The pecking order in Division I football has three levels: The Bowl Championship Series conferences are found near the top, miles apart from the nonscholarship programs at the other end of the spectrum. But the third and largest group resides in the middle, competing in a world that some administrators fear is becoming a football no man's land.

There is growing concern among prominent administrators about whether the subdivision that often operates in Division I-A's shadow provides the best possible regular-season or postseason experience for schools and players. There is talk of mounting financial losses, and there is concern that too many I-AAs are leaving the nest for I-A, whether they belong there or not. Many believe that the migration is diminishing the subdivision's appeal.

Why are those schools leaving? Those left behind say the cause is an increasingly unstable level of play, which some say has to do more with the I-AA label than a belief that I-AA schools are that much different than many of their I-A counterparts. Schools that call their football programs anything other than Division I-A are becoming increasingly frustrated and, some say, less able to market their game because of issues related to not being I-A.

Those frustrations have prompted suggestions -- a lot of them. In recent months, proposals have been bandied about that would renovate Division I football -- particularly non-Division I-A football -- in any number of ways. But while no consensus can be found on any one solution, there is agreement on the need to find one.

"The continued migration of schools from
I-AA to I-A indicates that those schools feel there's something in I-AA that doesn't meet their needs," said Gregory Sankey, commissioner of the I-AA Southland Conference.

Though overall membership numbers have remained relatively steady in the last decade, many of Division I-AA's more prominent members have made recent transitions to I-A. That migration, some believe, has taken whatever media attention the subdivision had with it. One commissioner said that as soon as I-AA develops a program that can sell the subdivision as a legitimate level of play, "we lose them."

That in turn makes the I-AA postseason harder to market. And regular-season marketing (that is, developing marquee made-for-TV match-ups) is compromised by a postseason selection process that makes a regular-season loss too costly for any team to afford.

Then there's the financial concern, which has at least one I-AA athletics director worried about whether presidents will commit money to scholarships in a sport that continually taxes smaller schools' already squeezed resources.

"Unless a group is put together that can do something for football at the I-AA level, I'm concerned you're going to have fewer scholarships in the future, not more," said the University of Massachusetts, Amherst's, Bob Marcum.

Right now, that group is hovering, but as of yet, unformed. What is known is that there is a desire for change that is gaining momentum from conference commissioners, athletics directors and presidents alike.

Different postseason model

"Postseason is the dividing line between those that are truly at the top of collegiate football and those that are somewhat different," Sankey said. "If those that are somewhat different can get together and develop an enhanced postseason, then college football benefits."

Division I-AA currently employs a 16-team, four-week playoff structure under the auspices of the NCAA. It is a model -- at its most basic level -- oft envied by I-A football observers. The playoff generates a great deal of excitement because it affords many teams the opportunity to be crowned a champion. Massachusetts, for instance, went the distance in 1998 all the way from the 11th seed. At any other level, however, the I-AA playoff model is quite different from any proposed at the I-A level, because of money -- or lack of it.

"We normally lose about $1.9 million annually in I-AA football. And if you win the national championship you only lose about $2.1 million," Marcum quipped.

Even Division I-A football powers usually lose money in postseason ventures -- or at least they don't make much -- but there's a safety net of sorts in the corporate dollars put up by bowls that are returned to the schools to help defray expenses. That doesn't exist in Division I-AA. But some think it can.

The problem is that such a model may have to be cast from a non-NCAA mold.

The NCAA pays expenses for the traveling parties in the Division I-AA playoffs, but most everyone in football administration agrees that the party that travels ultimately is larger than the party that's funded. That can be a money-loser for schools that make the playoffs and have to hit the road. Some schools are more frugal than others, but still, Marcum said, "the money is a concern."

Cost outlays aren't the only concern, either. Lost revenue potential is another. Because the higher seeds in the playoffs host preliminary-round games, the greatest revenue potential isn't always realized depending on the facility. Neutral sites might address that, but the NCAA I-AA playoffs aren't structured that way.

The issue boils down to two primary concerns in I-AA football: enhancing the regular-season and postseason experience for student-athletes and providing some financial help to schools that participate in the playoffs.

Most feel the former can't occur without the latter.

So how does Division
I-AA fund itself? Will corporations emerge to underwrite a BCS-type playoff for Division I-AA? And if so, would television bite?

"We understand that there's probably not a huge pot of money out there," said Big Sky Commissioner Doug Fullerton. "But we would like to at least pay for our participating teams."

But Fullerton said even that would be difficult under the current NCAA structure. Retaining earnings, corporate overlays and other approaches to make the I-AA championship somewhat self-sufficient don't align with the NCAA way of thinking.

"We're not talking about something that's much different than what we're doing now, except that (a new postseason model) would give us some flexibility that the NCAA doesn't have," Fullerton said. "And that's not a knock against the NCAA. We understand why there's no flexibility there. But the postseason, which defines us, has some limitations because it's run within the NCAA."

Peeling labels

"On the one hand, the way the NCAA structures the I-AA postseason is good because we have a playoff and can crown a national champion," said Southern Conference Commissioner Alfred B. White. "But on the other hand, our participating institutions are finding themselves in a negative experience financially. We need to come up with a way where it's win-win."

