 rides, and play a minimum of 5 of 12 games at home with at least four of those vs other FBS.

Once upon time, we saw schools play as few as three home games on an 11 game schedule in I-A. We saw teams play one or none at home against a member of the division they were a putative member of.

Nothing wrong with bringing the Division I criteria in closer alignment with FBS criteria because that's more consistent with the Division I Philosophy Statement.

Team sports have to play 40% of their contests at home against other Division I teams is a good start. Awarding 90% of the maximum allowed aid in the 14 sports sponsored is a good start. It will discourage moving up and make it harder for schools not really trying to do anything other than possess the Division I badge to keep it.

This is it in a nutshell. Do you think that making FBS standard the standard for all of D-I would eliminate enough schools that very few changes would be needed beyond perhaps a minimum revenue standard for D-IA football?

How many schools would drop down if they had to fully fund 150 scholarships (200 if you have football)? If you knock the bottom 15 or so conferences from the division, do you really need to even do away with automatic qualifiers? That's enough additional at-large slots to give the IAA schools a decent shot at making the dance.

And, if D-IA football consisted of only six conferences, do you think they would be more willing to have an 8 team playoff that includes all conference six champions? You could guarantee first round losers an NY6 game and still have room for the four highest ranked teams not in the playoff to fill out the NY6 field.

But as long as your entry standards are as low as they are now, you may as well hang out a sign that says: "Free money. Apply within."

(05-25-2018 08:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 01:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There are quite a few posts from me over the past few years pointing out that the minimum standards for Division I are a joke. While everyone sits around trying to craft a new super duper football attendance or budget based system no one bothers to pay attention to the fact that the entry barrier to Division I is scant. A high caliber Division II can move from Division II to Division I with little or no new outlay for athletics. That's terrible. You can't shift from FCS to FBS without spending more.

Right now Division I requires: Sponsor 14 sports, award 50% of the scholarships allowed in the sports sponsored and mostly play Division I competition. Standards that pale to FBS with the requirement to sponsor 16 sports, award at least 200 rides, and play a minimum of 5 of 12 games at home with at least four of those vs other FBS.

Once upon time, we saw schools play as few as three home games on an 11 game schedule in I-A. We saw teams play one or none at home against a member of the division they were a putative member of.

Nothing wrong with bringing the Division I criteria in closer alignment with FBS criteria because that's more consistent with the Division I Philosophy Statement.

Team sports have to play 40% of their contests at home against other Division I teams is a good start. Awarding 90% of the maximum allowed aid in the 14 sports sponsored is a good start. It will discourage moving up and make it harder for schools not really trying to do anything other than possess the Division I badge to keep it.

This is it in a nutshell. Do you think that making FBS standard the standard for all of D-I would eliminate enough schools that very few changes would be needed beyond perhaps a minimum revenue standard for D-IA football?

How many schools would drop down if they had to fully fund 150 scholarships (200 if you have football)? If you knock the bottom 15 or so conferences from the division, do you really need to even do away with automatic qualifiers? That's enough additional at-large slots to give the IAA schools a decent shot at making the dance.

And, if D-IA football consisted of only six conferences, do you think they would be more willing to have an 8 team playoff that includes all conference six champions? You could guarantee first round losers an NY6 game and still have room for the four highest ranked teams not in the playoff to fill out the NY6 field.

But as long as your entry standards are as low as they are now, you may as well hang out a sign that says: "Free money. Apply within."

That is of course an unknown.

Just for perspective. DePaul sponsors 15 sports (one fewer than the FBS limit, one over the Division I minimum) and if they award 100% of the athletic scholarships permitted, they could only award 119 rides. If they added FCS football they would max at 182. If they dropped their two smallest sports in scholarships and added FCS football they would be at 169.5

I don't know what DePaul's actual awarded numbers are but I know there are quite a few schools who award 100% in men's and women's hoops, 100% in baseball and volleyball (and/or softball if offered) and award between 50% and 100% in the remaining sports. DePaul only HAS to award 59.5 rides, I suspect in a normal year a school like DePaul awards between 115 and 119 because there may be someone not show up, become ineligible, etc., and the coaches choose to not award aid or full aid to the available walkons.

