On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Adam Wodon wrote:
 
> Who are you to judge?  If a program wants to be D-1 and get their brains
> beat in, so what.
 
Who am I to judge, you ask?  I'm not judging, I'm simply expressing my
opinion that these programs are wasting their time and energy pretending
that they're big-time schools.  I have the right to my own opinion, just
as you do.  Don't get all huffy about it.
 
 
> 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.
 
Care to rephrase this?  I don't understand what you meant.
 
 
> 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.
 
I never even suggested making more Divisions, so don't put words in my
mouth.  But I do see your point.
 
 
> 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???
 
Again, you're putting words in my mouth.  Like I said below, Football has
a D-IAA that helps eliminate some of the absurdities of D-I Basketball.
Of course you're going to have a large number of teams that, for one
reason or another, can't put together a winning program.  I just think
that D-I Basketball has gotten absurd.
 
 
> > 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.
 
Then why are there lower divisions?  Just for the heck of it?!?!  If
you are going to disagree, at least offer an alternative explanation.
 
 
> I think that by forcing bad programs to go down a
> level, you are legitimizing that attitude, not helping it.
 
There is a big difference between programs that are bad because of inept
management and programs that are bad because they just don't have the
resources to compete at the D-I level.  I'm talking about programs that
are D-I who have never had and/or never will have the resources to be
competitive in any way, shape, or form.
 
 
> 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.
 
> You make it sound as if dropping a level will automatically make you
> good without making anyone else worse by comparison.
 
This is why I support a D-IAA for Basketball.
 
 
 
> > 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, etcc)
 
Are you saying that D-I Football has just as many pretenders
percentage-wise as D-I Basketball?  Sorry, I'm not buying it.  Show me the
evidence.
 
 
> 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.
 
According to your statement above, if all D-II programs tommorrow decided
to move their baskeball programs to D-I, they should be allowed to do so.
That would be a total farce and an affront to common sense.  The NC$$ has
certain conditions for football programs to meet if they want to move up
to D-IA.  Perhaps it is time to impose more strict conditions for
Basketball programs that want to move up.
 
Let me explain this one last time (I hope!):  I can live with various
strengths of conferences in any NC$$ Division.  I can accept the fact that
some programs are bad year-in and year-out.  But I also think that some
level of common sense should prevail as well.  And IMHO, D-I Basketball
crossed that ambiguous line a long time ago.  It's like if Major League
Baseball decided to expand their ranks to include A, AA, and AAA teams and
conferences.  That's exaggerating a little, but I hope you see my point.
All I am saying is that a D-IAA Basketball Conference would inject a
little common sense into the Basketball world.
 
Obligatory Hockey Content:  I hope we never have to deal with these
problems in D-I Hockey. :-)
 
 
 
Take Care Everyone.
 
Brian "The Truth" Helland.
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fighting Sioux Hockey
Div. I National Champions:
1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997.
 
My Official Web Site: http://members.tripod.com/~unvarnished_truth/
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.