BCS conferences leaving NCAA?

[Mikovio]

Title IX regulations:

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/oc ... 106.html#D

§ 106.37 Financial assistance.
(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, in providing financial assistance to any of its students, a recipient shall not:

(1) On the basis of sex, provide different amount or types of such assistance, limit eligibility for such assistance which is of any particular type or source, apply different criteria, or otherwise discriminate;

(2) Through solicitation, listing, approval, provision of facilities or other services, assist any foundation, trust, agency, organization, or person which provides assistance to any of such recipient's students in a manner which discriminates on the basis of sex; or

(3) Apply any rule or assist in application of any rule concerning eligibility for such assistance which treats persons of one sex differently from persons of the other sex with regard to marital or parental status.

(b) Financial aid established by certain legal instruments. (1) A recipient may administer or assist in the administration of scholarships, fellowships, or other forms of financial assistance established pursuant to domestic or foreign wills, trusts, bequests, or similar legal instruments or by acts of a foreign government which requires that awards be made to members of a particular sex specified therein; Provided, That the overall effect of the award of such sex-restricted scholarships, fellowships, and other forms of financial assistance does not discriminate on the basis of sex.

(2) To ensure nondiscriminatory awards of assistance as required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, recipients shall develop and use procedures under which:

(i) Students are selected for award of financial assistance on the basis of nondiscriminatory criteria and not on the basis of availability of funds restricted to members of a particular sex;

(ii) An appropriate sex-restricted scholarship, fellowship, or other form of financial assistance is allocated to each student selected under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section; and

(iii) No student is denied the award for which he or she was selected under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section because of the absence of a scholarship, fellowship, or other form of financial assistance designated for a member of that student's sex.

(c) Athletic scholarships. (1) To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics.

(2) Separate athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid for members of each sex may be provided as part of separate athletic teams for members of each sex to the extent consistent with this paragraph and §106.41.

§ 106.41 Athletics.
(a) General. No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.

(b) Separate teams. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.

(c) Equal opportunity. A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available the Director will consider, among other factors:

(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;

(2) The provision of equipment and supplies;

(3) Scheduling of games and practice time;

(4) Travel and per diem allowance;

(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;

(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;

(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;

(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;

(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;

(10) Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.

(d) Adjustment period. A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics at the elementary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than one year from the effective date of this regulation. A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics at the secondary or post-secondary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from the effective date of this regulation.

It's not clear to me whether a stipend would be considered an "athletic scholarship" under paragraph (c) of subsection 106.37. If so, they must be offered to women "in proportion" to the number of student athletes of each sex. So if there are 150 male student athletes, and 85 are given stipends, that's 57%. If there are 140 women student athletes, you will need only 79. The number of student athletes of each sex are typically close, to satisfy the "equal opportunity" required in subsection 106.41, but if they are different, yes there could be a slight difference in aid requirements. If the stipend is not considered a scholarship, it may fall under paragraph (a), which prohibits offering different amounts of financial assistance on the basis of sex.

Not giving women student athletes equal stipends could also violate paragraph (c) in §106.41 that mentions per diem allowances as a factor used in assessing "equal opportunity."

[TheAsianSensation]

This wouldn't be covered by any legalities, but if there's a stipend for football and basketball and for a number of women's sports to make up for football, the male athletes in the lesser sports will absolutely riot. I'm not sure they have a legal recourse, but they will riot. It won't be pretty.

[Ali]

Let's just hope this doesn't happen.

[rlh04d]

I really don't think this would be very bad for the MVC.

In fact, it could actually be good. At least from a basketball perspective.

From a football perspective, it needs to happen. I know the FCS folks won't like it, but the gap between the BCS schools and the other football squads is equal to or greater than the gap between low level FBS squads and FCS squads. There is no reason for them to be in the same division together.

From a basketball perspective ... WSU can certainly afford stipends. I'd imagine most MVC schools could as well, without football. On the other side, as far as the NCAA tournament go, I could easily see it turning into a situation where a lot of the automatic bids for the tiny conferences are eliminated. If those auto 14-16 seeds are eliminated, that would leave more room for MVC teams to make the tournament.

[Mikovio]

From a football perspective, it needs to happen. I know the FCS folks won't like it, but the gap between the BCS schools and the other football squads is equal to or greater than the gap between low level FBS squads and FCS squads. There is no reason for them to be in the same division together.

