Page 1 of 4
New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:30 pm
by FargoBison
The Division I Leadership Council will put the finishing touches on its recommendations for Division I membership standards at its Thursday (Jan 14) meeting at the NCAA Convention in Atlanta.
The DI moratorium lasts until August 2011, and the Leadership Council hopes to sponsor appropriate legislative changes from its recommendations in the 2010-11 legislative cycle.
The Council’s recommendations include:
1. A five-year “reclassification” process for new members following no less than five years of membership in Division II.
2. New members must have a bona fide offer of membership from a multisport, voting Division I conference.
3. An application fee, the nature of which has yet to be determined.
4. A requirement to meet Division I sport-sponsorship and financial aid requirements upon beginning the reclassification process.
5. A stipulation that institutions subject to historically based Academic Progress Rate penalties will not be elected to active membership.
6. A policy that new active members of Division I should not qualify to receive revenue distributions related to sport sponsorship, grants-in-aid, academic enhancement or Special Assistance/Student-Athlete Opportunity Funds for three calendar years after election to membership.
7. After the 2010-11 academic year, a discontinuation of the multidivisional practice that permits Divisions II or III institutions to designate one men’s and one women’s sport in Division I, except in sports that do not have a Division II championship. Institutions that currently “play up” could continue to do so, but would forfeit the opportunity permanently if the school failed to conduct the sport in Division I in any ensuing academic year.
8. Eliminate the designations of “core” and “continuity” for Division I institutions and create a more meaningful definition of a multisport conference, including a minimum number of active members, minimum sport sponsorship, officiating and compliance program rules.
9. Administration Cabinet recommendation of active membership to the Board of Directors instead of the Leadership Council.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaah...news+-+1-11-01
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:36 pm
by danefan
FargoBison wrote:The Division I Leadership Council will put the finishing touches on its recommendations for Division I membership standards at its Thursday (Jan 14) meeting at the NCAA Convention in Atlanta.
The DI moratorium lasts until August 2011, and the Leadership Council hopes to sponsor appropriate legislative changes from its recommendations in the 2010-11 legislative cycle.
The Council’s recommendations include:
1. A five-year “reclassification” process for new members following no less than five years of membership in Division II.
That's a long ass time.
2. New members must have a bona fide offer of membership from a multisport, voting Division I conference.
"The NJIT rule"
3. An application fee, the nature of which has yet to be determined.
I heard it was discussed in the range of $1 million.
4. A requirement to meet Division I sport-sponsorship and financial aid requirements upon beginning the reclassification process.
Have your ducks in a row before you even start transitioning (aka "WSSU Rule")
5. A stipulation that institutions subject to historically based Academic Progress Rate penalties will not be elected to active membership.
I wonder if this applies to moves from FCS to FBS. Could this be the "Jacksonville State Rule"?
6. A policy that new active members of Division I should not qualify to receive revenue distributions related to sport sponsorship, grants-in-aid, academic enhancement or Special Assistance/Student-Athlete Opportunity Funds for three calendar years after election to membership.
No you can't have our BCS Money!!!!
7. After the 2010-11 academic year, a discontinuation of the multidivisional practice that permits Divisions II or III institutions to designate one men’s and one women’s sport in Division I, except in sports that do not have a Division II championship. Institutions that currently “play up” could continue to do so, but would forfeit the opportunity permanently if the school failed to conduct the sport in Division I in any ensuing academic year.
RPI, Union, St Lawrence and Clarkson - keep your hockey programs active. Hobart and Johns Hopkins - keep your lax programs active.
8. Eliminate the designations of “core” and “continuity” for Division I institutions and create a more meaningful definition of a multisport conference, including a minimum number of active members, minimum sport sponsorship, officiating and compliance program rules.
I wonder if this could somehow effect the football only conferences (e.g. CAA and PFL)
9. Administration Cabinet recommendation of active membership to the Board of Directors instead of the Leadership Council.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaah...news+-+1-11-01
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:43 pm
by dbackjon
Thanks for posting. A bit much for iPhone to post.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:45 pm
by dbackjon
#2 should stop a lot of moveups
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:54 pm
by FargoBison
No problem Jon.
I'm not sure what impact this will have on FCS to FBS move ups but it should really cut into the amount of DII schools going to DI.
I am also wondering what they mean by getting rid of "core" and "continuity". Those two words are thorns in the side of the Summit, if the rules are softened it could also help the Great West get an autobid faster depending on if they can get another school to join.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:58 pm
by Col Hogan
CAA is not a football only conference...
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:04 pm
by danefan
Col Hogan wrote:CAA is not a football only conference...
The CAA Football Conference is a separate entity from the CAA.
That's how there are no affiliate members in the CAA Football Conference. UMass, UNH, Maine, URI, Richmond and Nova are of equal standing to the CAA members.
Take a look at the CAA Football handbook.
http://www.nmnathletics.com/fls/8500/su ... EM_ID=8500
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:15 pm
by Col Hogan
danefan wrote:Col Hogan wrote:CAA is not a football only conference...
The CAA Football Conference is a separate entity from the CAA.
That's how there are no affiliate members in the CAA Football Conference. UMass, UNH, Maine, URI, Richmond and Nova are of equal standing to the CAA members.
Take a look at the CAA Football handbook.
http://www.nmnathletics.com/fls/8500/su ... EM_ID=8500
Ya know....I hate show off, know-it-alls...
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:17 pm
by danefan
Col Hogan wrote:danefan wrote:
The CAA Football Conference is a separate entity from the CAA.
That's how there are no affiliate members in the CAA Football Conference. UMass, UNH, Maine, URI, Richmond and Nova are of equal standing to the CAA members.
