OT: D1

[IUPNation]

It’s regionalized because it has to be. Schools are small. Budgets are small. Fan bases are small and niche. I have no qualms with the D2 setup, but I would like to see more of an “open” or “national” format with basketball.

I’m not sure I have a great solution to the problem.

I think the regional format works for this level. It’s fsns of schools who should move up who do the whining.

[IUPNation]

Some Penn State fans enjoy whining about their treatment in the B1G, which at least took them in after they never were able to get into an eastern league.

The BIG was a relic league in foosball in 1990. The PAC 10 routinely trounced them in the Rose Bowl. The Nits had recent National Titles. Penn State entrance forced everyone to step it up.

Penn State fans should be complaining how their school allowed itself to be out recruited by Meatchicken and The Overrated State University…often in their own state.

Penn State should have taken over the BIG but it didn’t work out that way.

[IUP24]

I think the regional format works for this level. It’s fsns of schools who should move up who do the whining.

I’d prefer there to be some format of open seeding, done nationally (to a point), in the Division 2 basketball field. I understand why it can’t be seeded out 1-64, but they can do things differently. In 2018, 4 of the 8 teams in the Atlantic Regional were ranked in the Top 10 in the country. That just simply shouldn’t happen.

Perhaps I’m doing the same thing the people you’re complaining about are, but in the current format, there’s way too many examples of teams playing a 4th time in the NCAA Tournament. And frankly, as a fan of a program who gets to March regularly (not taking that for granted), I’d like to see other teams.

[iupgroundhog]

Was a little more complex than that. Paterno wanted to form an all sports, Eastern conference, comprised of schools who were mostly already on his schedule. And you have to consider, at the time, College Football didn’t rule the roost. Basketball did. And rather significantly at that. The forming of the Big East was structured to create a powerful basketball conference that existed largely in urban and metropolitan areas. Penn State, for better or worse, didn’t fit what they were looking for. Sure, hindsight says it would’ve been great to have all those schools who both Pitt and Penn State were playing at that time all form a league together (I think Pitt, Penn State, and WVU should all play every year), but the focus of college athletics at the time was basketball.

I just got finished reading your post. I don't recall that during the years of 1979-1983 that basketball "ruled the roost" over football. I don't recall that at all. Not in the world I lived in and I was actually alive at that time. What do you mean?

[Ship69]

The BIG was a relic league in foosball in 1990. The PAC 10 routinely trounced them in the Rose Bowl. The Nits had recent National Titles. Penn State entrance forced everyone to step it up.

Penn State fans should be complaining how their school allowed itself to be out recruited by Meatchicken and The Overrated State University…often in their own state.

Penn State should have taken over the BIG but it didn’t work out that way.

Penn State didn't have as many snooze weeks when they dropped the independent schedules. A classic example was the 1973 unbeaten John Cappelletti team that played one ranked team in the entire regular season with games against all three service academies. Their biggest advantages in Big Ten play are against recent additions Rutgers and Maryland whom they pounded before they joined the B1G and traditional league doormats such as Indiana. In addition to your Meatchickens and Overrated State, PSU has had its share of trouble with Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Michigan State since joining the league. Those schools aren't Ohio State or Michigan, but they ain't Temple, either. As far as Penn State fans "should be complaining," when the hell are they NOT complaining about something.

[IUPNation]

I’d prefer there to be some format of open seeding, done nationally (to a point), in the Division 2 basketball field. I understand why it can’t be seeded out 1-64, but they can do things differently. In 2018, 4 of the 8 teams in the Atlantic Regional were ranked in the Top 10 in the country. That just simply shouldn’t happen.

Perhaps I’m doing the same thing the people you’re complaining about are, but in the current format, there’s way too many examples of teams playing a 4th time in the NCAA Tournament. And frankly, as a fan of a program who gets to March regularly (not taking that for granted), I’d like to see other teams.

Maybe it would work better for basketball but I was just talking about foosball. The regional format works fine but don’t tell that to Region 3 fanboys. It’s not our problem thry put the handful of heavy hitters of the GLIAC and MIAA together.