No. Last year the MAC teams beat Penn State (6-2 in B1G), Indiana, (Big East cochamp) Cincinnati, South Florida (x2), Iowa, UConn, Kansas and (Big East cochamp) Rutgers, and lost very narrow decisions to Arizona, Iowa, Tennessee and Minnesota. Also, non-AQ teams are 5-2 vs AQ teams in BCS bowls. This is about greed and an anticompetitive spirit.

[rlh04d]

From a football perspective, it needs to happen. I know the FCS folks won't like it, but the gap between the BCS schools and the other football squads is equal to or greater than the gap between low level FBS squads and FCS squads. There is no reason for them to be in the same division together.

No. Last year the MAC teams beat Penn State (6-2 in B1G), Indiana, (Big East cochamp) Cincinnati, South Florida (x2), Iowa, UConn, Kansas and (Big East cochamp) Rutgers, and lost very narrow decisions to Arizona, Iowa, Tennessee and Minnesota. Also, non-AQ teams are 5-2 vs AQ teams in BCS bowls. This is about greed and an anticompetitive spirit.

Those examples are few and far between. You can cherry pick stats to make a point, but what was the MAC's record against BCS conferences the several years before this one? In 2009, they were 3-26 against BCS conferences.

North Dakota State has a 6-3 record against FBS squads since 2006, when they joined FCS. Hell, the MAC has a 95-27 record against FCS teams, the second lowest of any FBS conference.

I don't think there is any denying the tremendous difference in resources and attention paid to high level FBS programs versus the same of low level FBS programs. It's not a competitive matter. Lower level BCS squads might be able to grab some wins over low tier BCS teams, but all in all the competitive balance is nowhere near close enough to justify being in the same division. You cannot compare Alabama to Kent State.

Northern Illinois might have stream-rolled through the MAC and made a BCS bowl game, but they were curb-stomped by Florida State in a game that was nowhere near as close as the 31-10 score indicates, in a boring game that no one had any interest in. Because no one cares about Northern Illinois.

End of the day, if you take the MAC, Sun Belt, MWC, Conference USA, and whoever else out ... no one will care. Except the fans of lower division teams who are in those conferences or want to move up into those conferences.

[rlh04d]

So I cited 2009 records for the MAC above based on an older Phil Steele blog post that I saw. I went back and checked his site and got the non-conference records for every conference from 2009-2012.

The MAC, your example of BCS conferences fearing competition, even in the greatest year in MAC history, went 8-20 against BCS teams last season. Since 2009, they are 17-96 against BCS conferences, or winning 15% of the time.

In every one of those seasons, the MAC, WAC, MWC, CUSA, and Sun Belt were ranked at the bottom of the conferences.

MAC: 17-96, 15%
WAC: 14-40, 25.9%
MWC: 15-37, 28.9%
Sun Belt: 7-82, 7.9%
CUSA: 14-82, 14.6%

For a combined four season mark of 67-337, 16.6%.

But this is about anti-competitive spirit? That's like saying you don't want to box a child because you're anti-competitive. There can't be an anti-competitive spirit when you're against something that is clearly not competitive. Those five conferences are NOT competitive with the BCS conferences in football, and never will be.

[Mikovio]

First, this isn't the appropriate forum for this debate, so this is probably my last post on the subject.

I'm not cherrypicking. You're talking about moving the current MAC to the FCS, so what's relevant is the strength of the current MAC and other non AQs. Not all-time records that includes games from back when some of the MAC membership was D2. And despite playing almost exclusively on the road in hostile venues, they notched many impressive wins. Four MAC teams were ranked at some point last year (Ohio, Kent State, Toledo, NIU). You also had San Jose State, Utah State and Fresno State from the MWC in the final rankings, and Tulsa from C-USA. Boise State has been a constant thorn in the paw of BCS coaches.

2009 was much worse, but I don't think the jump now is a coincidence. The MAC schools are catching up facility-wise with the BCS. I think more than half have built since that time or are building indoor practice facilities and other training facilities that improve recruiting and performance, and are more and more winning recruiting battles against AQ schools. Look at all the 3 and 4 stars in WMU's recruiting class. It's scary. NIU just took a recruit from A&M. 10 years ago, this would've never happened.

