The distinction between Division I-A and Division I-AA football institutions became a little clearer this year with the implementation of new Division I-A membership requirements that became effective in August. But as Division I-AA football enters its 27th year, officials at some institutions remain concerned with several aspects of the classification and its relationship to the larger and more recognized Division I-A football teams.

Indeed, discussion about enriching the I-AA classification with a number of incentives and enhancements has been on the table since the release of the Football Study Oversight Committee (FSOC) report in 2001. That report mentioned several possible enhancements for I-AA football, and some people involved with the sport are waiting for the suggestions to regain momentum now that Division I-A criteria are more clearly defined.

In August in fact, when the Board of Directors agreed to maintain some controversial elements of the new Division I-A membership standards -- but also agreed to continued study of membership issues in general -- Division I-AA members reminded the Board not to forget about them. The Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group, which reports to the Board, noted that any re-examination of Division I-A membership criteria should logically be taken in conjunction with a discussion about enhancements for Division I-AA football.

At issue is the migration of football programs from Division I-AA to Division I-A and the resulting dilution of the I-AA classification. To protect the I-AA membership, administrators have long believed there should be an incentive to remain I-AA that is at least as strong as the incentive to be
I-A. That isn't easy, given the lure of I-A bowls and television exposure, but I-AA advocates have been hearing the word "enhancements" bandied about for years and are waiting for results.

"The kind of enhancements I would like to see, that everyone in our league would like to see, are the things that the Football Study Oversight Committee came up with years ago," said Patty Viverito, commissioner of the Gateway Conference. "We're left to fight for these enhancements in I-AA that were identified by a higher body. Now it's time to come through and do what they said they wanted."

But Division I-AA administrators also have varied opinions about which of those enhancements provides the biggest bang for the I-AA classification buck.

One that I-AA members mention most often is their desire to allow I-A teams to count a game each year against a I-AA team toward bowl eligibility. Current rules allow that only once every four years. Danny Morrison, commissioner of the Southern Conference, called the ability to play up a "critical element" in enhancing Division
I-AA football.

"While the one in four is working relatively well, an enhancement certainly would be to count those games every year," he said. "It would be good for the health of college football in general. Not only does it give the I-AAs the opportunity to play and get the exposure and the revenue from
I-A games, but it has to tendency to filter throughout college football."

Morrison also said games between I-A and I-AA schools generate significant regional interest. He citied the contest between the University of Georgia and Georgia Southern University earlier this season as an example.

"If you have the opportunity to count that game toward bowl eligibility every year, it creates more interest. There's usually a local rivalry and it helps with both revenue and exposure for I-AA, and it brings attention to some of the outstanding programs in the country, like Georgia Southern," Morrison said.

Jim Murphy, athletics director at Davidson College, said restricted access to I-A teams also creates scheduling difficulties for I-AA programs.

"If (the one-in-four rule) were to be loosened a little bit, I think it would have benefits for everyone involved," said Murphy, who also chairs the Division I Management Council's I-AA Governance Committee.
"I-AA schools would have greater access to scheduling a I-A school in their region on a regular basis, plus I-A wouldn't be forced into paying astronomical guarantees to play other I-A schools. The competition would be the same."

Television presence

The FSOC discussed changing the one-in-four rule, but there was a conscious decision at the time to delay that and other enhancements cited in the report until the new Division I-A membership criteria were further defined. Now that the latter apparently has been accomplished, people in I-AA say the time for serious discussion about enhancement implementation is now.

Viverito said the games between I-A and I-AA teams can be both a financial and public relations boon for a I-AA school, and increasing the opportunities for games between the two classifications would help in getting another enhancement that many officials are interested in: more television coverage.

Division I-AA took a step toward that goal last month when ESPN committed to producing and televising nationally a first-round game of the Division I-AA Football Championship on ESPN2. Last year, College Sports Television (CSTV) covered a first-round game, and ESPN carried the quarterfinals on its GamePlan option. ESPN2 carried regional coverage of the semifinals. This year, at least one game during each round the playoffs will be televised nationally on ESPN2.