(05-25-2018 10:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 08:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 01:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There are quite a few posts from me over the past few years pointing out that the minimum standards for Division I are a joke. While everyone sits around trying to craft a new super duper football attendance or budget based system no one bothers to pay attention to the fact that the entry barrier to Division I is scant. A high caliber Division II can move from Division II to Division I with little or no new outlay for athletics. That's terrible. You can't shift from FCS to FBS without spending more.

Right now Division I requires: Sponsor 14 sports, award 50% of the scholarships allowed in the sports sponsored and mostly play Division I competition. Standards that pale to FBS with the requirement to sponsor 16 sports, award at least 200 rides, and play a minimum of 5 of 12 games at home with at least four of those vs other FBS.

Once upon time, we saw schools play as few as three home games on an 11 game schedule in I-A. We saw teams play one or none at home against a member of the division they were a putative member of.

Nothing wrong with bringing the Division I criteria in closer alignment with FBS criteria because that's more consistent with the Division I Philosophy Statement.

Team sports have to play 40% of their contests at home against other Division I teams is a good start. Awarding 90% of the maximum allowed aid in the 14 sports sponsored is a good start. It will discourage moving up and make it harder for schools not really trying to do anything other than possess the Division I badge to keep it.

This is it in a nutshell. Do you think that making FBS standard the standard for all of D-I would eliminate enough schools that very few changes would be needed beyond perhaps a minimum revenue standard for D-IA football?

How many schools would drop down if they had to fully fund 150 scholarships (200 if you have football)? If you knock the bottom 15 or so conferences from the division, do you really need to even do away with automatic qualifiers? That's enough additional at-large slots to give the IAA schools a decent shot at making the dance.

And, if D-IA football consisted of only six conferences, do you think they would be more willing to have an 8 team playoff that includes all conference six champions? You could guarantee first round losers an NY6 game and still have room for the four highest ranked teams not in the playoff to fill out the NY6 field.

But as long as your entry standards are as low as they are now, you may as well hang out a sign that says: "Free money. Apply within."

That is of course an unknown.

Just for perspective. DePaul sponsors 15 sports (one fewer than the FBS limit, one over the Division I minimum) and if they award 100% of the athletic scholarships permitted, they could only award 119 rides. If they added FCS football they would max at 182. If they dropped their two smallest sports in scholarships and added FCS football they would be at 169.5

I don't know what DePaul's actual awarded numbers are but I know there are quite a few schools who award 100% in men's and women's hoops, 100% in baseball and volleyball (and/or softball if offered) and award between 50% and 100% in the remaining sports. DePaul only HAS to award 59.5 rides, I suspect in a normal year a school like DePaul awards between 115 and 119 because there may be someone not show up, become ineligible, etc., and the coaches choose to not award aid or full aid to the available walkons.

Just increasing the scholarship limit doesn't seem like a meaningful barrier. Any school that wants to can permit its athletic department to offer the maximum number of athletic scholarships and not charge the athletic department anything.

(05-25-2018 10:43 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 10:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 08:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 01:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There are quite a few posts from me over the past few years pointing out that the minimum standards for Division I are a joke. While everyone sits around trying to craft a new super duper football attendance or budget based system no one bothers to pay attention to the fact that the entry barrier to Division I is scant. A high caliber Division II can move from Division II to Division I with little or no new outlay for athletics. That's terrible. You can't shift from FCS to FBS without spending more.

Right now Division I requires: Sponsor 14 sports, award 50% of the scholarships allowed in the sports sponsored and mostly play Division I competition. Standards that pale to FBS with the requirement to sponsor 16 sports, award at least 200 rides, and play a minimum of 5 of 12 games at home with at least four of those vs other FBS.

Once upon time, we saw schools play as few as three home games on an 11 game schedule in I-A. We saw teams play one or none at home against a member of the division they were a putative member of.

Nothing wrong with bringing the Division I criteria in closer alignment with FBS criteria because that's more consistent with the Division I Philosophy Statement.

Team sports have to play 40% of their contests at home against other Division I teams is a good start. Awarding 90% of the maximum allowed aid in the 14 sports sponsored is a good start. It will discourage moving up and make it harder for schools not really trying to do anything other than possess the Division I badge to keep it.

This is it in a nutshell. Do you think that making FBS standard the standard for all of D-I would eliminate enough schools that very few changes would be needed beyond perhaps a minimum revenue standard for D-IA football?

