(08-23-2022 05:32 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  When the University Division (Division 1) was originally formed, the idea was to have schools that met one of the following certain criteria:
State flagship
Ivy League school
Well-known religious private school
Well-known non-religious private school
Land grant school
Well-known city school
Well-known technical school

Over time, more schools have been let in that didn't really meet those criteria:
State directional universities
Unheard of private schools
Small state schools

Over time, colleges & universities changed too!!! The Ivy League chone to de-emphasize football. Some well-known religious schools chose to become secular, ie. well known private schools (Duke, Wake Forest, SMU, TCU Baylor for the most part, Furman). Other, more unknown schools (Campbell, Samford, Houston Baptist, Dallas Baptist, Liberty and others decided to move up to give the denominations that had lost a presence in Division 1 a presence again.

State flagships and land grant schools were being flooded with students. To take some pressure off of the state flagships and land grants, state directional schools and small schools Rose to the challenge. For a very long time, there was a stigma attached to going to a state directional school. Some, like the Cajuns, chose to change their name. Others decided to just establish their own winning tradition. At least one decided to keep its name, but looked to a very unlikely source for inspiration: a well known private school with a directional name. State directional schools started making their preferences perfectly clear in the media. This was a very unprecedented move, but it wound up paying huge dividends for the state directional schools. Politicians also got involved. And some of those directional schools and unknown private schools chose to do nothing.

(08-23-2022 05:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Sun Belt and CUSA are great conferences with storied histories but what I’ve seen happening the last couple of seasons is some P5 schools scanning the rosters of lower level conferences and recruiting their players.

I've heard of some SunBelt & CUSA teams doing this to some P5 schools as well. So what's your point??

(08-23-2022 09:48 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-23-2022 05:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Sun Belt and CUSA are great conferences with storied histories but what I’ve seen happening the last couple of seasons is some P5 schools scanning the rosters of lower level conferences and recruiting their players.

I've heard of some SunBelt & CUSA teams doing this to some P5 schools as well. So what's your point??

Either way it shouldn’t be allowed. It’s tampering.

We’ve already killed the notion that these players are student athletes. Now we’re going to allow schools to openly bid on players with NIL?

The next step is what we’re seeing. It’s not college football, its the NFL without the large contracts for every player. And tampering is actually against the rules in the NFL.

https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/...ersion.pdf

(08-23-2022 06:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2022 05:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Personally I believe it needs to be based on revenues or budgets. Lets be honest. How can a Sun Belt or CUSA team compete on or off the field with P5.

The Sun Belt and CUSA are great conferences with storied histories but what I’ve seen happening the last couple of seasons is some P5 schools scanning the rosters of lower level conferences and recruiting their players. That needs to stop. Perhaps separating leagues into different levels would do that.

Again this recent wild wild west with college football rules needs to stop.

Yeah - I think revenue and budget along with resources per capita are better measures. Note that I think this is also more relevant for Division I status for basketball (as you inherently need a certain budget just to field an FBS team at all).

For example, Davidson has an enrollment that’s smaller than your typical major market suburban public high school, but I think the power schools would rather deal with 200 Davidsons or Patriot League-types with a lot of resources to support their athletic departments than much larger enrollment lower tier public schools that are always hanging by a thread financially. I’ve long felt that sheer enrollment (either large or small) is a vastly overrated factor in these types of discussions. The Big East schools along with places like Stanford, Duke and Notre Dame show this pretty clearly.

Agreed about student enrollment. The University of Phoenix has 170K enrolled. With that size of a student body and alumni base, they would easily qualify for whatever division wants universities with the largest enrollment.

Like you I believe this is where basketball plays a big part, maybe include baseball and women’s basketball in the budget considerations.

The top level of college football should include the best and most well funded athletics programs in the country.

Maybe this is where we bring some geographical sanity back to college athletics as well. Though that may a bridge too far at this time.

(08-24-2022 05:13 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-23-2022 06:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2022 05:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Personally I believe it needs to be based on revenues or budgets. Lets be honest. How can a Sun Belt or CUSA team compete on or off the field with P5.

The Sun Belt and CUSA are great conferences with storied histories but what I’ve seen happening the last couple of seasons is some P5 schools scanning the rosters of lower level conferences and recruiting their players. That needs to stop. Perhaps separating leagues into different levels would do that.

Again this recent wild wild west with college football rules needs to stop.

Yeah - I think revenue and budget along with resources per capita are better measures. Note that I think this is also more relevant for Division I status for basketball (as you inherently need a certain budget just to field an FBS team at all).

For example, Davidson has an enrollment that’s smaller than your typical major market suburban public high school, but I think the power schools would rather deal with 200 Davidsons or Patriot League-types with a lot of resources to support their athletic departments than much larger enrollment lower tier public schools that are always hanging by a thread financially. I’ve long felt that sheer enrollment (either large or small) is a vastly overrated factor in these types of discussions. The Big East schools along with places like Stanford, Duke and Notre Dame show this pretty clearly.

