Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
Author Message
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #1
At DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
Great infographic on D1 sports sponsorship.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaaorg/committ...inutes.pdf

Key Findings:

-Only 9% of DI members are at 14 sports or below.
-56% of the DI membership has 17 sports or more.
-79% of FBS has 17 sports or more.

Given the DI requirement of 14 and FBS requirement of 16 can only be increased by a majority of those blocks it is plausible that D1 moves to 16 sport minimum and FBS to a 18 sport minimum.

Quote:Membership Expectations.

a. The NCAA Division I Transformation Committee continued its discussions about
whether any adjustments should be made to the current sports-sponsorship
minimums.

b. The committee reviewed sports sponsorship data identifying the number of
championship sports currently sponsored by institutions laid out by subdivision. In
addition, the committee reviewed data outlining how institutions are meeting
current overall financial aid minimums. [See attachment]

c. The Transformation Committee agreed that it will not consider lowering sports
sponsorship or financial aid minimums and will instead focus during future
meetings on whether increased or amended requirements are warranted.

d. The committee also considered whether to recommend changes to the current FBS attendance requirements. The committee is supportive of eliminating the football attendance requirements and may consider exploring replacement requirements that are more closely tied to student-athlete experience.
11-27-2022 04:39 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #2
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
Changing the requirement from a paid attendance requirement to a student attendance requirement could get dicey for some programs.

15,000 students at the games for a season sounds like a fair requirement. But that is 3,000 per game on a 5 game G5 schedule. Does Florida International manage that? Could be a problem for newbie Kennesaw State.
11-27-2022 04:47 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jimrtex Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,514
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 248
I Root For: Houston, Tulsa, Colorado
Location:
Post: #3
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-27-2022 04:47 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Changing the requirement from a paid attendance requirement to a student attendance requirement could get dicey for some programs.

15,000 students at the games for a season sounds like a fair requirement. But that is 3,000 per game on a 5 game G5 schedule. Does Florida International manage that? Could be a problem for newbie Kennesaw State.
You misread the bolded part. They are concerned about the experience of the student athletes. If you are on the football team does it matter whether anyone watches you play?

It does matter whether you receive adequate coaching, fitness and strength training, equipment, nutrition, medical treatment, etc. But does it matter where the money for that comes from? An attendance requirement may indicate that there is ticket revenue to finance some of that support.

A better standard would be 5% of all students (FTE) participate in intercollegiate athletics, and that those athletes be representative of the students (academically, geographically, age, and sex).

A larger school might have varsity, JV, sophomore, and freshmen football teams, and perhaps A and B squads. Maybe they have sprint football teams. If there a lot of non-traditional students (e.g. late 20s, 30s, or older) they could have age group teams.
11-27-2022 05:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Illinoisking91 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 176
Joined: Sep 2022
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Illinois
Location:
Post: #4
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
Sounds like they are trying to get it to be just the P5 schools if they are raising requirements
11-27-2022 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Illinoisking91 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 176
Joined: Sep 2022
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Illinois
Location:
Post: #5
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
Just proves to me they have no idea what the heck they are doing
11-27-2022 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #6
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-27-2022 05:16 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  
(11-27-2022 04:47 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Changing the requirement from a paid attendance requirement to a student attendance requirement could get dicey for some programs.

15,000 students at the games for a season sounds like a fair requirement. But that is 3,000 per game on a 5 game G5 schedule. Does Florida International manage that? Could be a problem for newbie Kennesaw State.
You misread the bolded part. They are concerned about the experience of the student athletes. If you are on the football team does it matter whether anyone watches you play?

It does matter whether you receive adequate coaching, fitness and strength training, equipment, nutrition, medical treatment, etc. But does it matter where the money for that comes from? An attendance requirement may indicate that there is ticket revenue to finance some of that support.

A better standard would be 5% of all students (FTE) participate in intercollegiate athletics, and that those athletes be representative of the students (academically, geographically, age, and sex).

A larger school might have varsity, JV, sophomore, and freshmen football teams, and perhaps A and B squads. Maybe they have sprint football teams. If there a lot of non-traditional students (e.g. late 20s, 30s, or older) they could have age group teams.

I guess we'll have to see what they are thinking about student athlete experience.

Student attendance might be a better metric of whether FBS is appropriate for a school rather than paid attendance. If the students don't care about the program it should move down.
11-27-2022 07:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,407
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 265
I Root For: Georgetown
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #7
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-27-2022 07:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Student attendance might be a better metric of whether FBS is appropriate for a school rather than paid attendance. If the students don't care about the program it should move down.

