The bottom rung of the Division I-A collegiate football ladder might be dropped to I-AA if a proposal on the NCAA table passes. The motion would tighten Div. I-A membership requirements in six areas, eliminating as many as 20 schools in an effort to increase the quality of competition in I-A. But the proposed requirements would financially penalize young teams unfairly, furthering the gap between the long-established contenders and their hopeful challengers.
The proposal unreasonably demands Div. I-A schools spend a minimum of $4 million on student-athlete grants. Additionally, schools must offer between 77 and 85 of their 200 student-athlete grants to football players. The NCAA is unjustified in controlling how universities spend on grants. Some schools require greater incentives to attract quality players than others due to myriad factors, including the team's win/loss record and areas not associated with their athletics programs such as academics and location. If a university determines that its funds would most benefit their team by providing additional coaching, equipment - or any other resource - it deserves the freedom to make that decision unfettered by NCAA restraints.
Division I-A schools would be required to play a minimum of five home games each season under the proposal. Last year, only 27 of the 114 Div. I-A teams met the minimum, according to USA Today. Some teams pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to coerce opponents to visit their stadiums, expenditures that can eat huge holes into a fledgling program's budget for even a small number of home contests. This requirement would inhibit the less established teams' abilities to spend in the manner that would be benefit their programs.
The proposal also demands Div. I-A schools have a minimum of 16 varsity sports, eight of which must be women's. A university should not be forced to fund additional sports its student body does not have the interest or potential to succeed at. And it is absurd that an all-male school, no matter how competent their football team, would not be permitted into Div. I-A for lack of women.
The increased standards would demand 15,000 spectators crowd the stands of home games for a team to retain Div. I-A eligibility. For many teams, including UB, this means investing in costly advertising campaigns and publicity gimmicks to draw more spectators. Again, teams are mandated to exhaust their budgets on areas to that do not improve performance on the playing field and could prevent a team from ever finding success.
If the NCAA wants to improve the level of competition by purging some of the losing teams, they should do so directly. Instead of demanding schools conform to requirements that are particularly difficult for the less established, they should require schools demonstrate a history of gradual improvement and the potential for a victorious future.
Perhaps the most glorious event in any sport is the victory of a team that no one thought could ever make it to the top. The proposed criteria would keep the little guys down and out, while assisting schools such as University of Miami, Fla.; Florida State; and the University of Nebraska in dull, repetitive domination of college football. Div. I-A football needs regulations that keep the game alive by cultivating the growth of young programs and keeps old ones on their toes.
Instead of forcing smaller programs to uselessly sacrifice their limited budgets, the NCAA should craft a division that encourages competition instead of flat-line domination. Spectators want to see something new. Let's shake the gorillas out of the tree.
