arkstfan Wrote:Frankly I don't believe that anyone can legitimately object to the use of off-campus games no matter where they are played. #1 the rules contemplate allowing those games to be used and #2 the attendance criteria itself violates the NCAA Division I Philosophy Statement.

The NCAA Division I Philosophy Statement that is supposed to be used as a guideline in developing legislation.

This is (in part) what a Division I school is supposed to be about.
( d ) Believes in offering extensive opportunities for participation in varsity intercollegiate athletics for both men and women;
( 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 Division I-A and Division I-AA;
( 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;

Now when you look at the new I-A criteria
1. Sponsor 16 sports. That is consistent with (D) offering extensive opportunities.
2. Schedule 5 I-A home games, play at least 60% of all games vs. I-A. Consistent with (F) scheduling primarily members of the Division.
3. Award 200 scholarships total. Consistent with (D) offering extensive opportunities.
4. Award 90% of the 85 allowed in football. Consist with (D) offering extensive opportunities and (E) sponsoring football at the highest feasible level.
5. Average 15,000 actual attendance. Doesn't fit in the philosophy statement at all. In fact it is the opposite of what (E) says "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 Division I-A and Division I-AA;"

All across the NCAA spectrum, divisional affiliation is purely an institutional decision in every division in every sport EXCEPT division I football, where the ability to attract patrons becomes a factor. Eleven I-AA schools met the attendance criteria for I-A last year but they can remain I-AA as long as they so choose. By not choosing to go I-A they only have to offer 14 sports, they can award as many or as few football scholarships they want as long as they don't exceed 63. They can schedule anyone they want as long as they play 7 schools (home or away) that are Division I-A or I-AA. But a school that averages 14,999 per game each year for two years will be forced into I-A even though they offer two more sports than most of their I-AA counter-parts, even though they have offered at least 14 more scholarships in football than any I-A school, even though they have awarded 200 total scholarships compared to I-AA's who typically offer no more than 150 (and some such as members of the Patriot and Ivy offer none). It's bizarre that a school that has taken the institutional effort to play at least 7 I-A opponents per year and play 5 at home (starting in 2006, 4 in 2004 and 2005) get forced to join schools that have at most played maybe two I-A opponents if any.

All of the I-A criteria except attendance folds neatly into what Division I has said about itself. Attendance is the one element a school has no control over. If memory serves back in the 80's there was a measles outbreak in the northeast and midwest that hit some college campuses hard and a few finally barred spectators from basketball games to control the epidemic. We all know numerous examples of hurricanes, violent thunderstorms and flooding that have damaged attendance. Post-9/11 there was a big drop in attendance nationally.

The attendance rule is a farce. One school could offer exactly 200 scholarships and 16 sports and draw 18,000 per game while spending $7 million per year but another school could have 230 scholarships and 19 sports and spend $14 million a year on athletics and only draw 14,000. Which one is more committed?

If the school is willing to make the committment why should it matter if anyone is buying tickets? It's the school's money to do with as they choose.

I agree the attendence requirement is BS, but as much as that is BS some of the deals being made between some schools is BS also. Does that mean two wrongs make a right?