USD Stands Firm on Commitment to Football : Athletics: Iannacone says he will revive Division I-AAA proposal at next NCAA Convention.

SAN DIEGO — Blaming “paranoia” and misinformation for the defeat of a proposed new college football level, University of San Diego Athletic Director Tom Iannacone said Tuesday he still has hopes of reviving a Division I-AAA plan by 1993.

And regardless of whether that happens, Iannacone said USD plans to continue football.

Iannacone led a group at last week’s NCAA convention lobbying for the new Division I classification for schools that compete in Division I in most sports but not in football.

Under an NCAA mandate, those schools are required to play all sports on the Division I level by fall 1993. USD, which does not give football scholarships, plays on the Division III level.

The I-AAA plan was narrowly defeated in a vote Thursday, and when Iannacone managed to get another vote Friday before the convention closed, it was defeated by a bigger margin.

That vote made some USD recruits jittery, but Iannacone stated flatly Tuesday, “We will not drop football. End of discussion.”

Football Coach Brian Fogarty said, “In the long run (whatever happens) should be a nice improvement for the program. We have a 10-game schedule for 1992. We just have to hold off on ’93 until we find out where we land.”

Iannacone said there are about two dozen schools in the same situation as USD, most of them in the East, including such well-known programs as Georgetown, St. John’s and Duquesne. USD is the only Division III football program at a Division I school west of Iowa, making scheduling a problem.

Iannacone’s best option appears to be joining with an emerging conference that includes Cal State Northridge, Southern Utah, Santa Clara, St. Mary’s and Sacramento State, with several other schools weighing that route as well. Most of them now play on the Division II level, which offers limited scholarships, and there’s the rub.

“Santa Clara and St. Mary’s already have scholarship money. We would have to add scholarship money,” Iannacone said.

Division II schools defeated the I-AAA proposal, and Iannacone said that in canvassing some of the voters he found most of them misinformed or unaware of the 1993 upgrading mandate.

He said many Division II administrators were “paranoid” about losing recruits and media coverage to I-AAA competitors--something Iannacone said is unlikely.

“Division II leadership wanted something more restrictive. They were concerned about losing members to I-AAA,” Iannacone said. “We did everything they asked us to but it was voted down anyway. It failed in Division II, I think, because of misconceptions, a lot of erroneous information and a lot of paranoia, as I found out while politicking at the convention.”

The idea still has the blessing of the Presidents Commission, a powerful force within the NCAA, and Iannacone has hopes it will be brought up again next year. If so, “I think you go to (lobby) Division II from day one, go to their presidents,” Iannacone said.

He said that some Division I schools voted against the proposal, taking the stance, “If you want to be Division I, be Division I.”

To that, Iannacone answers, “We’ll still be the same principles as Division III. We’re just displaced and looking for a place to play football. Football is so expensive, you need different levels to conduct a program. We’re all the same in tennis, we’re all the same in soccer, but football is unique and we have to get rid of all this self-serving stuff.”

Iannacone said he has sat in on preliminary discussions for the proposed conference but has made no commitment.

The one sure thing, he said, is “we will continue (playing football) in whatever division structure is available to us.”