How can (or do) you judge student attendance at a residential college like Rice vs. a commuter school like UCF?
11-27-2022 07:08 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #8
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-27-2022 07:08 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  
(11-27-2022 07:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Student attendance might be a better metric of whether FBS is appropriate for a school rather than paid attendance. If the students don't care about the program it should move down.

How can (or do) you judge student attendance at a residential college like Rice vs. a commuter school like UCF?

Keep that number low enough most anyone can pass.
11-27-2022 07:26 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gemofthehills Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,144
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 219
I Root For: JSU
Location:
Post: #9
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-27-2022 05:16 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  
(11-27-2022 04:47 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Changing the requirement from a paid attendance requirement to a student attendance requirement could get dicey for some programs.

15,000 students at the games for a season sounds like a fair requirement. But that is 3,000 per game on a 5 game G5 schedule. Does Florida International manage that? Could be a problem for newbie Kennesaw State.
You misread the bolded part. They are concerned about the experience of the student athletes. If you are on the football team does it matter whether anyone watches you play?

It does matter whether you receive adequate coaching, fitness and strength training, equipment, nutrition, medical treatment, etc. But does it matter where the money for that comes from? An attendance requirement may indicate that there is ticket revenue to finance some of that support.

A better standard would be 5% of all students (FTE) participate in intercollegiate athletics, and that those athletes be representative of the students (academically, geographically, age, and sex).

A larger school might have varsity, JV, sophomore, and freshmen football teams, and perhaps A and B squads. Maybe they have sprint football teams. If there a lot of non-traditional students (e.g. late 20s, 30s, or older) they could have age group teams.

Should the band and cheerleaders count in the 5%? They are part of the show.
11-28-2022 08:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,720
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #10
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-27-2022 05:16 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  
(11-27-2022 04:47 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Changing the requirement from a paid attendance requirement to a student attendance requirement could get dicey for some programs.

15,000 students at the games for a season sounds like a fair requirement. But that is 3,000 per game on a 5 game G5 schedule. Does Florida International manage that? Could be a problem for newbie Kennesaw State.
You misread the bolded part. They are concerned about the experience of the student athletes. If you are on the football team does it matter whether anyone watches you play?

It does matter whether you receive adequate coaching, fitness and strength training, equipment, nutrition, medical treatment, etc. But does it matter where the money for that comes from? An attendance requirement may indicate that there is ticket revenue to finance some of that support.

A better standard would be 5% of all students (FTE) participate in intercollegiate athletics, and that those athletes be representative of the students (academically, geographically, age, and sex).

A larger school might have varsity, JV, sophomore, and freshmen football teams, and perhaps A and B squads. Maybe they have sprint football teams. If there a lot of non-traditional students (e.g. late 20s, 30s, or older) they could have age group teams.

I agree that the "student-athlete experience" reference doesn't have anything to do with student attendance. It's pretty clear to me that the NCAA simply isn't imposing any type of attendance requirement going forward. It has already been ignored for years and now they're just formally getting rid of it. Attendance is one of those items that we (conference realignment message board world) care a lot about but none of the powers that be want to use as a metric anymore.

That being said, your proposed 5% standard (or any type of percentage of enrollment standard) won't happen. I'm fairly certain none of the Big Ten or SEC schools would comply with that standard except for maybe the smaller private schools like Northwestern and Vanderbilt. That in and of itself would be a non-starter as any outcome from this transformation committee would almost surely validate what the Big Ten and SEC are doing and those are the last two parties that would ever have additional requirements imposed on them. (The irony of college admissions these days is that it's actually more meaningful to be a recruited athlete to gain admission to Harvard than it is to get into Alabama because athletes compose 20% or more of the freshmen classes at the Ivy League schools while only being a tiny sliver of the enrollment at the public Big Ten and SEC schools.)
11-28-2022 11:04 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #11
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-28-2022 11:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(11-27-2022 05:16 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  
(11-27-2022 04:47 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Changing the requirement from a paid attendance requirement to a student attendance requirement could get dicey for some programs.

15,000 students at the games for a season sounds like a fair requirement. But that is 3,000 per game on a 5 game G5 schedule. Does Florida International manage that? Could be a problem for newbie Kennesaw State.
You misread the bolded part. They are concerned about the experience of the student athletes. If you are on the football team does it matter whether anyone watches you play?

