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.