NCAA: The Nazis of College Football at All Levels

[MrMustang1965]

With new legislation and regulations proposed by the NCAA, I-AA could be left in the cold for transfers from both I-A schools and junior colleges in the future. Two proposals for next year would allow college football players to have five years of eligibility and transfer once without the penalty of sitting out for a season. The NCAA Championships/Competition Cabinet forwarded both measures for consideration and also approved a proposal that will allow I-A teams to schedule 12 games beginning in 2006. Votes will be taken on the issues in April. In addition to proposals that could keep I-A transfers at that level, new academic regulations have the potential to hurt the influx of junior college transfers to I-AA. Beginning in the fall of next year, all Division I athletes will need to complete 40 percent of credits after two years, replacing the old standard of 25. Sixty percent of credits will need to be completed after three years and 80 percent after four. If everything goes through, I-AA football would emerge as the loser on all counts. I-A transfers would likely just look for another school at that level if they don’t have to sit out a season. Junior college players that don’t meet the requirements would be forced to Division II, III, or NAIA teams. It remains to be seen if everything will get approved, but the long-term ramifications of both actions will dilute the product of I-AA football.

[Stallion]

I fully support getting rid of the transfer rule which unfairly are a boon to Division 1-AA schools. Why should an athlete not be able to transfer to a Division 1-A school of his choice in order to play for a better program, at a better school and receive a better education than he would get at a Division 1-AA school just like any other student. I especially support it based on the fact that hundreds of players are transferring because the coaching staff have made it clear that they are no longer welcome. Now if a scholarship was a binding 5 year contract between BOTH the school and the recruit the equation would change-but that's not the case as an NCAA scholarship is a one year commitment.

[SWC2010]

Dead-on Stallion.

The fact that scholarships today are 1-yr deals show the commitment is one-sided & against the player.

It's even worse for non-scholarship walk-ons. A walk-on shows up at UT, pays their own way, bust their [deleted], gets 'maimed' on Scout teams, & never plays a down. If the coaches pass on him, the rules say he has to sit a year if he believes a better opportunity is at SMU or 'FrogTech' & then transfers.

All the while coaches are bouncing from job-to-job, getting pay raises & leaving recruited FR/SO in their wake...

To counter 'Mustang1965', I believe the new rules (grades, attendance, Min. mandatory scholarships, etc) will actually improve I-AA, though. Schools such as SJSU, Rutgers, the military schools, mabye even Rice & others will have to consider stepping down to I-AA. Which, of course, should improve the level of play @ I-AA.

[MrMustang1965]

I believe the new rules (grades, attendance, Min. mandatory scholarships, etc) will actually improve I-AA, though. Schools such as SJSU, Rutgers, the military schools, mabye even Rice & others will have to consider stepping down to I-AA. Which, of course, should improve the level of play @ I-AA.

Be careful what you ask for. There are some posters on this board who have actually suggested that SMU be one of those schools.

And there are some Div.1-AA schools that can give Div.1 schools a run for their money. I'd love to see McNeese State or Montana go up against Texas Tech or Boise State.

While I understand what Stallion and SWC2010 are saying, I respectfully disagree with them.

I believe that there are many Div.1-AA schools where a quality education can be obtained. I know quite a few successful graduates of Sam Houston State. But let's remember that success is a personality trait and not necessarily predicated by where a person's degree is from.

Such legislation will prevent someone like former SMU QB Josh McCown from moving to a Div. 1-AA school to better his opportunities in the pro ranks once he graduates. A move that many posters on this board have stated was in McCown's best interest and have applauded him for it.

There's a lot of talent out there in Div. 1 that never gets seen. Shouldn't those players have the freedom to move to a program that will showcase their talent sooner? Case in point: current Sam Houston State QB Dustin Long (formerly of TA$M) who is now a candidate for the Walter Payton Award.

[EastStang]

The Ivy League Schools and part of the Big East are 1-AA (Georgetown, Villanova), of course you can get a fine education at 1-AA schools. However, this proposal would in my view be the first step towards allowing the big schools to have 90-95 scholarships which would mean that the SMU's, TCU's and Rice's of the world would be getting Big XII third team cast offs every year and retooling virtually every year. It could very well create an even more permanent sub-class among the mid-majors. The problem is that if the Big schools can sign larger numbers, those gems in the rough get signed by them and then blossom at A&M instead of SMU and the flame-outs transfer to SMU.

[that's great raplh]

But does this make the NCAA Nazis? The Nazis committed genocide and waged war on several continents. While I dislike the NCAA, I think that people with degrees from SMU can choose a more approriate word from thier vocabulary.

[MrMustang1965]

My apologies, Raplh. However, I didn't get my degree from SMU.

Division 1-AA is the way college football is meant to be played...the way it was played for years and years.

I've been to some big university games over the years. But let's face it: Those major 1-A programs are, in reality, semi-pro farm teams. Some have more impressive stadiums than Texas Stadium, in fact. That's because they have better resources and money than some pro teams.

Then along comes the BCS that decides a 'pseudo-national champion' because they decide that the bowl system can't be abandoned. It's a joke and almost everyone on this board agrees with that, I think.

Another result of the 'semi-pro' mentality is a continually growing cost which ultimately becomes a sea of red ink to the colleges/universities that say 'We want to be BIG TIME!' after their programs have had consecutive down years. Example: the University of Houston. Several years ago a program that had national recognition for both its football and basketball programs. The Cougars draw less attendance than SMU.

Div. 1-AA is comprised of almost as many participating universities/colleges (121 in 14 conferences plus independents) as Div. 1-A. And Div. 1-AA has a PLAYOFF SYSTEM and a real national champion is named!

Div. 1-AA is the classification of the original founding 'Ancient 8' (now known as the Ivy League) comprised of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Cornell, Penn, Brown and Columbia. These schools were the originators and founding schools of all collegiate level sports in the U.S.

Many of the 'Ancient 8' have stadium capacities and fan followings that would easily clear the classification requirements to compete at the Div. 1-A level. However, they've elected to stay at Div. 1-AA because they have recognized and support the real intent of a 'university'. It stands as an educational institution first and foremost. Here are the stadium capacities of some of those schools:

Yale Bowl- Capacity 64,269
Penn's Franklin Field- Capacity 52,593
Harvard Stadium- Capacity 30,898

Div. 1-AA is a great level and a tradition that is growing. Its national appeal is growing. Look at its increasing television coverage.

Div. 1-AA also represents the "reasonable" commitments and control that all universities (which are educational institutions first and foremost)should strive for in their allocation of financial resources towards intercollegiate athletics. This is something the "Ancient 8" schools have always kept in perspective and still do to this day.

[PK]

That would be Raplh...