It does matter whether you receive adequate coaching, fitness and strength training, equipment, nutrition, medical treatment, etc. But does it matter where the money for that comes from? An attendance requirement may indicate that there is ticket revenue to finance some of that support.

A better standard would be 5% of all students (FTE) participate in intercollegiate athletics, and that those athletes be representative of the students (academically, geographically, age, and sex).

A larger school might have varsity, JV, sophomore, and freshmen football teams, and perhaps A and B squads. Maybe they have sprint football teams. If there a lot of non-traditional students (e.g. late 20s, 30s, or older) they could have age group teams.

I agree that the "student-athlete experience" reference doesn't have anything to do with student attendance. It's pretty clear to me that the NCAA simply isn't imposing any type of attendance requirement going forward. It has already been ignored for years and now they're just formally getting rid of it. Attendance is one of those items that we (conference realignment message board world) care a lot about but none of the powers that be want to use as a metric anymore.

That being said, your proposed 5% standard (or any type of percentage of enrollment standard) won't happen. I'm fairly certain none of the Big Ten or SEC schools would comply with that standard except for maybe the smaller private schools like Northwestern and Vanderbilt. That in and of itself would be a non-starter as any outcome from this transformation committee would almost surely validate what the Big Ten and SEC are doing and those are the last two parties that would ever have additional requirements imposed on them. (The irony of college admissions these days is that it's actually more meaningful to be a recruited athlete to gain admission to Harvard than it is to get into Alabama because athletes compose 20% or more of the freshmen classes at the Ivy League schools while only being a tiny sliver of the enrollment at the public Big Ten and SEC schools.)

I think the wanted the attendance requirement to weed out the Eastern Michigans and other schools that had no support and no business being in FBS. But the lawyers told them it would be messy and problematic. They did it once in 1982 and Cincinnati, many MAC schools and some others got around it after one year officially in FCS. They never really enforced it again.
11-28-2022 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jimrtex Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,514
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 248
I Root For: Houston, Tulsa, Colorado
Location:
Post: #12
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-28-2022 11:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(11-27-2022 05:16 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  
(11-27-2022 04:47 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Changing the requirement from a paid attendance requirement to a student attendance requirement could get dicey for some programs.

15,000 students at the games for a season sounds like a fair requirement. But that is 3,000 per game on a 5 game G5 schedule. Does Florida International manage that? Could be a problem for newbie Kennesaw State.
You misread the bolded part. They are concerned about the experience of the student athletes. If you are on the football team does it matter whether anyone watches you play?

It does matter whether you receive adequate coaching, fitness and strength training, equipment, nutrition, medical treatment, etc. But does it matter where the money for that comes from? An attendance requirement may indicate that there is ticket revenue to finance some of that support.

A better standard would be 5% of all students (FTE) participate in intercollegiate athletics, and that those athletes be representative of the students (academically, geographically, age, and sex).

A larger school might have varsity, JV, sophomore, and freshmen football teams, and perhaps A and B squads. Maybe they have sprint football teams. If there a lot of non-traditional students (e.g. late 20s, 30s, or older) they could have age group teams.

I agree that the "student-athlete experience" reference doesn't have anything to do with student attendance. It's pretty clear to me that the NCAA simply isn't imposing any type of attendance requirement going forward. It has already been ignored for years and now they're just formally getting rid of it. Attendance is one of those items that we (conference realignment message board world) care a lot about but none of the powers that be want to use as a metric anymore.

That being said, your proposed 5% standard (or any type of percentage of enrollment standard) won't happen. I'm fairly certain none of the Big Ten or SEC schools would comply with that standard except for maybe the smaller private schools like Northwestern and Vanderbilt. That in and of itself would be a non-starter as any outcome from this transformation committee would almost surely validate what the Big Ten and SEC are doing and those are the last two parties that would ever have additional requirements imposed on them. (The irony of college admissions these days is that it's actually more meaningful to be a recruited athlete to gain admission to Harvard than it is to get into Alabama because athletes compose 20% or more of the freshmen classes at the Ivy League schools while only being a tiny sliver of the enrollment at the public Big Ten and SEC schools.)
There could be a transition to 5% standard. Perhaps 10% growth per year. Let's say UIUC has 500 student athletes. At 10% growth they could reach 2800 in 18 years.

If there were 2800 student-athletes at Illinois they would more likely be actual students who also have athletic talent.
11-28-2022 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,410
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 486
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #13
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
If the Autonomy 5 conferences really want to take greater control of NCAA Men’s Basketball revenue, there are a lot of options for creating a natural split in D1.

