>
> I had the exact same concern with Brian's message.  As I've pointed out
> in another note, there is no such thing as "D-1 calibre" -- only what
> each individual likes to see.
>
> With 300 college hoops teams, so what that only 100 can win -- I think
> it's much less than that really.
>
> What's good about the system is, each team is playing for SOMETHING each
> year, such as their conference tournament and an NCAA bid.
>
> What is wrong with that.
 
I just don't agree with having a D-I program if you can't be competitive.
Let's face facts, some of these D-I Basketball programs are a joke.  They
don't even belong at the D-I level.  For example, the University of Akron
is D-I in all sports, and their enrollment is 10-15,000.  This is probably
why most of their sports programs are mediocre at best.
 
There is a reason that you have different levels of College Sports (D-I,
II, III): not all schools are the same.  Some have large athletic budgets,
some have small ones.   The point of having D-II and III sports is so the
small schools in the NCAA can be competitive and have a realistic shot of
winning championships at least SOME of the time.  But the attitude in our
sports culture today is "If you aren't D-I, you're not legitimate".  You
can thank Dick Vitale and E$PN for that.
 
>
> There's nothing wrong with a system of stronger and weaker conferences
> within Division-1 ... for all of basketball and football's ills, I don't
> think this is one of them.  It allows for not everyone being equal,
> though still allowing everyone to join the D-1 party.
 
That's just my point, "everyone" in D-I Basketball is NOT a part of the
"D-I Party".  Most of these programs are getting the same attention that
they would have gotten being D-II programs.  They get ZERO TV Coverage.
They get ZERO Top Recruits.  And most of them have ZERO chance at a
National Title or even an NCAA Tournament bid.  If you aren't going to get
the benefits of being D-I, then why the heck stay in D-I?  I'll give you
an example:  North Dakota is D-II in all sports except Hockey.  Our
Women's Basketball program has won back-to-back D-II Titles, and has won
20-plus games for the last 10 years or so.  Our football team has won
numerous conference titles and has went to the playoffs several times in
the 90's.  Our men's program has struggled the past few years, but they
were one of the top D-II teams in the country in the early 90's.  Now, if
we were to go D-I in all sports, what would we win?  Not a darn thing.
Our Women's Basketball program would be cannon-fodder for the likes of
UConn and Tennessee, our Men's Program would be all but forgotten, and our
football program would be 2-9 every year.  Now, which scenario would YOU
choose.  My answer is obvious.
 
Personally, I support the formation of a Division I-AA for Basketball.
Football has a similar set-up, and there aren't as many pretender programs
as a result.  Teams too big for D-II and not big enough for D-I have a
place to go.  Take about 150 of those "D-I" Basketball programs and put
them in I-AA.  Hold a 32 team tournament every year.  Would the media
ignore these schools?  Probably, but they already ignore them.  At least
with this type of set-up, they would be competitive.
 
Sorry this went so long, but I wanted to clear up any confusion.  Most
people on here will disagree with what I've said, and I welcome your
comments (if any).  Take care everyone. :-)
 
Brian
(GO SIOUX!!!)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.