Take a look at the CAA Football handbook.
http://www.nmnathletics.com/fls/8500/su ... EM_ID=8500
Ya know....I hate show off, know-it-alls...
But seriously - limiting the power of one-sport conferences may cause the CAA split we all expect eventually. UNH, URI, UMass and Maine have much less to say about things with a mere affiliate vote.
I don't know if this legislation is intended to or will cause that to happen. Its just the first thing that popped into my head when I read it.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:45 pm
by dgreco
#2 is an excellent rule. But how many schools moving up will get an offer, don't the conferences want to see the strides the school makes?
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:57 pm
by T-Dog
This is just teams moving from D2 to D1. So it looks like FCS to FBS moves aren't covered here.....or is the NCAA coming up with separate rules for them?
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:10 pm
by slycat
I'm more interested in the new rules to go FBS.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:04 pm
by CatMom
dgreco wrote:#2 is an excellent rule. But how many schools moving up will get an offer, don't the conferences want to see the strides the school makes?
I would think most conferences are aware of their DII conterparts that might have an interest in moving up. I feel the SLC is aware of how the DII's in TX, that might be exploring the possibility of replacing TXST and/or UTSA in the future, fare in most, if not all, sports and what their academic standards are.
I'm pretty sure the folks down here follow the likes of Abilene Christian, Angelo State, Tarleton, et al. Fact, we compete against them in many OOC schedules. There are several I could see moving up if given the chance.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:04 pm
by CatMom
slycat wrote:I'm more interested in the new rules to go FBS.
Moving from D-II to D-I after the moratorium
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:42 pm
by Fresno St. Alum
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome ... +-+1-11-01
Any NAIA or D-III would have to spend 8 yrs in D-II before moving to D-I
So a conf. would have to invite you from D-II in order for you to move up now? What about the Great West, do they have to wait 7 years to invite people(isn't that how long it takes. It was 6 core members for 5 years. they wouldn't have that until 2017) But I read that rule is gone.
So will the Great West count as long as the have 8 members? Or will they never count. That really kills a lot of move ups if they will never count.
ASC, OVC, Summit, Big South, AEC, NEC, Big West, SLC, MEAC are conference that have added D-II members the last 10 years. I don't see any other conf. looking at D-II members. I figure some of these conferences will try and add the 6 GWC schools left and the 4 Ind. schools. N.Dakota will join the Summit soon, the GWC will be down to 5.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:48 am
by kemajic
slycat wrote:I'm more interested in the new rules to go FBS.
It would be most interesting if there were rules that said you had to be a winner at the old level.
Re: Moving from D-II to D-I after the moratorium
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:03 am
by Fresno St. Alum
Dback merge my thread with Fargo, thanks
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:15 am
by Fresno St. Alum
I think with these new rules, conferences will be more willing to give a D-II school a call and say we have an opening and you have a spot if you meet these requirements. At the end of the 1+4 they are D-I then the conf adds them if not they stay D-II and the conference will go after another school. There are 4 Ind D-Is now and there will be 6 left in the GWC, well make it 5 after UND joins the Summit.
OVC can still give N.Kentucky and or N.Alabama a call. ASC can still get W.Florida and Lincoln Memorial. Big South can go after W.Georgia or N.Alabama. AEC can add LeMoyne. SLC can add Tarleton St. and C.Oklahoma
This will stop the schools like Utah Valley(JUCO)or Houston Baptist(NAIA), no home and no hope unless you count the GWC. Which I hope they do or that will shut the door for any western school from moving up. NJIT hoped for NEC but they sucked so bad.
All of those D-II names I've posted have/are looking into D-I.
The 1st rule is basically the same thing. every school that has come from D-II was already D-II for 5 years except FGCU. That was put in place to stop and NAIA or JUCO from moving up. If they still want too, there is a 3 year process at the D-II level plus 5 years of being a D-II member then the 5 year process of being a D-I member (13 years) Still 5 years for all the D-IIs I've talked about.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:52 am
by andy7171
kemajic wrote:slycat wrote:I'm more interested in the new rules to go FBS.
It would be most interesting if there were rules that said you had to be a winner at the old level.
I doubt it. Or else Buffalo would never have moved up.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:55 am
by dbackjon
Changes make sense - prevents orphan schools like Longwood, Savannah State, etc.
I do hope the GWC sticks - there is a need for another western conference
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:20 pm
by CatMom
kemajic wrote:slycat wrote:I'm more interested in the new rules to go FBS.
It would be most interesting if there were rules that said you had to be a winner at the old level.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:50 am
by BlueHen86
kemajic wrote:slycat wrote:I'm more interested in the new rules to go FBS.
It would be most interesting if there were rules that said you had to be a winner at the old level.
What would really be interesting is a relegation system that would move teams up or down depending on how they played.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:40 am
by JConnolly
BlueHen86 wrote:kemajic wrote:
It would be most interesting if there were rules that said you had to be a winner at the old level.
What would really be interesting is a relegation system that would move teams up or down depending on how they played.
That would be pretty cool. It would be like soccer in England. Only problem is, the number of scholarships would lead to teams getting moved up, then raped, then moving back down, then dominating again.
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:53 am
by FargoBison
Updates to the DI Membership Recommendations (January 15).
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome ... mendations
3. Interested institutions must also submit an application fee that is equal to the average annual value of distributions and championships for Division I members, a figure that was set at about $1.4 million in the most recent distribution year.
4. A requirement to meet Division I sport-sponsorship and financial aid requirements upon beginning the reclassification process. (50 percent of the grants-in-aid maximums in the conference-sponsored sports the institution will participate in).
Re: New DI Membership Standards
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:58 am
by dbackjon
Those are two BIG financial hurdles - but welcome.
Basically, gear up before submitting your application.