And the AQ schools know that the gap is just going to narrow because not only is their facility advantage dwindling, but with the population growing, there are more and more talented players, and with the number of allowable scholarships staying the same, that means more talented players left over for the non-AQ's, even if the AQ's win all the recruiting battles.

You can't compare Alabama to Kent State, but you can't compare Kansas or Washington State or for that matter most of the AQ to Alabama either. By your standard, there should only be 10 or 15 programs in Division I. What you can do is compare the top of the MAC and MWC and CUSA to the middle of the pack and below of the AQ. Which is why it's foolish to say there is "no comparison" and they "aren't competitive."

BTW, Northern Illinois is 1-0 vs Alabama.

The Orange Bowl was absolutely closer than the score indicates. NIU was driving at the FSU 20 to tie the game late in the third quarter before Lynch threw an ill advised pick. The score was 17-10 entering the 4th quarter. Lynch's accuracy was off that game and unfortunately he said some things that gave FSU defenders motivation ("On their knees..."). Regardless, FSU was arguably the most talented team in the country, right there with Alabama. They had a lot of players go in the first and second round of the draft. I'm not claiming the MAC, MWC etc winners should be playing for the national title against Alabama or FSU. But there is significant overlap that AQ fans don't want to admit.

As for nobody watching, IIRC Boise State's Fiesta Bowl vs Oklahoma was the highest rated ever and considered by many to be the greatest bowl game of all time. NIU's Orange Bowl had the second most viewership in Chicago than any previous BCS game, including Illini Rose and Sugar Bowls (though this was topped by Notre Dame days later).

And the Orange Bowl had a 6.1 rating nationally, or just barely behind the Florida-Louisville Sugar Bowl at 6.2. And last year's Orange Bowl between West Virginia and Clemson was a 4.5, so with NIU the OB actually had a 44% ratings boost over that all-AQ game everyone wanted to watch.

http://m.huskiewire.com/articles/2013/0 ... /index.xml

[rlh04d]

First, this isn't the appropriate forum for this debate, so this is probably my last post on the subject.

A thread about "BCS conferences leaving NCAA" isn't an appropriate place for a debate about a comparison between BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences? Might be a basketball forum, but football is the driving reason for what will affect basketball, so it's absolutely relevant and appropriate.

I'm not cherrypicking. You're talking about moving the current MAC to the FCS, so what's relevant is the strength of the current MAC and other non AQs. Not all-time records that includes games from back when some of the MAC membership was D2.

You absolutely are cherrypicking. You're choosing what stats are relevant and what aren't. I'm giving data from every conference over four seasons, and you're just looking at a couple of teams from one season. How is that NOT cherrypicking? You can make any argument in the world using that kind of logic.

What all-time records are you talking about? I gave records from 2009-2012 ... that's the last four seasons. I think UMass is the only team that has joined the MAC during that time frame, and their numbers were not included prior to their joining the conference.

And despite playing almost exclusively on the road in hostile venues, they notched many impressive wins. Four MAC teams were ranked at some point last year (Ohio, Kent State, Toledo, UNI). You also had San Jose State, Utah State and Fresno State from the MWC in the final rankings, and Tulsa from C-USA. Boise State has been a constant thorn in the paw of BCS coaches.

We have different definitions of impressive wins, if you're including Kansas, Tennessee, South Florida, etc. in that list. As for being ranked ... beating a 5-7 Utah team was Utah State's only BCS win. UNI's was over a 1-11 Kansas squad. San Jose's biggest game would have been a three point loss to Stanford. Fresno State was not ranked, but if they were, their only BCS win would have been over a 1-11 Colorado team. Tulsa did not have a win over a BCS team. How much does being ranked matter if it only means you nearly ran the table in Conference USA, which has gone 14-82 against BCSteams in the last four seasons? Being ranked doesn't mean they're good teams -- it means they're better than the teams they've played, to the extent of 10-11 wins. If they're not beating any good teams, how relevant are their rankings?

2009 was much worse, but I don't think the jump now is a coincidence. The MAC schools are catching up facility-wise with the BCS. I think more than half have built since that time or are building indoor practice facilities and other training facilities that improve recruiting and performance, and are more and more winning recruiting battles against AQ schools. Look at all the 3 and 4 stars in WMU's recruiting class. It's scary. UNI just took a recruit from A&M. 10 years ago, this would've never happened.