How many schools would drop down if they had to fully fund 150 scholarships (200 if you have football)? If you knock the bottom 15 or so conferences from the division, do you really need to even do away with automatic qualifiers? That's enough additional at-large slots to give the IAA schools a decent shot at making the dance.

And, if D-IA football consisted of only six conferences, do you think they would be more willing to have an 8 team playoff that includes all conference six champions? You could guarantee first round losers an NY6 game and still have room for the four highest ranked teams not in the playoff to fill out the NY6 field.

But as long as your entry standards are as low as they are now, you may as well hang out a sign that says: "Free money. Apply within."

That is of course an unknown.

Just for perspective. DePaul sponsors 15 sports (one fewer than the FBS limit, one over the Division I minimum) and if they award 100% of the athletic scholarships permitted, they could only award 119 rides. If they added FCS football they would max at 182. If they dropped their two smallest sports in scholarships and added FCS football they would be at 169.5

I don't know what DePaul's actual awarded numbers are but I know there are quite a few schools who award 100% in men's and women's hoops, 100% in baseball and volleyball (and/or softball if offered) and award between 50% and 100% in the remaining sports. DePaul only HAS to award 59.5 rides, I suspect in a normal year a school like DePaul awards between 115 and 119 because there may be someone not show up, become ineligible, etc., and the coaches choose to not award aid or full aid to the available walkons.

Just increasing the scholarship limit doesn't seem like a meaningful barrier. Any school that wants to can permit its athletic department to offer the maximum number of athletic scholarships and not charge the athletic department anything.

In most states the public's still have to have money flow through and sourced compliant with state law, that is why (for example) Little Rock doesn't award full aid in most sports. For privates, they are free to do as they choose as long as the board blesses it.

(05-25-2018 11:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 10:43 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 10:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 08:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 01:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There are quite a few posts from me over the past few years pointing out that the minimum standards for Division I are a joke. While everyone sits around trying to craft a new super duper football attendance or budget based system no one bothers to pay attention to the fact that the entry barrier to Division I is scant. A high caliber Division II can move from Division II to Division I with little or no new outlay for athletics. That's terrible. You can't shift from FCS to FBS without spending more.

Right now Division I requires: Sponsor 14 sports, award 50% of the scholarships allowed in the sports sponsored and mostly play Division I competition. Standards that pale to FBS with the requirement to sponsor 16 sports, award at least 200 rides, and play a minimum of 5 of 12 games at home with at least four of those vs other FBS.

Once upon time, we saw schools play as few as three home games on an 11 game schedule in I-A. We saw teams play one or none at home against a member of the division they were a putative member of.

Nothing wrong with bringing the Division I criteria in closer alignment with FBS criteria because that's more consistent with the Division I Philosophy Statement.

Team sports have to play 40% of their contests at home against other Division I teams is a good start. Awarding 90% of the maximum allowed aid in the 14 sports sponsored is a good start. It will discourage moving up and make it harder for schools not really trying to do anything other than possess the Division I badge to keep it.

This is it in a nutshell. Do you think that making FBS standard the standard for all of D-I would eliminate enough schools that very few changes would be needed beyond perhaps a minimum revenue standard for D-IA football?

How many schools would drop down if they had to fully fund 150 scholarships (200 if you have football)? If you knock the bottom 15 or so conferences from the division, do you really need to even do away with automatic qualifiers? That's enough additional at-large slots to give the IAA schools a decent shot at making the dance.

And, if D-IA football consisted of only six conferences, do you think they would be more willing to have an 8 team playoff that includes all conference six champions? You could guarantee first round losers an NY6 game and still have room for the four highest ranked teams not in the playoff to fill out the NY6 field.

But as long as your entry standards are as low as they are now, you may as well hang out a sign that says: "Free money. Apply within."

That is of course an unknown.

Just for perspective. DePaul sponsors 15 sports (one fewer than the FBS limit, one over the Division I minimum) and if they award 100% of the athletic scholarships permitted, they could only award 119 rides. If they added FCS football they would max at 182. If they dropped their two smallest sports in scholarships and added FCS football they would be at 169.5

I don't know what DePaul's actual awarded numbers are but I know there are quite a few schools who award 100% in men's and women's hoops, 100% in baseball and volleyball (and/or softball if offered) and award between 50% and 100% in the remaining sports. DePaul only HAS to award 59.5 rides, I suspect in a normal year a school like DePaul awards between 115 and 119 because there may be someone not show up, become ineligible, etc., and the coaches choose to not award aid or full aid to the available walkons.

