From: SCHMIDT@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jon Schmidt)
Subject: NCAA Convention Preview
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:22:51 GMT

The NCAA Convention will be held January 13-16 in Dallas and will
consider a number of proposals that might affect Div I-A and Div I-AA
football.  Unfortunately, none of them would establish a Div I-A
football championship. :-(  Also, in conjunction with the Convention,
the CEOs (i.e. presidents) of Southwest Conference and Big Eight member
schools will get together to see whether they can agree upon some way to
structure a merger between the two conferences.  From the perspective of
a Div I football fan I offer my analyses and predictions for Dallas '93.
 
Thursday, January 14, has been christened Presidential Agenda Day and
business this day will be devoted to the 45 proposals that have been
designated as of special interest to CEOs, either because they were
proposed by CEOs or because they would erode recently passed CEO-backed
legislation.  Proposal 32 is on this special agenda because it falls in
the latter category.  It would eliminate contact restrictions during
spring football practice in Divisions I-A and I-AA.   Bylaw 17.7.6(a),
which was revised at the last convention in January of this year,
currently restricts contact during spring practice to only 10 of the 15
permitted sessions.  Proposal 32 was sponsored by 11 Division I-A
members and was initially supported by the NCAA Council until the
Presidents Commission expressed its displeasure.  Voting on this
proposal will be restricted to members of Division I-A and I-AA.  I
expect this Proposal to go down in flames.
 
Though not on the special Presidential Agenda, Proposal 94 promises to
be THE most controversial piece of legislation considered during the
Convention.  Sponsored by the Big Ten Conference, ostensibly as a means
of cutting costs, it would mandate a maximum squad size for every
Division I men's sport except Division I-AA football.  The limits in the
proposal are based on a 10 percent reduction from participation averages
reported in the NCAA Gender-Equity Study.  This translates to a squad
limit of 105 for Division I-A football.  The proposal further specifies
that the squad limit must be achieved within the first two weeks of
preseason practice.  Sounds like there might be a "Cutdown Day" in
Division I-A football, similar to the NFL's.  Currently, there are no
NCAA bylaws which limit football squad size.  The NCAA Council has
"asked" the Big Ten to withdraw its proposal and shunt it to the Special
Committee to Review Financial Conditions in Intercollegiate Athletics.
If the Big Ten refuses, their proposal will be opposed by the Council
and the Presidents Commission.  Only Division I members will vote on
this proposal.  Division I-A football coaches are still complaining
bitterly about having to abide by last year's legislation that will
reduce scholarships from last year's 95 to 85 by 1994.  Imagine the
wailing and gnashing of teeth when this proposal hits the Convention
floor.  How on earth do NFL teams get by with a squad limit of just 45?
Actually, I suspect the Big Ten has a hidden agenda behind their
proposal (surprise!).  The Big Ten has already unilaterally adopted
a plan whereby its conference members will allocate their athletic
resources on a 60-40 male-female ratio by 1997 and 50-50 by 2002.
Obviously the members will have to divert resources (read: MONEY) from
men's sports to women's sports to achieve these new ratios.  However,
most of their non-conference brethern have more or less decided to
do nothing significant in this area until the NCAA's grand plan for
gender-equity is unveiled at the '94 Convention.  Now the Big Ten
realizes that, unless something is done quickly, it will soon be at a
competitive disadvantage in men's sports because it will be spending
less money there than everybody else.  Nevermind that the Big Ten's
women's programs should be much stronger for the same reasons.  Rhetoric
aside, everybody knows that athletics programs will still be judged on
the basis of success in men's sports.  I believe Proposal 94 is the Big
Ten's solution to this dilemma.  This theory might also explain why
Division I-AA football is excluded from the proposal:  the Big Ten
doesn't give a rat's ass about how big I-AA squads are because the Big
Ten schedules very few football games against them.
 
Most people would agree that Division I-AA got it right with a full 11
game regular season followed by a championship tournament involving the
top 16 teams.  No pissing and moaning here about how the season's too
long - they just do it.  But, when compared with the Division I
basketball postseason, something's still missing, right?  Did I hear you
say NIT for the also-rans?  Well, Proposal 105 might address this
"deficiency."  While not exactly legislating an NIT-type tournament, it
would exempt particiaption in a Division I-AA conference-sponsored
postseason tournament from the maximum number of football contests.  The
participants in such a tournament would be identified after the end of
the regular season and after selection of the field for the Division
I-AA Football Championship.  Currently, the only postseason contest
permitted outside of the Championship tournament is the Heritage Bowl, a
closed (and nearly defunct) bowl matching the champions of the
Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference and the Southwestern Athletic
Conference.  Proposal 105 is sponsored by the Ivy Group and seven
Division I-AA members and I believe voting will be restricted to
Division I-AA members.  Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the "Ivy
Group" composed of the Ivy League and the Patriot League, which have so
far declined to participate in the I-AA Championship for academic
reasons?  Is the Ivy Group about to put itself "in play" for the I-AA
Championship so that when none of its members are invited they can play
each other in their own little tournament?  Actually, I'm probably way
off base here and Proposal 105 is merely the I-AA analogue of Bylaw
17.7.5.2(e), which exempts from the maximum number of football contests
any Division III school participating in "a conference-sponsored
postseason tournament (i.e. one between teams that are not identified
until the end of the preceding regular season), not to exceed one
contest for any one member institution."  I take a wild guess and
predict that this Proposal will be adopted.
 
There's no doubt that the Convention will generate news, but the biggest
story will likely emerge from the Big Eight/SWC Presidents' meeting.  I
think an "alliance" of some type is more likely than a complete merger
into a single conference because it allows the CEOs to sidestep most
money issues such as bowl and TV revenue sharing formulae.  In any
event, for the sake of discussion, let's call this new metaconference
the Big Southwest Conference (BSC).  One article I've read forecasts the
following structure for football.  The BSC would be composed of two
leagues - initially avoiding the word "division" in the hope that
neither the Orange Bowl nor the Cotton Bowl would notice and continue
their existing tie-ins.  If both the Orange and Cotton go along with
this, there will not be an extra Championship game.  However, if either
the Orange or Cotton drops its tie-in, the BSC would then begin using
the word "division" in place of "league" and would conduct an extra
Championship game at the end of the regular season.  One league would be
composed of the current Big Eight members and the other would be
composed of the current SWC members.  Each team would continue to play
the other 7 members of its league every year.  Each team would also play
2 members of the other league every year, on a rotating basis.  This
would leave each team with only two at-large openings on its schedule.
 
-- 
Jon_Schmidt@stortek.com  Storage Technology Corporation
(303) 673-3581 - voice   2270 South 88th Street
(303) 673-6039 - fax     Louisville, Colorado 80028-5209
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college