> I just don't agree with having a D-I program if you can't be
competitive.
 
Before the points that are to follow, let's start with this:
 
Who are you to judge?  If a program wants to be D-1 and get their brains
beat in, so what.
 
Anyway -- you miss the big picture.  A program is D-1 for many, many
reasons other than whether their football or basketball team is doing
well.  Maybe they do well in other sports, or maybe there are other
factors.
 
 
> 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.
 
I don't know where to begin here.
 
There are teams getting their brains beat in at every level.  A bad D-1
team would clean up at the D-3 level --- at least in football and
basketball (definitely not true in many other sports, like hockey,
wrestling and lacrosse).  What do you suggest we do with the 1-9 D-III
football teams that are so abundant.  Should we be making Divisions
4,5,6 and 7??
 
The answer is yes, by your hypothesis.  This can quickly get to be quite
absurd.
 
There are 300 D-I basketball teams (approx.) -- There are about 500
(rough approx.) D-III basketball teams.  Football has a similar ratio.
You dump all the bad D-I football teams down to D-III and then what,
exactly???
 
 
> 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.
 
No it isn't.
 
As I've pointed out, there are WAAAY more D-III teams than D-I in all
sports.  How many of these D-III schools have legitimate shots at
titles??  Perhaps a smaller percentage than the D-I schools.
 
I went to a Division-III school -- Ithaca College.  We were dominant in
many sports.  We won 7 national championships in my 4 years there in 4
different sports.  I have a large appreciation for D-III athletics,
especially in football.  Do you know how many PUTRID D-III football
programs are out there with absolutely no chance?
 
In fact, there are D-III conferences in which some teams do well in the
conference, but outside the conference get spanked.  Just like in D-I.
 
 
> 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.
 
I think that's the prevailing attitude among most people,
unfortunately -- and I think that by forcing bad programs to go down a
level, you are legitimizing that attitude, not helping it.
 
 
> > 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?
 
Why not?  Who cares.  Let them.  The schools think they're getting
something out of it, so let them stay.  If they drop to D-II and are
strong, then it's going to make a lot of other programs weaker by
comparison -- then we run into the same cyclic problem as above.
 
 
> 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.
 
You're school has made a determination that it enjoys being D-II.
Ithaca likes being in D-III because the school is 6,000 students and it
fits with the school's philosophy.  That's all that matters.
 
You make it sound as if dropping a level will automatically make you
good without making anyone else worse by comparison.
 
Who is currently getting pummeled in D-II?
 
 
> 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.
 
There's not as programs, period!  There's just as many pretenders as a
percentage.  (See Rutgers, Temple, etccc..)
 
Anyway, all that's happened is, there's a lot of pretender crap at
D-I-AA
 
 
> 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.
 
It's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's irrelevant to the larger
point -- which is that schools should be allowed to go where they want
... and that having various types of conferences in terms of strength
within a Division level is perfectly fine.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.