A) Require a larger minimum number of sponsored sports (from 15 to 18 sports?).
B) Require that a larger portion of “sponsored” sports receive at least 50% of the maximum allowable funding support.
C) Require at least $4M annual expenditures on non-revenue sports. Doubling minimum expenditures from the current $1.8M floor.
D) Require at least 100 full grants for non-revenue sports. Doubling the current 50 full grants minimum requirement.

IMO, a group of 125 to 175 schools would likely self-select into these higher minimum funding levels. The remaining 175 to 225 D1 programs would voluntarily choose to not increase spending on non-revenue sports.
11-28-2022 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


The Sicatoka Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,547
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 378
I Root For: North Dakota
Location: see above
Post: #14
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
Eliminating the unenforced "15k rule" is wise. Having an unenforced rule opens you up to charges of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the rules.

I really don't see them changing 14 (FCS) and 16 (FBS) but do see them requiring more support of the programs (to enhance the student-athlete experience). Things like mandatory "full cost of attendance" (FCOA) for revenue sports and at least 50% of rosters getting FCOA in non-revenue would not surprise me.
11-28-2022 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TOPSTRAIGHT Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,783
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 451
I Root For: WKU
Location: Glasgow,KY.
Post: #15
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-28-2022 01:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  If the Autonomy 5 conferences really want to take greater control of NCAA Men’s Basketball revenue, there are a lot of options for creating a natural split in D1.

A) Require a larger minimum number of sponsored sports (from 15 to 18 sports?).
B) Require that a larger portion of “sponsored” sports receive at least 50% of the maximum allowable funding support.
C) Require at least $4M annual expenditures on non-revenue sports. Doubling minimum expenditures from the current $1.8M floor.
D) Require at least 100 full grants for non-revenue sports. Doubling the current 50 full grants minimum requirement.

IMO, a group of 125 to 175 schools would likely self-select into these higher minimum funding levels. The remaining 175 to 225 D1 programs would voluntarily choose to not increase spending on non-revenue sports.



Sounds great! That would be very doable for my school (WKU).

BUT-- they don't have the courage or political willpower. Too worried about "inclusion"--"exclusion" political correctness. Maybe the CFP members could pass this list. They SHOULD do SOMETHING that has a little teeth in it!
(This post was last modified: 11-28-2022 05:21 PM by TOPSTRAIGHT.)
11-28-2022 05:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,175
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #16
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
Nobody is getting kicked out of D1.

It's the same reason nobody cuts FBS football voluntarily. There is a huge lobby of people who make money off college athletics, from local beat reporters to to boosters coaches to athletic staff to vendors for all the D1 programs. They all want their perks from D1, and will make sure taxpayers subsidize their public schools. Add to this their conferences and all their staff.

This is not the path forward. Regulatory efforts to decrease the size of D1 are doomed to fail. "Standards" are a joke. it's a free market, and anyone who wants to pay for D1 can have a D1 program.

The way to shrink D1 is to remove the incentive for marginal programs and marginal conferences. Remove the money distribution system. Do away with conference winner automatic berths, do away with CFP and NCAA tournament revenue sharing. Institute an annual membership fee to belong to NCAA D1 in the first place.

If you remove the financial incentive to advance your status from D-II to D-I and from FCS to FBS, then many schools will adjust to what level they can afford without NCAA distributions.
11-28-2022 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,410
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 486
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #17
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-28-2022 05:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Nobody is getting kicked out of D1.

It's the same reason nobody cuts FBS football voluntarily. There is a huge lobby of people who make money off college athletics, from local beat reporters to to boosters coaches to athletic staff to vendors for all the D1 programs. They all want their perks from D1, and will make sure taxpayers subsidize their public schools. Add to this their conferences and all their staff.

This is not the path forward. Regulatory efforts to decrease the size of D1 are doomed to fail. "Standards" are a joke. it's a free market, and anyone who wants to pay for D1 can have a D1 program.

The way to shrink D1 is to remove the incentive for marginal programs and marginal conferences. Remove the money distribution system. Do away with conference winner automatic berths, do away with CFP and NCAA tournament revenue sharing. Institute an annual membership fee to belong to NCAA D1 in the first place.

If you remove the financial incentive to advance your status from D-II to D-I and from FCS to FBS, then many schools will adjust to what level they can afford without NCAA distributions.