Western Kentucky University President Gary Ransdell said he believes that if the NCAA would treat I-AA football as a primary event, even more television coverage would be forthcoming.

"I think the NCAA should leverage its other contracts in order to secure a more attractive television and marketing contract for the I-AA playoffs," Ransdell said. "In other words, as it negotiates the NCAA basketball or other contracts, part of that negotiation should be a better package for the I-AA playoffs."

Doug Fullerton, commissioner of the Big Sky Conference, said more national television coverage in the quarterfinals and semifinals is an important enhancement, and he said there are enough viewers to support a more national broadcast platform.

"I-AA is the highest level of football played within the NCAA championship structure," Fullerton said. "We'd like to get national television on all levels of championship play. We know the market is out there for the good, solid football that we play."

More television equals more exposure for I-AA football as a whole, Fullerton said. However, Linda Bruno, commissioner of the Atlantic 10 Conference, said she is satisfied with the current television situation, and her only suggestion would be to change the seeding process. Currently, only the top four teams are seeded. Bruno would prefer that the Division I-AA Football Committee be allowed to seed all 16.

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks three years ago, seeding was reduced and pairings were done geographically to reduce travel expenses. Division I-AA saved about $300,000 that year, and the following year, officials decided to continue the reduced, regionally based seeding and put the savings toward producing more television coverage during the playoff games. Some officials feel the integrity of the bracket is compromised by the current method of seeding.

"I think the seeding needs to reflect that this is a national championship," Bruno said. "We were seeding more teams and then something occurred and we all changed the way we were doing business. I think there was a decision made by all of us that money would be put into television for the I-AA championship as opposed to going back to seeding more teams. My thought process is that we should be able to do both. It's the only true national football championship."

Viverito wants both expanded television coverage and a change in the seeding as well. "We want the television and we want to be able to seed. There were things done with the bracket that really impacted the legitimacy of the bracket," she said. "You shouldn't have to do that to get games televised."

What's in a name?

Other officials continue tossing around the idea of changing the name of the classification, creating a brand that can more easily identify I-AA football as separate from I-A, and also make it clear that only football is in that category.

Many officials say people often misunderstand the I-AA name, believing it transfers to all sports at a school that plays I-AA football. Viverito said the classification is applied to other sports in "unintended and harmful ways." The same argument manifested itself last year during discussions between Bowl Championship Series conferences and other Division I-A leagues. Because the latter often were referred to as "non-BCS" leagues, they felt they had been negatively branded. Now all I-A leagues are called BCS leagues.

The I-AA misunderstanding hurts coaches in other sports, Fullerton said, especially when it comes to recruiting. He said top prospects in sports such as baseball, for example, would be less inclined to attend schools that were perceived to be less than high caliber, even if that perception is incorrect.

"We are very much aware that people are going to define us as something. We'd just like to find something that's not transferable to other sports," he said.

Morrison of the Southern Conference said changing the classification name would cut down on confusing nomenclature, even if the two classifications were simply called something like the BCS and the Playoff Championship Series. However, Murphy said he believes that distinguishing between the two classifications isn't as important as keeping the I-AA label out of other sports.

"I worry dramatically when I see media representatives and athletics representatives talking about I-AA basketball teams. That is more damaging than anything," Murphy said. "In reality, we ought to be talking about Division I basketball teams and football teams and worry less about distinguishing between bowl championship teams and national championship playoff teams."

Viverito agreed that there are perception problems, but she isn't optimistic that even a name change would modify the way people think about I-AA football.

"You are automatically characterized as a mid-major or something less than the top for all sports," she said. "The media in many ways is uneducable, and I'm not sure any amount of name-changing will change perception."

Bruno, on the other hand, said I-AA schools should be "proud to be branded that way."

"Quite honestly," she said, "I don't care what we call it. That championship is the national championship for I-AA football, and I think it's a good brand of football. I don't think changing the name will create a different perception, and I don't agree with it."