Again, in the MAC's best ever year, they were still 8-20 against the BCS. That's winning 29% of their games. There hasn't been some logical improvement over time. 2009 was much worse -- but so was 2010, and 2011. 2012, standing by itself, is what you would call an aberration, because you can't claim a trend based on one season. Again, as I said, the MAC is 17-96 against FBS teams over the last four seasons.

The MAC schools are not catching up facility-wise. Revenue wise, every BCS squad in the sport is making $20 million a year plus in TV money that MAC schools are not getting. The revenue gap is too wide to ever think you'll realistically catch up in facilities.

And the AQ schools know that the gap is just going to narrow because not only is their facility advantage dwindling, but with the population growing, there are more and more talented players, and with the number of allowable scholarships staying the same, that means more talented players left over for the non-AQ's, even if the AQ's win all the recruiting battles.

None of what you're saying is based on anything quantifiable.

You can't compare Alabama to Kent State, but you can't compare Kansas or Washington State or for that matter most of the AQ to Alabama either. By your standard, there should only be 10 or 15 programs in Division I. What you can do is compare the top of the MAC and MWC and CUSA to the middle of the pack and below of the AQ. Which is why it's foolish to say there is "no comparison" and they "aren't competitive."

You can't compare Kent State to Kansas or Washington State, either. Kent State made a little over $5 million in 2012 from football revenue. Washington State made nearly $18 million.

The Orange Bowl was absolutely closer than the score indicates. UNI was driving at the FSU 20 to tie the game late in the third quarter before Lynch threw an ill advised pick. The score was 17-10 entering the 4th quarter. Lynch's accuracy was off that game and unfortunately he said some things that gave FSU defenders motivation ("On their knees..."). Regardless, FSU was arguably the most talented team in the country, right there with Alabama. They had a lot of players go in the first and second round of the draft. I'm not claiming the MAC, MWC etc winners should be playing for the national title against Alabama or FSU. But there is significant overlap that AQ fans don't want to admit.

And UNI only crossed the 50 yard line once in the first half with only two plays of 10 yards or more. An incredible, dancing sideline 55 yard catch and run was nearly the only offense UNI had the entire game. FSU had nearly 300 more offensive yards. That gap is more than UNI had altogether. Most of UNI's offense came from trick plays, fourth down plays, and a successful on-side kick.

As for nobody watching, IIRC Boise State's Fiesta Bowl vs Oklahoma was the highest rated ever and considered by many to be the greatest bowl game of all time. UNI's Orange Bowl had the second most viewership in Chicago than any previous BCS game, including Illini Rose and Sugar Bowls (though this was topped by Notre Dame days later).

Those are relevant points. For the record, I'm not including Boise State in any of my comments. I think Boise State is a great team.

And the Orange Bowl had a 6.1 rating nationally, or just barely behind the Florida-Louisville Sugar Bowl at 6.2. And last year's Orange Bowl between West Virginia and Clemson was a 4.5, so with UNI the OB actually had a 44% ratings boost over that all-AQ game everyone wanted to watch.

Florida State has some of the best ratings of any college football program. Bowl games with FSU almost always significantly beat the ratings of the same Bowl game from the year before without them. If you think the difference in ratings is due to UNI rather than FSU ... that's not even worth debating.

WSJ article from 2010 (before FSU became good again) marking FSU as the program that generates the second largest increase in bowl viewership, only behind USC: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 72488.html

I think SOME of the other teams in the MAC, WAC, MWC, etc. are quality teams -- I think UNI would have been a decent team in the ACC and probably made a bowl game with 7 or 8 wins. But I think the gap between the average BCS team and the average non-BCS FBS team is so wide that it's laughable.

[mvcfan]

I don't have a dog in the BCS vs. non-BCS football fight but I will say that one big (VERY BIG) reason for the enormous lack of balance is that BCS teams won't go on the road to non-BCS team schools. Maybe they don't need to go on the road, but when games have been played on neutral sites (mainly in bowl games), the balance is better. Now you are going to say that there is no reason to go on the road if you are a BCS conference team, and you are right but this does enter into the deck being stacked against non-BCS teams. Now I will agree too that there have been only a few non-BCS teams who could legitimately compete well. The lower BCS teams in each conference are teams that some of these non-BCS teams could be competitive with on a year in year out basis if H/H games would be played.