Just increasing the scholarship limit doesn't seem like a meaningful barrier. Any school that wants to can permit its athletic department to offer the maximum number of athletic scholarships and not charge the athletic department anything.

In most states the public's still have to have money flow through and sourced compliant with state law, that is why (for example) Little Rock doesn't award full aid in most sports. For privates, they are free to do as they choose as long as the board blesses it.

It would still be compliant with state law if the university bears the cost of the athletic scholarships and doesn't require reimbursement from the athletic department, wouldn't it? I'm not suggesting any illicit accounting shenanigans.

(05-25-2018 11:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 11:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 10:43 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 10:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 08:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  This is it in a nutshell. Do you think that making FBS standard the standard for all of D-I would eliminate enough schools that very few changes would be needed beyond perhaps a minimum revenue standard for D-IA football?

How many schools would drop down if they had to fully fund 150 scholarships (200 if you have football)? If you knock the bottom 15 or so conferences from the division, do you really need to even do away with automatic qualifiers? That's enough additional at-large slots to give the IAA schools a decent shot at making the dance.

And, if D-IA football consisted of only six conferences, do you think they would be more willing to have an 8 team playoff that includes all conference six champions? You could guarantee first round losers an NY6 game and still have room for the four highest ranked teams not in the playoff to fill out the NY6 field.

But as long as your entry standards are as low as they are now, you may as well hang out a sign that says: "Free money. Apply within."

That is of course an unknown.

Just for perspective. DePaul sponsors 15 sports (one fewer than the FBS limit, one over the Division I minimum) and if they award 100% of the athletic scholarships permitted, they could only award 119 rides. If they added FCS football they would max at 182. If they dropped their two smallest sports in scholarships and added FCS football they would be at 169.5

I don't know what DePaul's actual awarded numbers are but I know there are quite a few schools who award 100% in men's and women's hoops, 100% in baseball and volleyball (and/or softball if offered) and award between 50% and 100% in the remaining sports. DePaul only HAS to award 59.5 rides, I suspect in a normal year a school like DePaul awards between 115 and 119 because there may be someone not show up, become ineligible, etc., and the coaches choose to not award aid or full aid to the available walkons.

Just increasing the scholarship limit doesn't seem like a meaningful barrier. Any school that wants to can permit its athletic department to offer the maximum number of athletic scholarships and not charge the athletic department anything.

In most states the public's still have to have money flow through and sourced compliant with state law, that is why (for example) Little Rock doesn't award full aid in most sports. For privates, they are free to do as they choose as long as the board blesses it.

It would still be compliant with state law if the university bears the cost of the athletic scholarships and doesn't require reimbursement from the athletic department, wouldn't it? I'm not suggesting any illicit accounting shenanigans.

In Arkansas there has to be a transfer of funds from the athletic account to the tuition account equal to the in-state tuition cost, books, fees, and housing for every athletic scholarship.

Arkansas and Arkansas State are the only schools 100%(ish) funding their scholarships because the others need their ticket revenue, donations, and transfers from the university auxiliary accounts and student fees to fund other things.

A dollar that flows into the tuition accounts can't flow back out to athletics.

Until about 8 years ago the schools had to allocate in and out of state tuition and it got to be a real mess figuring out if it was being done right because each university has it's own rules for determining which out-of-state students are entitled to a waiver to be treated as in-state. The state auditors finally submitted a proposal to treat all athletes as in-state, which of course the schools quickly endorsed.

(05-25-2018 12:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 11:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 11:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 10:43 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 10:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  That is of course an unknown.

Just for perspective. DePaul sponsors 15 sports (one fewer than the FBS limit, one over the Division I minimum) and if they award 100% of the athletic scholarships permitted, they could only award 119 rides. If they added FCS football they would max at 182. If they dropped their two smallest sports in scholarships and added FCS football they would be at 169.5

I don't know what DePaul's actual awarded numbers are but I know there are quite a few schools who award 100% in men's and women's hoops, 100% in baseball and volleyball (and/or softball if offered) and award between 50% and 100% in the remaining sports. DePaul only HAS to award 59.5 rides, I suspect in a normal year a school like DePaul awards between 115 and 119 because there may be someone not show up, become ineligible, etc., and the coaches choose to not award aid or full aid to the available walkons.