Those searching for the win-win don't have to look far to find an example of what works. Division I basketball, the prime fruit on the NCAA championships tree, is what people want. But the BCS has grabbed whatever similarity there can be without a true Division I football playoff, which leaves the non-BCS schools with what is left over. The I-A non-BCS schools have the remaining 21 NCAA-certified bowl games to fight over, but Division I-AA, which sees itself not that different from the non-BCS I-As, doesn't get a slice of that pie.

"What we're trying to do is the same thing that the non-BCS I-As are trying to do," Fullerton said. "We're trying to find some stabilized, legitimate level for teams not in the BCS."

That's a difficult proposition given the diversity of those schools. Division I-AA alone ranges from schools that run their programs similar to Division III to those who have full scholarships that would be competitive in I-A. Even Division II, which factors into some restructuring models under consideration, has a variety of competitive levels that would transcend current divisional boundaries.

White said the problem might be more with the labels than the package.

"We've got multiple levels within Division I basketball, but we don't have I-AA and I-AAA, at least publicly," he said. "But in football, we've got these classifications and invariably your entire athletics program is labeled that way because your football program is labeled that way. It makes the public believe that a Southern Conference basketball team that gets into the Division I tournament is really different than a team from the Big Ten, SEC or Big 12.

"We need to figure out some way to treat football like basketball -- even if the subclassifications remain intact, as long as they're just for NCAA governance uses and not for marketing purposes."

While most of Division I-AA would prefer to resolve its problems in-house rather than work outside the NCAA structure, any drastic postseason overhaul probably isn't as simple as the NCAA increasing per diem or travel-party size. And even if it were, those solutions don't buy media coverage and increased exposure.

"The easiest answer would be to increase traveling squads and per diem and to allow enough reimbursement to where schools wouldn't lose money," said Dennis Poppe, NCAA director of championships. "However, you have to remember that the I-AA championship is just one of 81 the NCAA administers. There's also a gender-equity concern. An increased allocation of resources is a difficult matter for the Association to address."

Indeed, the postseason "limits" to which Fullerton referred aren't likely to vanish as long as the playoffs are the NCAA's. But it also isn't as easy as Division I-AA deciding to establish its own BCS. The subdivision is bound legislatively to participate in the Division I-AA Football Championship. NCAA Bylaw 31.2.1.1 requires schools of a particular classification to participate in that division's postseason if selected -- and no other.

"There always will be a I-AA championship as long as there are members involved in that division," Poppe said.

So what happens next? It may depend on how much, if at all, the membership decides to "tear down" Division I-AA. Any type of restructuring -- or effort to end subdivisional delineations based on schools' football programs -- would be a significant legislative undertaking, though now that the NCAA Executive Committee has established the two-year membership moratorium, the timing might be right for such a review.

A possible short-term fix currently in the pipeline is a renewed focus on legislation to change the football attendance requirements necessary for schools to be I-A members. The proposal, which is in the comment phase of the Division I legislative process, would require Division I schools to average more than 17,000 in actual paid attendance for home games over a four-year period.

Both I-A and I-AA consider the legislation significant in that it would strengthen the demarcation between the subdivisions and, as Sankey said, would make I-AA schools look before they leap.

"That legislation, especially from the I-AA perspective, has merit," Sankey said. "It would cause institutions contemplating a move to think twice about whether the pursuit of that goal is an appropriate decision for their institution. At the very least it would slow the migration of top competitive I-AAs to the I-A level."

Division I-A seems to support the proposal as well. In fact, the Division I Management Council urged the Board of Directors to adopt it as emergency legislation. The Board declined to do that, but did send it out as initially approved. Both groups will see it again in October.

"The proposal has fairly broad support from both
I-A and I-AA because the intent is to stabilize the subdivisions," said Southeastern Conference Commissioner Roy Kramer. "If that doesn't work, would there be a long-term discussion? There could be, but there's still a question of how you draw the line. Even if you take away the I-A, I-AA and I-AAA labels, there clearly are conferences that play in the BCS and other conferences that are aligned with other bowls.

"I don't know how you would structure that at this time."

Nobody does -- completely. Right now, there are just ideas.

"I don't think the way that we've always done business as a subdivision necessarily is going to provide the answers in the future," said Sankey. "We may have to look at trying some different things. Can a better postseason be accomplished under the NCAA? I hope so. But that's not something we have an answer to right now."

And most parties involved are taking more than a rooting interest. They believe that what's good for any one subdivision is in the end good for college football.

"Right now, college football is healthiest at the BCS level and within Division III," Sankey said. "The BCS schools generate a great deal of revenue off of their football programs. At the same time, Division III, especially private Division IIIs, have been able to experience great enrollment increases due to their football programs and they've developed a great niche that is appropriate for them.

"The challenge for everyone else is to find the level of football that they and their community and their alumni base desires and that their university can support over the long term. I'm not convinced the current structure creates that atmosphere."

Division I membership, 1990-99

*Effective date for legislation prohibiting Division I members from maintaining football programs in other divisions.

Moving on

Former Division I-AA football programs and year they moved (or will move) to Division I-A:

1989

Louisiana Tech University

1992

Arkansas State University

University of Nevada

1994

University of Louisiana at Monroe

1995

University of North Texas

1996

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Boise State University

University of Central Florida

1997

University of Idaho

Marshall University

1999

State University of New York at Albany

State University of New York at Buffalo

Middle Tennessee State University

2001

California State University, Northridge

University of Connecticut

University of South Florida

Troy State University

Also, on May 16, Alabama State University announced its intention to join I-A.