Not suggesting that any program gets kick-out of D1. Rather, the Autonomous 5 conferences could create a new division where eligibility would be open and contingent on a willingness to fund increased resources on student-athletes. A5 conference members already subsidize non-revenue sports at this increased minimum level of funding. It’s a natural evolution…greater NCAA tiers for schools that want to spend more on student-athletes.
11-28-2022 06:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,010
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 729
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #18
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-28-2022 06:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(11-28-2022 05:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Nobody is getting kicked out of D1.

It's the same reason nobody cuts FBS football voluntarily. There is a huge lobby of people who make money off college athletics, from local beat reporters to to boosters coaches to athletic staff to vendors for all the D1 programs. They all want their perks from D1, and will make sure taxpayers subsidize their public schools. Add to this their conferences and all their staff.

This is not the path forward. Regulatory efforts to decrease the size of D1 are doomed to fail. "Standards" are a joke. it's a free market, and anyone who wants to pay for D1 can have a D1 program.

The way to shrink D1 is to remove the incentive for marginal programs and marginal conferences. Remove the money distribution system. Do away with conference winner automatic berths, do away with CFP and NCAA tournament revenue sharing. Institute an annual membership fee to belong to NCAA D1 in the first place.

If you remove the financial incentive to advance your status from D-II to D-I and from FCS to FBS, then many schools will adjust to what level they can afford without NCAA distributions.

Not suggesting that any program gets kick-out of D1. Rather, the Autonomous 5 conferences could create a new division where eligibility would be open and contingent on a willingness to fund increased resources on student-athletes. A5 conference members already subsidize non-revenue sports at this increased minimum level of funding. It’s a natural evolution…greater NCAA tiers for schools that want to spend more on student-athletes.


There are talks that D1 would be split with 1A and 1AA for all sports. It is a way to weed out the non-football schools from the FBS. It is why a lot of FCS schools looking to join FBS right now.
11-28-2022 07:27 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shizzle787 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,212
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 103
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #19
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
(11-28-2022 07:27 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(11-28-2022 06:17 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(11-28-2022 05:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Nobody is getting kicked out of D1.

It's the same reason nobody cuts FBS football voluntarily. There is a huge lobby of people who make money off college athletics, from local beat reporters to to boosters coaches to athletic staff to vendors for all the D1 programs. They all want their perks from D1, and will make sure taxpayers subsidize their public schools. Add to this their conferences and all their staff.

This is not the path forward. Regulatory efforts to decrease the size of D1 are doomed to fail. "Standards" are a joke. it's a free market, and anyone who wants to pay for D1 can have a D1 program.

The way to shrink D1 is to remove the incentive for marginal programs and marginal conferences. Remove the money distribution system. Do away with conference winner automatic berths, do away with CFP and NCAA tournament revenue sharing. Institute an annual membership fee to belong to NCAA D1 in the first place.

If you remove the financial incentive to advance your status from D-II to D-I and from FCS to FBS, then many schools will adjust to what level they can afford without NCAA distributions.

Not suggesting that any program gets kick-out of D1. Rather, the Autonomous 5 conferences could create a new division where eligibility would be open and contingent on a willingness to fund increased resources on student-athletes. A5 conference members already subsidize non-revenue sports at this increased minimum level of funding. It’s a natural evolution…greater NCAA tiers for schools that want to spend more on student-athletes.


There are talks that D1 would be split with 1A and 1AA for all sports. It is a way to weed out the non-football schools from the FBS. It is why a lot of FCS schools looking to join FBS right now.

That's not happening.
11-28-2022 09:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,010
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 729
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #20
RE: DI Membership Requirements Data Request (Sport Sponsorship)
They might be lowering the number of sports to offer in FBS and FCS and at D1 for example. Look at how many sports that the P5 schools dropped during the past few years? Now, all sports have to have a NIL. FCOA and all that. That means they need to find ways to balance the books to take care of all the athletes and not just all the money sports. It might be easier to to have FCS conferences with the new creation of MVFC as an all sports FBS conference. Now, I could see conferences like the PSAC, RMAC, GSC, Lone Star Conference, MIAA, and all the large D2 schools move up to be FCS/D1. Then you split all sports into 1A/1AA. This would also give more teams at D1 in sports that needs more members like men's wrestling, beach volleyball, men's volleyball, women's wrestling, baseball, softball, rowing, etc. I could see Central Oklahoma be an affiliate to the Big 12 with rowing. The smaller schools may not be able to get into D1 unless they can show that they can grow their student body up and if they can afford D1.
11-29-2022 01:14 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.