Just increasing the scholarship limit doesn't seem like a meaningful barrier. Any school that wants to can permit its athletic department to offer the maximum number of athletic scholarships and not charge the athletic department anything.

In most states the public's still have to have money flow through and sourced compliant with state law, that is why (for example) Little Rock doesn't award full aid in most sports. For privates, they are free to do as they choose as long as the board blesses it.

It would still be compliant with state law if the university bears the cost of the athletic scholarships and doesn't require reimbursement from the athletic department, wouldn't it? I'm not suggesting any illicit accounting shenanigans.

In Arkansas there has to be a transfer of funds from the athletic account to the tuition account equal to the in-state tuition cost, books, fees, and housing for every athletic scholarship.

Arkansas and Arkansas State are the only schools 100%(ish) funding their scholarships because the others need their ticket revenue, donations, and transfers from the university auxiliary accounts and student fees to fund other things.

A dollar that flows into the tuition accounts can't flow back out to athletics.

Until about 8 years ago the schools had to allocate in and out of state tuition and it got to be a real mess figuring out if it was being done right because each university has it's own rules for determining which out-of-state students are entitled to a waiver to be treated as in-state. The state auditors finally submitted a proposal to treat all athletes as in-state, which of course the schools quickly endorsed.

Then would you agree that if Arkansas and Arkansas state were the only two schools in Arkansas to offer football that the budget process for the state would be better off? And I would argue that Arkansas and Arkansas State would be better off both athletically and financially because of it.

This has been one of the arguments that I have put forth in other ways in the past. Subsidizing costly sports that don't pay for themselves shouldn't be the burden of the taxpayers, period.

It's one thing for the health and well rounding of students to offer intramural sports and expect that it be part of the educational budget. But to fly 60 or more students and coaches to 6 football games a year while running in the red isn't acceptable unless you are a private school.

If this kind of fiscal sanity was practiced everywhere states would owe less, there would be a better talent pool for those who could successfully operate the programs, and the taxpayers would receive a break.

Now with regard to this thread we go back to the fact that all but maybe one or two of the 65 schools within the present P5 would be within standards of operation here. Then if you took those G5's who could operate within those standards of no subsidy and a program in the black, you would have a very small pool of extra schools to accommodate within the P5, and it could probably be done.

The sport, and all of the schools would be better off for this kind of program segregation.

(05-25-2018 10:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 08:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 01:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There are quite a few posts from me over the past few years pointing out that the minimum standards for Division I are a joke. While everyone sits around trying to craft a new super duper football attendance or budget based system no one bothers to pay attention to the fact that the entry barrier to Division I is scant. A high caliber Division II can move from Division II to Division I with little or no new outlay for athletics. That's terrible. You can't shift from FCS to FBS without spending more.

Right now Division I requires: Sponsor 14 sports, award 50% of the scholarships allowed in the sports sponsored and mostly play Division I competition. Standards that pale to FBS with the requirement to sponsor 16 sports, award at least 200 rides, and play a minimum of 5 of 12 games at home with at least four of those vs other FBS.

Once upon time, we saw schools play as few as three home games on an 11 game schedule in I-A. We saw teams play one or none at home against a member of the division they were a putative member of.

Nothing wrong with bringing the Division I criteria in closer alignment with FBS criteria because that's more consistent with the Division I Philosophy Statement.

Team sports have to play 40% of their contests at home against other Division I teams is a good start. Awarding 90% of the maximum allowed aid in the 14 sports sponsored is a good start. It will discourage moving up and make it harder for schools not really trying to do anything other than possess the Division I badge to keep it.

This is it in a nutshell. Do you think that making FBS standard the standard for all of D-I would eliminate enough schools that very few changes would be needed beyond perhaps a minimum revenue standard for D-IA football?

How many schools would drop down if they had to fully fund 150 scholarships (200 if you have football)? If you knock the bottom 15 or so conferences from the division, do you really need to even do away with automatic qualifiers? That's enough additional at-large slots to give the IAA schools a decent shot at making the dance.

