OT: D1

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I can tell you that SRU has no interest in moving up. The AD is the former director of DII championships at the NCAA (and a former Ship AD). They want to follow the MIAA model for being a regional public university with DII sports. Plus money. I don't think IUP or Rock have the budget to travel to a backwater FCS conference on the East Coast. Right now roughly 60% of their games are within 2 hours.

There's no point in IUP or SRU jumping up to some bush league D1 conference (even it was viable).

Both are strong 'regional' football programs. IUP has a Top 10 men's basketball program.

Fan interest wouldn't be any better (it could actually be worse as the gate is the largest in both sports when they play each other). Some local yinzer from Clymer or Butler isn't going to care whether IUP or SRU is playing Clarion or Bryant. Makes no difference to the average fan.

IUP basketball already has a big following (by small school standards) and typically outdraws Duquesne - and crushes Bobby Mo and Loretto U.

I've been to a ton of mid-major basketball games and IUP has a nicer arena and better atmosphere than most of them.

If they were ever going to try and go up, the late 90s would have been the window. But, that opportunity is long, long past.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Not to mention that FCS maxes out at 63 scholarships. In a conference where I doubt any of the schools are even at the Division II max of 36, that would be quite a jump up.

IUP deeply explored the jump under then-President Tony Atwater. It wasn't feasible then. It sure as hell wouldn't be feasible now.

That said, the KCAC is nicer than most mid-major basketball arenas so that is already in place. Miller Stadium, however, is a dump.

[Ship69]

I can tell you that SRU has no interest in moving up. The AD is the former director of DII championships at the NCAA (and a former Ship AD). They want to follow the MIAA model for being a regional public university with DII sports. Plus money. I don't think IUP or Rock have the budget to travel to a backwater FCS conference on the East Coast. Right now roughly 60% of their games are within 2 hours.

Not to mention that FCS maxes out at 63 scholarships. In a conference where I doubt any of the schools are even at the Division II max of 36, that would be quite a jump up.

[Fightingscot82]

In FCS land former NE-10 member Bryant has just been given acceptance into the CAA Football Conference. If only our schools were bound by the state I could see IUP/Rock having moved up to the FCS level and possibly been given an CAA invite.

I can tell you that SRU has no interest in moving up. The AD is the former director of DII championships at the NCAA (and a former Ship AD). They want to follow the MIAA model for being a regional public university with DII sports. Plus money. I don't think IUP or Rock have the budget to travel to a backwater FCS conference on the East Coast. Right now roughly 60% of their games are within 2 hours.

[Ship69]

In FCS land former NE-10 member Bryant has just been given acceptance into the CAA Football Conference. If only our schools were bound by the state I could see IUP/Rock having moved up to the FCS level and possibly been given an CAA invite.

Do you mean if only the schools WEREN'T bound by the state? Otherwise, I don't get what you mean.

And going FCS is a quantum leap in facilities and money if you're going to compete at a high level.

[shipfbfan1]

In FCS land former NE-10 member Bryant has just been given acceptance into the CAA Football Conference. If only our schools were bound by the state I could see IUP/Rock having moved up to the FCS level and possibly been given an CAA invite.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Next time I see Nick Saban complaining about the transfer portal or NIL, I'm going to remember that he just purchased a $17.5 million house in Florida.

That sounds like slumming it for his net worth. Did the boosters pay for this one, too?

[Ship69]

Next time I see Nick Saban complaining about the transfer portal or NIL, I'm going to remember that he just purchased a $17.5 million house in Florida.

[ctrabs74]

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.

The reason I brought up SR2 is that with the addition of new teams since the last regional reorganization is that SR2 would stand at 48 schools by next season (GSC, CIAA, Conference Carolinas, SAC and SIAC) compared to 33 in SR4 (LSC, NSIC, RMAC), 45 in SR1 (GMAC, MEC, NE-10 and PSAC) and 40 in SR3 (GAC, GLVC, GLIAC and MIAA).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?