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.
|