[IUPNation]

Penn State didn't have as many snooze weeks when they dropped the independent schedules. A classic example was the 1973 unbeaten John Cappelletti team that played one ranked team in the entire regular season with games against all three service academies. Their biggest advantages in Big Ten play are against recent additions Rutgers and Maryland whom they pounded before they joined the B1G and traditional league doormats such as Indiana. In addition to your Meatchickens and Overrated State, PSU has had its share of trouble with Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Michigan State since joining the league. Those schools aren't Ohio State or Michigan, but they ain't Temple, either. As far as Penn State fans "should be complaining," when the hell are they NOT complaining about something.

PennState had a pretty stellar bowl resume under Paterno going into BIG membership so they did fare well against better competition than the Eastern cupcakes they faced each year.

It’s just age caught up to Paterno and it got easier to out recruit him every year starting in the late 90’s. For every kid who wanted to
Play for an icon two bought into the pitch he was old and won’t be around much longer and they went to Ann’s Bush or Columbus.

[Ship69]

PennState had a pretty stellar bowl resume under Paterno going into BIG membership so they did fare well against better competition than the Eastern cupcakes they faced each year.

It’s just age caught up to Paterno and it got easier to out recruit him every year starting in the late 90’s. For every kid who wanted to
Play for an icon two bought into the pitch he was old and won’t be around much longer and they went to Ann’s Bush or Columbus.

It's always easier to get up for a couple of big games a year than play week-in and week-out in a tough league. The SEC has been the top league in recent years, but that doesn't mean the B1G is not a good league. Outside of the great 1994 team, Penn State was not winning championships in the '90s. And -94 was a weaker-than-average year for the league as both OSU and Michigan had four losses that year, and every other team outside of Penn State had at least three. Doing away with divisions should help Penn State have a better shot at the title as they won't have to go through OSU and Michigan every season. But the West Coast expansion also brings in three strong football programs (UCLA has been so-so for a while now) and West Coast road trips, which are never easy. As far as not recruiting after the '90s, Paterno had some lousy teams in the early 2000s when he got on a kick of signing players early before a lot of the four- and five-star recruits had made their decisions. But the ship did get righted, and he actually won two of his three league championships in 2005 and 2008. Franklin, of course, won the other one in 2016, which I didn't think he ever got enough credit for give the state of the program he inherited.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

They did blow it…Paterno wanted to be in a league bad, and kept getting turned away. Oddly enough, Villanova didn’t have football when that vote was cast (they dropped the program for a few years after Howie Long left), they maybe vote differently if they had a program.

The Big East at that time was a dominant basketball conference. They wanted schools in big cities and for their games to be played in major arenas.

Obviously hindsight tells a different tale today but Big East hoops in that era ruled the roost -- and was must-see TV (in an era when there wasn't 876 games on TV nightly.

The 30 For 30 episode on this topic is incredible.

[iupgroundhog]

The Big East at that time was a dominant basketball conference. They wanted schools in big cities and for their games to be played in major arenas.

Obviously hindsight tells a different tale today but Big East hoops in that era ruled the roost -- and was must-see TV (in an era when there wasn't 876 games on TV nightly.

The 30 For 30 episode on this topic is incredible.

I guess if you look at it through the prism of the Big East history because the Big East was established as a basketball conference. Clearly, schools like Georgetown, UConn, Seton Hall, etc. are dominant in basketball. I have a football bias and am looking at the question from a national perspective. Basketball was reaching new heights in popularity but I think football was still king then. Plus, the schools most people care about on here being PSU, Pitt, and WVU football was dominant and probably always will be.

Paterno's vision was an Eastern football conference (but covering all sports); however, the backdrop was eastern football's place in the national landscape. Pitt and PSU were both top 5 programs at that time in football. WVU was really good in football then, also. Even at Syracuse, the football tradition probably still outweighed their basketball prowess.

I consulted Bing AI (which I've never done before). The questions and answers are below. I think it depends on your perspective. It cites BB and FB national "championship games." However, when I googled TV ratings for the 1982 Sugar Bowl between Georgia and Pitt the ratings were higher than anything else college. I couldn't find the 1983 Sugar Bowl TV ratings between PSU and Georgia (I was there) but it was the first FB "national championship" between #1 and #2 and I think the ratings were through the roof.

My point is that I think college football was still a bigger draw than basketball during that time.on a national level, perhaps not in Big East TV markets. As for ruling the roost, I concede I'm no expert.