The Football Study Oversight Committee didn't agree with it, either. When members began reviewing revised Division I membership criteria several years ago, one of the first decisions reached was to maintain the two classifications, but it obviously hasn't satisfied all of the constituents.

Fiscal incentives

Another enhancement that Western Kentucky President Ransdell said the NCAA should pursue is changing the I-AA playoff bid structure, a system he said often ends up financially penalizing teams that make the playoffs.

"Many of the presidents with whom I communicate, while they would never admit it, are sometimes frustrated when they make the playoffs because they know it's going to cost them money," he said. "When you make the playoffs, there should be a financial reward for doing so, and there's not. You should not have to compromise the institutional budget when you're rewarded for NCAA success."

Some schools have playoff traveling expenses above and beyond what the NCAA will reimburse. The maximum travel party size is 100, and some schools have team rosters that exceed that, and the institution has to pick up the tab. The school also has to pay for cheerleaders and the band or any other "extra" traveling party members they want to bring to a playoff game.

Ransdell said making the bid process for hosting the championship game more competitive might also contribute to increasing revenue and exposure. He said he believes Chattanooga, which has hosted the final since 1997 and recently secured the game for two more years, does a good job, but it wouldn't hurt to investigate other opportunities, particularly cities that already host bowl games that might be interested in hosting the I-AA championship as well.

"(The NCAA) might find more cities willing to put more revenue into the bid," he said.

Increasing the size of the travel party for playoff games and financial support for a school's marching band to attend playoff games also are of interest to other I-AA members. Morrison said both would improve the championship experience for student-athletes, something he believes schools should provide for I-AA football participants.

Maintaining I-AA integrity

While opinions may vary about which enhancements are most meaningful, one thing several officials agree they don't want is to be I-A, and they hope I-AA member institutions feel the same way.

Fullerton believes too many schools try to make the jump to I-A without really examining the benefits of remaining a I-AA school. That I-A jump became a little harder this year as new criteria -- including a minimum attendance average of 15,000 -- went into effect. Some worry that the stricter standards aren't enough of a deterrent, while others worry they're too tough -- a sentiment that contributed to the Board agreeing to review membership issues at least one more year.

"We have so many schools that heed the siren's call and get dashed on the rocks as they move to I-A," Fullerton said. "I'd like to see the Board of Directors have the courage to stay the course on the I-A standards."

Morrison and Viverito also agree that the line between the two classifications should be clear, and that tougher standards will create stability for both subdivisions.

Davidson's Murphy doesn't want the two classifications to look the same, either.

"It's the same game, but it's a different philosophy institutionally. It's still high-quality football, and it's still a group of young men who place a high priority on athletics," he said. "It'd be ideal in my mind if we could claim that Division I football is alive and thriving at every level. I think that needs to be our main goal."

"The biggest threat to the subdivision," Viverito said, "is the continued migration of our top programs to I-A. That's what we need to protect against, and that's why we need to have clearly defined barriers between the two. I represent eight institutions that are delighted to play football at this level. I think the niche that is currently carved out is a sound one. I really don't want for major change -- I-AA football is playoff football, its champions are determined on the field through a traditional bracket."

But there are those who might wonder whether the enhancements Division I-AA seeks -- increased television exposure and greater financial resources among them -- might in fact make the subdivision look more like the I-A group from which they want to be separated.

But Fullerton said I-AA is not trying to be like I-A.

"What makes a team I-A is that, No. 1, you are going to make enough money to support your program, and No. 2, you are going to play a national schedule. We don't aspire to do either of those unless we're forced to. We understand that we're not trying to be I-A," he said.

"There are certain values you have to get out of athletics, or else why would you even have them? What you do for the student-athlete is your top priority, we all know that, but second, the branding between yourself and the public is important. Television exposure ensures a legitimacy for I-AA in the eyes of our consumers, and that has nothing to do with I-A."

That's the message Fullerton and other I-AA members want presidents on the Board of Directors to hear loud and clear as they review Division I-A membership criteria in the coming months. And they hope that as the discussions continue, presidents bring not only their A game to the table, but their AA game as well.