And, if D-IA football consisted of only six conferences, do you think they would be more willing to have an 8 team playoff that includes all conference six champions? You could guarantee first round losers an NY6 game and still have room for the four highest ranked teams not in the playoff to fill out the NY6 field.

But as long as your entry standards are as low as they are now, you may as well hang out a sign that says: "Free money. Apply within."

That is of course an unknown.

Just for perspective. DePaul sponsors 15 sports (one fewer than the FBS limit, one over the Division I minimum) and if they award 100% of the athletic scholarships permitted, they could only award 119 rides. If they added FCS football they would max at 182. If they dropped their two smallest sports in scholarships and added FCS football they would be at 169.5

I don't know what DePaul's actual awarded numbers are but I know there are quite a few schools who award 100% in men's and women's hoops, 100% in baseball and volleyball (and/or softball if offered) and award between 50% and 100% in the remaining sports. DePaul only HAS to award 59.5 rides, I suspect in a normal year a school like DePaul awards between 115 and 119 because there may be someone not show up, become ineligible, etc., and the coaches choose to not award aid or full aid to the available walkons.

According to their required Equity in Athletics reports, DePaul does seem to lag behind the rest of the Big East. But that report only shows what sports are offered and how many students are participating. It doesn't show how many scholarships are awarded.

The cynic in me wants to say that maybe DePaul's scholarship policies are related to the fact they are generally uncompetitive in the Big East. That's kind of the point of all this. Schools that are uncompetitive by choice belong in a lower classification. We would have to have access to data not now available to us to do anything except speculate how many schools would end up where.

One of the reasons I suggested using CPA audits to insure compliance was that they would have hard data at their disposal, and could ferret out the fuzzy accounting tricks schools might use to avoid complying with the intent of these rules. They could get to the facts where the NCAA compliance staff could not (even if they actually wanted to, which I'm not real sure of).

The one thing we are 99.9% sure of is that there are a lot of schools in D-I who don't belong there.

(05-25-2018 04:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 10:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 08:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 01:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There are quite a few posts from me over the past few years pointing out that the minimum standards for Division I are a joke. While everyone sits around trying to craft a new super duper football attendance or budget based system no one bothers to pay attention to the fact that the entry barrier to Division I is scant. A high caliber Division II can move from Division II to Division I with little or no new outlay for athletics. That's terrible. You can't shift from FCS to FBS without spending more.

Right now Division I requires: Sponsor 14 sports, award 50% of the scholarships allowed in the sports sponsored and mostly play Division I competition. Standards that pale to FBS with the requirement to sponsor 16 sports, award at least 200 rides, and play a minimum of 5 of 12 games at home with at least four of those vs other FBS.

Once upon time, we saw schools play as few as three home games on an 11 game schedule in I-A. We saw teams play one or none at home against a member of the division they were a putative member of.

Nothing wrong with bringing the Division I criteria in closer alignment with FBS criteria because that's more consistent with the Division I Philosophy Statement.

Team sports have to play 40% of their contests at home against other Division I teams is a good start. Awarding 90% of the maximum allowed aid in the 14 sports sponsored is a good start. It will discourage moving up and make it harder for schools not really trying to do anything other than possess the Division I badge to keep it.

This is it in a nutshell. Do you think that making FBS standard the standard for all of D-I would eliminate enough schools that very few changes would be needed beyond perhaps a minimum revenue standard for D-IA football?

How many schools would drop down if they had to fully fund 150 scholarships (200 if you have football)? If you knock the bottom 15 or so conferences from the division, do you really need to even do away with automatic qualifiers? That's enough additional at-large slots to give the IAA schools a decent shot at making the dance.

And, if D-IA football consisted of only six conferences, do you think they would be more willing to have an 8 team playoff that includes all conference six champions? You could guarantee first round losers an NY6 game and still have room for the four highest ranked teams not in the playoff to fill out the NY6 field.

But as long as your entry standards are as low as they are now, you may as well hang out a sign that says: "Free money. Apply within."

That is of course an unknown.