Which was more popular in the 1980's: college football or college basketball?
That’s an interesting question. It depends on how you measure popularity, but one way is to look at the TV ratings for the college basketball and football championships. According to the data, the 1980 NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship between Louisville and UCLA had a 19.8 rating¹, while the 1980 NCAA Division I-A football season had a split national championship between Georgia and BYU, with no official title game². The highest rated regular season game was between Notre Dame and Georgia, with a 17.9 rating³. So, based on this, it seems that college basketball was slightly more popular than college football in 1980. However, this may not reflect the overall popularity of the sports throughout the decade. Do you have a specific year or team in mind?

Which was more popular at Pitt in the 1980's: football or basketball?
Again, it depends on how you measure importance, but one way is to look at the records and achievements of the Pitt football and basketball teams in the 1980s. According to the data, the Pitt football team had a record of 76-43-3 in the 1980s, with one national championship in 1980¹² and four bowl game wins³. The Pitt basketball team had a record of 202-96 in the 1980s, with two Big East regular season titles in 1981 and 1988, and one Big East tournament title in 1981⁴³. They also made the NCAA tournament seven times, reaching the Sweet Sixteen three times and the Elite Eight once⁵. So, based on this, it seems that Pitt football was more important than basketball in the early 1980s, but basketball became more competitive and successful in the late 1980s. What do you think?

[ctrabs74]

Maybe it would work better for basketball but I was just talking about foosball. The regional format works fine but don’t tell that to Region 3 fanboys. It’s not our problem thry put the handful of heavy hitters of the GLIAC and MIAA together.

Wait until the NCAA decides to reorganize the Super Regions in a couple of years, because that seems to be the likely scenario, especially in SR2 with the influx of new programs in the past decade.

[IUP24]

Wait until the NCAA decides to reorganize the Super Regions in a couple of years, because that seems to be the likely scenario, especially in SR2 with the influx of new programs in the past decade.

I wouldn't necessarily mind them changing things up. Although, I would argue that the current arrangement of which leagues are represented within SR1 currently makes sense geographically, and fits what the model is at this level where regional affiliation and geographic proximity is acutely important. I'm not sure how you would rearrange SR1 sticking to that model, considering all of the teams there have an eastern midwest, northeast, mid-atlantic identity.

I don't view IUP as a legitimate national championship contender in football and I tamper expectations and realize the ceiling that's there. I think it's fun to run into different teams along the way though. So if there's a way that lets me see other teams playing some of the SR1 schools, I would be intrigued by it.

That's why I said what I said regarding the basketball format. I would prefer see IUP have to play Drury in the Round of 16 for a shot to go to the Elite 8, rather than playing Mercyhurst for a 4th time. I think there are methods in which they could "open" up the seeding within basketball. I get that it can't be seeded 1-64 like I mentioned. But there are too many examples of two teams ranked in the top 10 or 15 playing each other in the 2nd round of the Regional. It's happened numerous times in the Atlantic, but that happens all over the place with that tournament structure. I often tell people who don't understand the D2 format that it's far more difficult to make a tournament run in Division 2 because of the format.

I'm open to new ideas to create interesting matchups in the postseason in all sports.

[Fightingscot82]

My ideal setup is conference champions are automatic qualifiers. The rest of the pool is filled using a publicly available formula for determining the strongest teams remaining. I could be wrong but I believe this is the setup used by FCS.

I don't know how long regionalization can work with so much instability in D2 membership and the specter of schools closing.

[EastStroud13]

It's been beaten to death in the General forum, but I don't think a single formula works for D2. There simply isn't enough cross-SR play to make it effective on that scale. All anyone will do is complain that it's rewarding the "wrong teams".

I think the best format for D2 is some form of hybrid model. The top 6 in each super region are guaranteed a playoff berth, and the remaining spots are filled with wild cards selected based on a combination of human and computer factors. What D2 needs is regionalization with flexibility, rather than rigid regionalization or a complete free-for-all.

[IUPNation]

It's been beaten to death in the General forum, but I don't think a single formula works for D2. There simply isn't enough cross-SR play to make it effective on that scale. All anyone will do is complain that it's rewarding the "wrong teams".

I think the best format for D2 is some form of hybrid model. The top 6 in each super region are guaranteed a playoff berth, and the remaining spots are filled with wild cards selected based on a combination of human and computer factors. What D2 needs is regionalization with flexibility, rather than rigid regionalization or a complete free-for-all.

That could work but the at large bids would be the lowest seeds.

What the Region 3 fan boys want us for Region 1 to be subjugated under them and every game is on the road at their schools.