Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
Three schools playing away-Home games
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
SwampHound Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,568
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

CrappiesCrappies
Post: #1
 
ULM will play Arkansas in Little Rock as a home game, Arkansas State will play Missouri in Kansas City as a home game and Idaho will play Washington State in Pullman, Washington (WSU's stadium). Idaho will also play Arkansas State in Pullman as a home game. Each of the first three games should draw well enough so that those three schools will not have to worry about meeting the attendence requirement during the 2004 season. Do you like or dislike this practice?
02-19-2004 08:39 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

TommyGirl
Unregistered

 
Post: #2
 
I think ASU's game in KC is in 2005.
02-19-2004 09:30 PM
Quote this message in a reply
SwampHound Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,568
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

CrappiesCrappies
Post: #3
 
Essency Wrote:I think ASU's game in KC is in 2005.
Duh :bang: You are correct.

From the official Arkansas State website

ASU-MISSOURI TO PLAN FORMAL FOOTBALL GAME ANNOUNCEMENT
02/18/2004




JONESBORO, Ark.
02-19-2004 09:49 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SUMG Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 9
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4
 
Swamphound.......I don't have a problem with the Ark. State game at Mizzou....but I have always had a problem with Idaho at Washington State, being a home game for them. That was the only way they were able to qualify for 1-A, when you had to average 17,000 during your qualifying year.

And the ULM home game at Little Rock (in a stadium the Razorbacks use EVERY YEAR) is even more bogus. I want the Sun Belt to survive, but not if its teams have to use screwy loopholes like this to make it. As you probably know, the ULM game, Arkansas is handling all the tickets, even paying ULM a guarantee. At least Arkansas State at Mizzou, the Indians are handling seating, paying Mizzou a guarantee, and will have ASU logos on the field.

Anyway, that's my thoughts.

SUMG.......(praying for UNT to get into the CUSA and out of the league that allows nonsense like the above AND DESIGNATED CONFERENCE GAMES)
02-20-2004 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
galojah Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,289
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation: 36
I Root For: WKU
Location: Raleigh, NC

Donators
Post: #5
 
I can see your point. I know it is a win/win for everyone involved, but it seems like we are prostituting our football programs for survival.

My thought is if you don't have the fans to support 1-A, then maybe you shouldn't be 1-A. The fans speak loud and clear by the way the show, or in this case, don't show.

I am glad WKU is taking this process slow and making sure we aren't getting in over our heads. 1-A is great, would love to have it, but only if our community and alumni will support it, without having to prostitute our team to another school.

This is just another way of us basically telling the "Big Schools" that we NEED them and we are second class.
02-20-2004 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

studentfan Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 743
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:

Crappies
Post: #6
 
If your own fans can't support you as a 1-A program then you should drop, instead of resorting to this. I know we can make the attendance this year, and we won't have to worry about it.
02-20-2004 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SwampHound Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,568
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

CrappiesCrappies
Post: #7
 
SUMG Wrote:Swamphound.......I don't have a problem with the Ark. State game at Mizzou....but I have always had a problem with Idaho at Washington State, being a home game for them. That was the only way they were able to qualify for 1-A, when you had to average 17,000 during your qualifying year.

And the ULM home game at Little Rock (in a stadium the Razorbacks use EVERY YEAR) is even more bogus. I want the Sun Belt to survive, but not if its teams have to use screwy loopholes like this to make it. As you probably know, the ULM game, Arkansas is handling all the tickets, even paying ULM a guarantee. At least Arkansas State at Mizzou, the Indians are handling seating, paying Mizzou a guarantee, and will have ASU logos on the field.

Anyway, that's my thoughts.

SUMG.......(praying for UNT to get into the CUSA and out of the league that allows nonsense like the above AND DESIGNATED CONFERENCE GAMES)
Seem like many here agree with you. IMO, I would'nt mind if we (Cajuns) had a game like that (ASU's) once in a while but if we need to do it every other year to survive? Why bother? My Dad use to tell a hard headed young guy I knew "If you don't give a damn, why should I?" If the fans do not care enough to support it (1A football program) then it should not and will not be.
02-20-2004 08:33 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
badgerwolf Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 561
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #8
 
I have no problem with it; I think you will see more of it in the near future. The Badgers have been complaining that the price to get a 1-A OOC game at Camp Randall is too high. I would not be surprised to see the Badgers do something like this with a MAC team.
02-20-2004 08:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
studentfan Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 743
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:

Crappies
Post: #9
 
SwampHound Wrote:
SUMG Wrote:Swamphound.......I don't have a problem with the Ark. State game at Mizzou....but I have always had a problem with Idaho at Washington State, being a home game for them. That was the only way they were able to qualify for 1-A, when you had to average 17,000 during your qualifying year.

And the ULM home game at Little Rock (in a stadium the Razorbacks use EVERY YEAR) is even more bogus. I want the Sun Belt to survive, but not if its teams have to use screwy loopholes like this to make it. As you probably know, the ULM game, Arkansas is handling all the tickets, even paying ULM a guarantee. At least Arkansas State at Mizzou, the Indians are handling seating, paying Mizzou a guarantee, and will have ASU logos on the field.

Anyway, that's my thoughts.

SUMG.......(praying for UNT to get into the CUSA and out of the league that allows nonsense like the above AND DESIGNATED CONFERENCE GAMES)
Seem like many here agree with you. IMO, I would'nt mind if we (Cajuns) had a game like that (ASU's) once in a while but if we need to do it every other year to survive? Why bother? My Dad use to tell a hard headed young guy I knew "If you don't give a damn, why should I?" If the fans do not care enough to support it (1A football program) then it should not and will not be.
Well you also have to take into account the fact that for teams that were losing for many years in a row, it's hard to get them to come to the games if they have no ties with the program. Once they get the program turned away, then you will see them come back and watch the team b/c their winning now. IMHO.
02-20-2004 11:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

badgerwolf Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 561
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #10
 
I agree; winning will bring casual fans back to the football stadium. People like to identify with winners. Win 'consistently' and the casual fans will come; hard core fans come to the games win or lose, but they are often a small percentage of the total.
02-21-2004 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
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: 2,568
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: 743
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: 21,351
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
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: 2,568
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: 743
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: 21,351
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.