Just for perspective. DePaul sponsors 15 sports (one fewer than the FBS limit, one over the Division I minimum) and if they award 100% of the athletic scholarships permitted, they could only award 119 rides. If they added FCS football they would max at 182. If they dropped their two smallest sports in scholarships and added FCS football they would be at 169.5

I don't know what DePaul's actual awarded numbers are but I know there are quite a few schools who award 100% in men's and women's hoops, 100% in baseball and volleyball (and/or softball if offered) and award between 50% and 100% in the remaining sports. DePaul only HAS to award 59.5 rides, I suspect in a normal year a school like DePaul awards between 115 and 119 because there may be someone not show up, become ineligible, etc., and the coaches choose to not award aid or full aid to the available walkons.

According to their required Equity in Athletics reports, DePaul does seem to lag behind the rest of the Big East. But that report only shows what sports are offered and how many students are participating. It doesn't show how many scholarships are awarded.

The cynic in me wants to say that maybe DePaul's scholarship policies are related to the fact they are generally uncompetitive in the Big East. That's kind of the point of all this. Schools that uncompetitive by choice belong in a lower classification. We would have to have access to data not now available to us to do anything except speculate how many schools would end up where.

One of the reasons I suggested using CPA audits to insure compliance was that they would have hard data at their disposal, and could ferret out the fuzzy accounting tricks schools might use to avoid complying with the intent of these rules. They could get to the facts where the NCAA compliance staff could not (even if they actually wanted to, which I'm not real sure of).

The one thing we are 99.9% sure of is that there are a lot of schools in D-I who don't belong there.

Yeah! That's right and the numbers tell us that anyone past position #72 in earnings probably doesn't belong and perhaps a couple above that position don't belong either.

(05-25-2018 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 11:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 11:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 10:43 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Just increasing the scholarship limit doesn't seem like a meaningful barrier. Any school that wants to can permit its athletic department to offer the maximum number of athletic scholarships and not charge the athletic department anything.

In most states the public's still have to have money flow through and sourced compliant with state law, that is why (for example) Little Rock doesn't award full aid in most sports. For privates, they are free to do as they choose as long as the board blesses it.

It would still be compliant with state law if the university bears the cost of the athletic scholarships and doesn't require reimbursement from the athletic department, wouldn't it? I'm not suggesting any illicit accounting shenanigans.

In Arkansas there has to be a transfer of funds from the athletic account to the tuition account equal to the in-state tuition cost, books, fees, and housing for every athletic scholarship.

Arkansas and Arkansas State are the only schools 100%(ish) funding their scholarships because the others need their ticket revenue, donations, and transfers from the university auxiliary accounts and student fees to fund other things.

A dollar that flows into the tuition accounts can't flow back out to athletics.

Until about 8 years ago the schools had to allocate in and out of state tuition and it got to be a real mess figuring out if it was being done right because each university has it's own rules for determining which out-of-state students are entitled to a waiver to be treated as in-state. The state auditors finally submitted a proposal to treat all athletes as in-state, which of course the schools quickly endorsed.

Then would you agree that if Arkansas and Arkansas state were the only two schools in Arkansas to offer football that the budget process for the state would be better off? And I would argue that Arkansas and Arkansas State would be better off both athletically and financially because of it.

This has been one of the arguments that I have put forth in other ways in the past. Subsidizing costly sports that don't pay for themselves shouldn't be the burden of the taxpayers, period.

It's one thing for the health and well rounding of students to offer intramural sports and expect that it be part of the educational budget. But to fly 60 or more students and coaches to 6 football games a year while running in the red isn't acceptable unless you are a private school.

If this kind of fiscal sanity was practiced everywhere states would owe less, there would be a better talent pool for those who could successfully operate the programs, and the taxpayers would receive a break.

Now with regard to this thread we go back to the fact that all but maybe one or two of the 65 schools within the present P5 would be within standards of operation here. Then if you took those G5's who could operate within those standards of no subsidy and a program in the black, you would have a very small pool of extra schools to accommodate within the P5, and it could probably be done.

The sport, and all of the schools would be better off for this kind of program segregation.

I semi-agree.

UALR doesn't fully fund what they have and they just agreed to make their title IX situation potentially messier by adding wrestling.

UAPB doesn't fully fund either and will stick FCS as long as they can because of the HBCU ties to SWAC but then I'm the cynic who listened to the SWAC complain about the NCAA raising academic standards and said they should join the NAIA.