Agreed about student enrollment. The University of Phoenix has 170K enrolled. With that size of a student body and alumni base, they would easily qualify for whatever division wants universities with the largest enrollment.

Like you I believe this is where basketball plays a big part, maybe include baseball and women’s basketball in the budget considerations.

The top level of college football should include the best and most well funded athletics programs in the country.

Maybe this is where we bring some geographical sanity back to college athletics as well. Though that may a bridge too far at this time.

The problem is unequal payments in FBS. Oklahoma State, Boise State etc deserbes to be paid more in tv media rights than over schools like Kansas, Nebraska, Maryland, Kansas, etc. Then these G5 and other schools could be more wellfunded to be up there.

(08-24-2022 05:00 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-23-2022 09:48 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-23-2022 05:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Sun Belt and CUSA are great conferences with storied histories but what I’ve seen happening the last couple of seasons is some P5 schools scanning the rosters of lower level conferences and recruiting their players.

I've heard of some SunBelt & CUSA teams doing this to some P5 schools as well. So what's your point??

Either way it shouldn’t be allowed. It’s tampering.

We’ve already killed the notion that these players are student athletes.

Regular students transfer all the time. You don't have to sit out of intramurals for a year. Or from being a GRA.

I think it's reasonable to try to regulate athletic transfers to some degree. But "it makes them less like students" isn't really a good case.

(08-24-2022 05:00 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-23-2022 09:48 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-23-2022 05:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Sun Belt and CUSA are great conferences with storied histories but what I’ve seen happening the last couple of seasons is some P5 schools scanning the rosters of lower level conferences and recruiting their players.

I've heard of some SunBelt & CUSA teams doing this to some P5 schools as well. So what's your point??

Either way it shouldn’t be allowed. It’s tampering.

We’ve already killed the notion that these players are student athletes. Now we’re going to allow schools to openly bid on players with NIL?

The next step is what we’re seeing. It’s not college football, its the NFL without the large contracts for every player. And tampering is actually against the rules in the NFL.

https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/...ersion.pdf

Maybe a counter to annual loss of a schools best athletes would be scholarships guaranteeing more than 1 year. May not help when big NIL bucks are offered but it does offer the athlete some security.

(08-24-2022 05:13 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-23-2022 06:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-23-2022 05:45 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Personally I believe it needs to be based on revenues or budgets. Lets be honest. How can a Sun Belt or CUSA team compete on or off the field with P5.

The Sun Belt and CUSA are great conferences with storied histories but what I’ve seen happening the last couple of seasons is some P5 schools scanning the rosters of lower level conferences and recruiting their players. That needs to stop. Perhaps separating leagues into different levels would do that.

Again this recent wild wild west with college football rules needs to stop.

Yeah - I think revenue and budget along with resources per capita are better measures. Note that I think this is also more relevant for Division I status for basketball (as you inherently need a certain budget just to field an FBS team at all).

For example, Davidson has an enrollment that’s smaller than your typical major market suburban public high school, but I think the power schools would rather deal with 200 Davidsons or Patriot League-types with a lot of resources to support their athletic departments than much larger enrollment lower tier public schools that are always hanging by a thread financially. I’ve long felt that sheer enrollment (either large or small) is a vastly overrated factor in these types of discussions. The Big East schools along with places like Stanford, Duke and Notre Dame show this pretty clearly.

Agreed about student enrollment. The University of Phoenix has 170K enrolled. With that size of a student body and alumni base, they would easily qualify for whatever division wants universities with the largest enrollment.

Like you I believe this is where basketball plays a big part, maybe include baseball and women’s basketball in the budget considerations.

The top level of college football should include the best and most well funded athletics programs in the country.

Maybe this is where we bring some geographical sanity back to college athletics as well. Though that may a bridge too far at this time.

Which is why just saying "Take the Current FBS Conferences" won't fly.

You have schools like ULM with a budget lower than many FCS Schools

Maybe we should divide larger schools up for athletic programs.

4,000 is a fairly larger high school.

So randomly divide students at a university among cohorts of 4000. At Texas A&M that would be 14 cohorts, at Ole Miss, 5, and Vanderbilt 2. 95 total for the SEC with 16 more coming.

Each cohort would field an independent set of athletic teams and compete in intercollegiate competition. One week it might be A&M-I at South Carolina-C and Tennessee-2 at A&M-II and so on.

The advantage would be that the student-athletes would more likely be bona fide students. Schools could still recruit athletes, but they would assigned to cohorts randomly.

During a transition, current students would not be assigned to a cohort (unless they requested to be assigned randomly to one). This unclassified cohort would gradually disappear as students graduated, transferred, or dropped out.

If A&M enrolls 20,000 freshmen, they would be assigned to five cohorts of 4,000. Some would drop out after a year or less. Next fall, these five cohorts would be refilled, and four or five new cohorts added. The initial cohorts would be strongly associated with the class of 2026, though some might graduate in 2025 or 2027, but over time they would become more balanced.[/i]