Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
Three schools playing away-Home games
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
mat1992
Unregistered

 
Post: #11
 
Just for clarification, ALL of Idaho's home games are played in Pullman, which is ONLY EIGHT MILES from Moscow. Idaho's Kibbie Dome is too small to satisfy D-1A size requirements, hence UI rents out Washington State's facility.
02-21-2004 09:31 AM
Quote this message in a reply
SwampHound Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,574
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

CrappiesCrappies
Post: #12
 
Okie Chippewa Wrote:Just for clarification, ALL of Idaho's home games are played in Pullman, which is ONLY EIGHT MILES from Moscow. Idaho's Kibbie Dome is too small to satisfy D-1A size requirements, hence UI rents out Washington State's facility.
That is not accurate. They do play home games in the Kibbie Dome.

from their official athletic website

2004 Schedule

9/4/2004 Boise State Boise, ID
9/11/2004 Utah State Logan, UT
9/18/2004 Washington State Martin Stadium
9/25/2004 Oregon Eugene, OR
10/2/2004 Eastern Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
10/9/2004 Louisiana-Monroe Kibbie Dome
10/16/2004 Louisiana Kibbie Dome
10/23/2004 Middle Tennessee Murfreesboro, TN
10/30/2004 Troy State Troy, AL
11/6/2004 Arkansas State Martin Stadium
11/13/2004 North Texas Denton, TX
11/20/2004 Hawaii Honolulu, HI

<a href='http://www.uiathletics.com/pages/schedule.asp?CatID=1' target='_blank'>http://www.uiathletics.com/pages/schedule.asp?CatID=1</a>
02-21-2004 10:13 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tulsa_Golden_Hurricane
Unregistered

 
Post: #13
 
IMO.....In terms of making money and having a game that will bring interest to your program I think it is good. However, I don't think it should count towards the attendance requirements. Now if they game was going to be in the same city that you usually play your home games then I would allow it, but when they are not played anywhere near the University then it shouldn't count.
02-21-2004 10:56 AM
Quote this message in a reply
studentfan Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 746
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:

Crappies
Post: #14
 
rocketfootball Wrote:IMO.....In terms of making money and having a game that will bring interest to your program I think it is good. However, I don't think it should count towards the attendance requirements. Now if they game was going to be in the same city that you usually play your home games then I would allow it, but when they are not played anywhere near the University then it shouldn't count.
You shouldn't be able to count attendance b/c that team might bring 30-40k fans which would majorly boost your attendance and isn't fair.
02-22-2004 01:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TopCoog Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,940
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #15
 
thats a good idea...this whole attendance this is stupid anyway...who cares how many people show up....if two teams agree to play let them play.
02-23-2004 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,516
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 577
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #16
 
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.
02-25-2004 05:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SwampHound Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,574
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

CrappiesCrappies
Post: #17
 
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?
02-25-2004 05:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
studentfan Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 746
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:

Crappies
Post: #18
 
In today's society it looks like 2 wrongs do make a right, it's sad that it's getting to that point but I guess you can't stop change.
02-25-2004 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,516
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 577
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #19
 
SwampHound Wrote:
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
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?
The rules permit it.

Did the Sun Belt vote in favor of it? No we voted against it asking for modifications.

This is not like some tax law loophole where the lobbyist for Ultra-Mega-International Corp goes in and lobbies Congress for some change and then uses it in a way that was never intended.

The BCS leagues drafted this legislation and the status of neutral site games IS a change. I followed Idaho's trek to I-A carefully. When they cooked up the idea of using a game or two in Martin Stadium, the Management Council rejected the idea. When Idaho said they wanted to play one season at Martin Stadium, the Management Council rejected the idea. Not until Idaho signed a four year lease on Martin did the Council allow Idaho to count off-campus atttendance.

The off-campus games have existed as long as the game. For the first couple years of the program Oklahoma played all its home games in Oklahoma City. The Michigan program was several years old before they played a game at home. Until 1981 there was no attendance component in determining status so it never mattered who was the "home" team. If you look at the home attendance of MEAC and SWAC schools they are wildly inflated from games played all over the country. Grambling has been a home team in Dallas against schools from Texas. In I-A since the attendance rule was adopted, Southern Miss has been a home team in Jacksonville, Florida vs. Florida State, Wyoming has been a home team in Nashville vs. Tennessee, Ole Miss has been a home team in Memphis, TN vs. Tennessee.

From 1982 to 2003 you could make attendance by averaging 17,000 at home or 20,000 home and away. If you had a 30,000 seat stadium you had to meet one of those once every four years, if fewer seats then that had to be the average from the past four years. If you didn't meet that then if you were a member of a conference where more than half the members met the criteria, you were still I-A.

With the exception of the Idaho rulings, there has never been a need to determine how to deal with the already existing practice of neutral site games. If Wyoming played in front of 70,000 plus in Nashville the NCAA had no need to care if they counted that as a home game because they were likely going to not only make home attendance but would also meet the home/away attendance and if they didn't there would still be five MWC schools that met attendance meaning Wyoming would be I-A no matter how it was treated.

Since 1982 there have only been three serious attendance issues arise.
#1. Wichita State did an audit of Cessna Stadium and determined that it did not have the 30,004 seats they believed it had, rather it had 29,996. That meant WSU was going to either have to be treated like a school with a smaller stadium and lose I-A status, or be given a chance to install six seats to correct the problem and count the earlier years as an honest mistake that should be forgiven. Wichita State dropped football before the issue could be ruled on.
#2. A few years ago the MAC wasn't going to have enough schools qualify. The league came up with some funds to help two schools buy tickets and they pushed hard with their fans to eek over the 17,000 line saving the league as a I-A member.
#3. The previously mentioned Idaho scenario.

In the category of non-serious issues the NCAA has been inconsistent in the past in how it treated off-campus games statistically. Last year they listed ASU playing in LR under neutral site games but factored Razorback games there in their home games. This year they reported ASU at LR in home games but counted La.Tech at Shreveport in neutral site.

Don't for a second believe that the NCAA blundered into leaving a loophole. They knew what they were doing. Proposal 2000-36 would have required 17,000 actual home attendance and provided no clarity as to what a home game was. That proposal died. Proposal 2003-12 would have required 15,000 actual attendance once in the prior three years IN THE STADIUM regularly used as the home stadium. That proposal was defeated. Proposal 2003-123 (the one that was adopted) required that a school average 15,000 paid attendance IN FIVE HOME GAMES AGAINST I-A OPPONENTS. It dawned on them that games against a I-AA wouldn't count and that only five games would count if a school played 6 or 7 home games, so it was amended to the current language.

The off-campus exeception exists for a reason, the reason being that the big schools wanted to leave a door open for a safety net.

I remain amazed that people find it terrible that schools are using the rule as it was intended and for the purpose intended. That's like being critical of someone for donating thousands to charity and itemizing their deductions.
02-26-2004 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.