UCA surprised me when they went FCS because I worked out the math and saw they would be a million bucks short and guess who got busted by the state auditors for transferring a million bucks improperly and then later got caught paying an ad agency to promote UCA and nearly all of the money (minus commission) was used to buy ads on the football coaches show which got another hand slap from state auditors but could have just as easily been an FBI case if the auditors had been so inclined. They seem to have cleaned up their act after the two presidents ended up taking plea bargains for financial shenanigans.

I'm sympathetic to the UAPB situation but as I said, I think much of the SWAC would be better served playing Division II or NAIA.

UALR? If they want to be Division I they need to be in a cheaper league than the Sun Belt like the Southland or OVC.

After them, you have Arkansas Tech, Henderson State, Southern Arkansas, Arkansas-Monticello, and Arkansas-Fort Smith in Division II.

I don't have an issue with the Division II schools, they have athletics in perspective in line with their resources.

I try to evaluate membership in light of what the schools years ago said reflected their ideals.

20.9.2
Division I Philosophy.
Members of Division I support the following principles in the belief that the following statements provide further definition of the nature and purposes of the division. These statements
are not binding on member institutions, but serve as additional guidance for the preparation of legislation by the division and for planning and implementation of programs by institutions and conferences. A member of Division I:
(a) Subscribes to high standards of academic quality, as well as breadth of academic opportunity;
I've not dug into EVERY FBS school but based on sampling, I think are probably no more than 5-10 schools in FBS that don't have higher unconditional admission standards than the Division I initial eligibility standards. The number in Division I as whole? I'm guesstimating there are more than 100, and probably closer to 150 that the will grant unconditional admission to a student who does not meet the Division I initial eligibility standard. I tend to believe that if a greater number of schools in Division I had those higher general student standards that the academic standard for initial eligibilty would be higher.
(b) Strives in its athletics program for regional and national excellence and prominence. Accordingly, its recruitment of student-athletes and its emphasis on and support of its athletics program are, in most cases, regional and national in scope;
The TV market craze has led to a number of schools moving to Division I who proclaim they are worthy of Division I based on their presence in some large metro area. Add to that the "me to" schools who moved up because someone they used to compete with moved up carry the same local philosophy they always had. There are probably at least 200 schools that aren't sending their coaches 4 and 5 hours or into other states to meet with alums and ticket holders and local media. Coaches aren't recruiting outside of a small local bubble except in maybe a couple sports. Schools that wouldn't dream of playing a non-conference home and home with someone 800 or 1000 miles away.
© Recognizes the dual objective in its athletics program of serving both the university or college community (participants, student body, faculty-staff, alumni) and the general public (community, area, state, nation);
(d) Believes in offering extensive opportunities for participation in varsity intercollegiate athletics for both men and women;
That is sponsoring quite a few sports but also the scholarship assistance that goes with it. This particular part is why you see me frequently raising the issue of schools not awarding close to the maximum aid for the sports they sponsor.
(e) Sponsors at the highest feasible level of intercollegiate competition one or both of the traditional spectator-oriented, income-producing sports of football and basketball. In doing so, members of Division I recognize the differences in institutional objectives in support of football; therefore, the division provides competition in that sport in the Bowl Subdivision and the Championship Subdivision;
(f )
Believes in scheduling its athletics contests primarily with other members of Division I, especially in the emphasized, spectator-oriented sports, as a reflection of its goal of maintaining an appropriate competitive level in its sports program;
It's been a long time since I've noticed anyone playing the bare minimum number FBS/I-A football games against FBS/I-A schools (currently 8 is the minimum) but it happens in other sports. Been probably 20 years but I know Tulsa got sideways for not sending enough female track athletes to enough meets to count and the NCAA put the entire athletic program on probation for that. Probably one reason you don't see that happening much.
(g) Maintains institutional control over all funds supporting athletics; and
(h) Understands, respects and supports the programs and philosophies of other divisions. Occasionally, institutions from other divisions or athletics associations will seek membership in Division I. In such cases, the applicants should be required to meet, over a period of time, prescribed criteria for Division I membership in order to assure that such institutions agree and comply with the principles and program objectives embodied in this statement.

Once a core group decides who they want to be associated with they extend invitations to those schools then announce as a group they are moving to the NAIA. The NAIA would be more than happy to figure out a way to keep the unwanted out in order to maintain a payday that while perhaps smaller than the NCAA would be a boon to them. Even a quarter of what the NCAA steals from March Madness would do the trick and would satisfy both the majors and the NAIA.