Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

More on this (in a way, and this seemed like a good thread to stick it) from ESPN, looks like the "15,000 actual attendance" is going to officially become "paid attendance", one win over a 1-AA team counts EVERY year (Nebraska and K-State rejoice!), and its a 12 game season starting next year (2006).

The scramble to tack on an extra game should be interesting.

they can add a twelfth game but not a championship? seems kind of hypocritical to me.

also, if they make the 15,000 paid attendance, all the MAC schools as well as other mid-majors are going to be in BIG trouble. i'm assuming the students will not count towards paid attendance. and making the 1-AA games count every year is a joke. that will be the twelfth game for all the big time schools because there's no way they're going to schedule a bowling green.

if i'm rick chryst, i'm calling all the other mid-major commissioners and banding together to sto these changes.

First of all, when is the official "Kicking Eastern Michigan out of D1A" ceremony going to be held?

Also, students damn well had better count in that figure, especially at a school like BGSU where a good chunk of student fees go towards funding athletics. We essentially buy a season ticket for every intercollegiate sport BG participates in.

If the NCAA is not going to count students in attendence figures I'm forced to wonder if this is simply another tactic to pare down D1A and save it for the "BCS" schools. Seriously.

First of all, students do, I believe, count towards paid attendance. Even if they didn't, though, its 15,000 paid *OR* actual attendance. I don't know how they'd measure it, if you sell 15,000 tickets to a game that gets played in a blizzard and no one shows up, but comp every one of 15,000 tickets another game, how they'd average it out, or if you'd have to pick one or the other and stick with it, but I'll still believe it when I see it. They've been grumbling about attendance quotas for decades.

when i read "paid attendance," i read it as tickets actually sold. technically, students don't count as tickets sold as we get in free.

but you're probably right TG, they'll never actually change the attendance rules, and if they do, it's more to keep 1-AA teams out than it is to kick 1-A teams out. especially teams like BG.

Here's the deal:

The attendance rule is much better for us. We shouldn't have a problem.

If we are coming up a little short, the athletic department can always go to local businesses/boosters and ask them to buy blocks of tickets. I think as long as they sell for a little more than half price, they would count as paid attendance, regardless of whether people show up.

Supposedly, the university might even be able to buy the tickets directly (someone says they read this in the New York Times recently).

And students will always count, even if they don't buy tickets.

So this might put some pressure on Kent State or Eastern Michigan, but we should be okay, the way I see it.

The 12 game probably isn't good for us -- but not a huge loss. It increase the amount of revenue the football factories will get -- and thus, the competitive disparities, but it isn't fatal. We'll soldier on.

A bigger problem is the fact that I-A programs will now be able to count a I-AA win toward bowl eligiblity *every* year. This means football factories will schedule more I-AA games. This was a sop to the I-AA leagues, which wanted a tougher attendance rule to keep schools from fleeing their division.

The problem is that it may reverse some of the scheduling gains the MAC has made in recent years. We will have less leverage to set up home games (or even road games) with BCS programs. These programs will now be able to pit us against I-AA more often and drive down the size of the guarantees they are willing to offer.

I assume some of the football factories will continue to refuse I-AA programs out of a sense of pride -- at least for a while. But I don't know. I never though Michigan would schedule Eastern Michigan, and they've done it.

I'd like to see someone ask Krebs or Brandon about this. How concerned are they about scheduling pressure that will be created by allowing a I-AA win to count every year?

The next fight, as I see it, is over bowl eligibility. For now, teams must* have a winning record to play in a bowl game. That's good for us -- tougher than the 12-game season of the past, where some 6-6 teams were allowed to play in bowl games.

I think we need to hope the NCAA will hold firm on that.

----
* Aside from the North Texas scenario a few years back, where they won the Sun Belt with a 5-6 record. I assume if that played out again, the Sun Belt champ would be allowed to play.

According to an article in the Washington Post (that I found on the Wisky board), there's talk that the coaches association is going to lobby for 5 more scholarships, because another game "adds wear and tear to their players"...

I hope this gets laughed right back out the door. When those "quirky" calendar years came around, coaches had no problem scheduling 12 games in a heartbeat. And I didn't exactly see SEC or Big 12 teams threatening to boycott their championship game because of "wear and tear". Five schollies might not *seem* like a lot, but take the top 5 players off of our roster, and I guarantee we're a different football team.

Well the new changes went through with no problems, and the college game is better for it.

The extra home games will help all programs, though not equally. It will ease pressure on the NCAA to restrict the number of bowl games held, which helps the MAC. It peeves off the 1AA programs which I enjoy. The issues of a national tournament and academics are totally different issues unconnected to each other. Trying to link them by deriding the 12th game as hypocritical is a poor mans attempt to lure people in debating the football tournament issue again. They are getting rid of the bye week in some cases and the season won’t be any longer than before. Not starting a football tournament in 1A isn’t going to happen for a wide range of unrelated reasons.

In any case, the vibe on the grape vine seems to indicate the BCS will go away and the world of bowls will go back to what it was before. That would be a good thing as well.

The main problem I see with the new 1-AA rule is:

There are two 1-AA leagues that I know of that do not allow the teams to give athletic scholarships. They are the Ivy League, and the Patriot League. 1-A teams can now schedule Columbia, Yale, Lehigh, Lafayette, Princeton, etc. and could leave their starters home and still win with the 2nd & 3rd teams.

There are other 1-AA conferences that give some partial athletic scholarships. LaSalle is in such a conference. They play teams like Catholic University, and Georgetown.

Now if the rules were such that only certain 1-AA conferences were to be included, that would be OK. Teams like Delaware, Furman, Grambling, etc. is what I thinking.

Falconian

Falconian wrote: Now if the rules were such that only certain 1-AA conferences were to be included, that would be OK. Teams like Delaware, Furman, Grambling, etc. is what I thinking.

I hear what you're saying, but I think this is an "all-or-nothing" proposition. First off, the "power conferences" still are only highlighted by a couple stronger teams anyway. For every Grambling, there's a Prairie View. Just like in the MAC, for BG, UT, and Miami(OH), there's Buffalo, Kent and EMU. And once you get down to picking and choosing which schools are allowed to play games with 1-A opponents (and the hundreds of thousands of bucks that goes with it), you'll find alot more headaches than its worth. Honestly, I think that as long as strength of schedule and such goes into figuring out who's playing for the national title, big schools will stay away from 1-AA games. Even teams like Nebraska who made a habit of it in the past will realize that even though you might be looking at a rebuilding year and a 1-AA team would help qualify you for a bowl, you're gonna kick yourself in the teeth if you're sitting at 12-0 at the end of the season and watching two other teams play for the title because they kept the 1-AA teams off their schedule.

Falconian wrote:The main problem I see with the new 1-AA rule is:

There are two 1-AA leagues that I know of that do not allow the teams to give athletic scholarships. They are the Ivy League, and the Patriot League. 1-A teams can now schedule Columbia, Yale, Lehigh, Lafayette, Princeton, etc. and could leave their starters home and still win with the 2nd & 3rd teams.

There are other 1-AA conferences that give some partial athletic scholarships. LaSalle is in such a conference. They play teams like Catholic University, and Georgetown.

Now if the rules were such that only certain 1-AA conferences were to be included, that would be OK. Teams like Delaware, Furman, Grambling, etc. is what I thinking.

Falconian

The rule actually covers your concern.

In the past, a win over a I-AA school has only counted if the school has (I think) 62 scholarship players.

I may be a little off on the number, and it may be based on a several year average, but you get the idea. Only teams giving out virtually all of the scholarships allowed in I-AA can be counted -- quite enough to separate the Youngstown States and Montanas from the Lehighs and Daytons.

That rule will continue, from what I understand.

Incidentally, I didn't think the Pioneer League allowed scholarships, either, but I don't know for sure.

1) I assume some of the football factories will continue to refuse I-AA programs out of a sense of pride -- at least for a while. But I don't know. I never though Michigan would schedule Eastern Michigan, and they've done it.

2) Incidentally, I didn't think the Pioneer League allowed scholarships, either, but I don't know for sure.

-------------------------------------------------------
1) Never say never, but I can't see schools like Ohio State, Michigan, and Notre Dame ever playing a I-AA school.

My guess is that Michigan plays Eastern for the same reason OSU plays in-state schools, pressure from politicians and the other universities in the state.

2) Yes, this is true. Although they do seem to give more "grant" money to football players regardless of their parent's income.

Students will count and they should. Over 50% of their general fee goes to fund athletics. I have issues with that much going to one place myself but if that is how it it then I guess it will have to do. Students pay over $700.00 a year to athletics. I looked on the website and that would get students reserved seats for hosckey, men's basketball, women's basketball, and football with about 300.00 left over. So to say we do not count or pay our share is simply not true. We pay way more than our share, and I mean this with respect, but we pay more than some season ticket holders when you add it all up and we do it without any perks. We are the consistent flow of money for the department.

It's the Journey... wrote:Students will count and they should. Over 50% of their general fee goes to fund athletics. I have issues with that much going to one place myself but if that is how it it then I guess it will have to do. Students pay over $700.00 a year to athletics. I looked on the website and that would get students reserved seats for hosckey, men's basketball, women's basketball, and football with about 300.00 left over. So to say we do not count or pay our share is simply not true. We pay way more than our share, and I mean this with respect, but we pay more than some season ticket holders when you add it all up and we do it without any perks. We are the consistent flow of money for the department.

You're such a massive tool.