New DI Membership Standards

[danefan]

In other words - no one is moving up for a very very very very long time.

[dbackjon]

In other words - no one is moving up for a very very very very long time.

Not sure about a LONG, Long time. I could see where a school like North Alabama or West Georgia, that has a strong athletic program already, and a potential conference invite (OVC) moving up.

It is more designed to end the NJIT/WSSU/Longwood/Savannah States of the world from moving up - underfunded, no home schools.

[Fresno St. Alum]

I think N.Kentucky, N.Alabama, W.Georgia will jump soon after. Whenever UTSA and Texas St. leave you can count on Tarleton St. and Delta St. or C.Oklahoma jumping too. There would be so much less risk on the D-II school since they can't join D-I without a conf. now. SLC says hey you want in, you'll get more exposure and make more money off of body bag games then you did in D-II. D-II says okie dokie.

[CatMom]

I think the SLC would be more amenable to taking on Tarleton, Abilene Christian and/or Angelo State than the others mentioned. Just an opinion.

[Fresno St. Alum]

Angelo St. and ACU have not shown interest in D-I. C.Oklahoma and Tarleton St. were finalists for SLC expansion last time. Delta St. is a name that the boys on the D-II board have mentioned. I have not heard anything from them that's official. Incarnate Word was going to look into D-I if they didn't get into the Lone Star Conference, but they did. Also ACU has another problem besides that they haven't looked into D-I, they are a private school as is UIW, all of the SLC is public schools. I guess they could take a private but who knows. ACU has had a lot of success in D-II the last couple of years. Angelo St. in the past. Still I got nothing on them wanting to move. Okla market and Western Miss would be new areas that could help the SLC. One of the reasons they went into Arkansas for the last expansion with UCA.

[CatMom]

Baylor - Big XII - private
TCU - MWC - private
It can be done and nothing states the SLC wouldn't take on a private school.
ACU would be an excellent add for the SLC. Nothing being said/posted about some of these schools wanting/willing to go DI, but it is possible. Admins change their minds like the wind. And yes, I know it takes more than wishful thinking by the schools Admin. I just feel the 3 I mentioned would be a better fit. I also think expanding the SLC's area isn't such a great idea. Most of the away games are already far enough to travel to.

[dbackjon]

Delta State isn't that far from Conway or Hammond, but at the outer edge.

Central Oklahoma is intriguing, to me. Large school, just north of OKC. Seems a perfect fit.

[slycat]

SLC is in good shape to bring in quality schools for when Texas St and UTSA inevitably leave. The big question is how soon will those two schools make the jump and what conference will take them.

[danefan]

In other words - no one is moving up for a very very very very long time.

Not sure about a LONG, Long time. I could see where a school like North Alabama or West Georgia, that has a strong athletic program already, and a potential conference invite (OVC) moving up.

It is more designed to end the NJIT/WSSU/Longwood/Savannah States of the world from moving up - underfunded, no home schools.

Sorry I was just thinking in my head about DIII and DII teams in the Northeast.

[SuperHornet]

I know a lot of the focus here is on football. But how do these rules affect schools like Bako that are already in the transition phase? Bako is aiming for Big West membership (last I heard, anyway), but BWC no longer sponsors football (and I can't remember if Bako has football, anyway). Are these rules an issue for schools that would essentially be I-AAA following move-up? And are mid-transition schools grandfathered under the old rules, or are they to be forced to adhere to the new ones?

Some interesting questions, to be sure.

[danefan]

I know a lot of the focus here is on football. But how do these rules affect schools like Bako that are already in the transition phase? Bako is aiming for Big West membership (last I heard, anyway), but BWC no longer sponsors football (and I can't remember if Bako has football, anyway). Are these rules an issue for schools that would essentially be I-AAA following move-up? And are mid-transition schools grandfathered under the old rules, or are they to be forced to adhere to the new ones?

Some interesting questions, to be sure.

Schools in transition are grandfathered in. This only applies to schools that apply for relcassifcation after the moratorium is lifted in 2011.

[collegesportsinfo]

#2 should stop a lot of moveups

Here's a question I get often, but I admit i'm not 100% on the answer. To be sure I'm not giving the wrong answer to people, it would be great to know:

Is the Great West a voting conference?

[dbackjon]

#2 should stop a lot of moveups

Here's a question I get often, but I admit i'm not 100% on the answer. To be sure I'm not giving the wrong answer to people, it would be great to know:

Is the Great West a voting conference?

No idea on that.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Here's a question I get often, but I admit i'm not 100% on the answer. To be sure I'm not giving the wrong answer to people, it would be great to know:

Is the Great West a voting conference?

No idea on that.

Holy shit, I saw you answered this topic and thought "Alright, I'm gonna get an answer to that question!" and then this happens. If dback don't know then I doubt the GWC commissioner even knows.

Now if danefan comes on here and says he don't know either then my world is gonna completely upside down.

[UAalum72]

#2 should stop a lot of moveups

Here's a question I get often, but I admit i'm not 100% on the answer. To be sure I'm not giving the wrong answer to people, it would be great to know:

Is the Great West a voting conference?

No.
Per theNCAA Rule Book
4.6.6.1 Composition. The Football Championship Subdivision Governance Committee shall consist of the following: (Adopted: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, Revised: 10/31/02, 12/15/06)
(a) The members of the Legislative Council from the Football Championship Subdivision conferences listed
in Constitution 4.6.1-(c) that are composed of at least six football-sponsoring members ; however, if a Football Championship Subdivision conference representative is not from an institution that sponsors football in the subdivision, the conference may appoint another representative from an institution that sponsors football in that conference; (Revised: 1/8/01, 10/31/02, 12/15/06, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)
(b) A representative selected by the conference from each Football Championship Subdivision conference
listed in Constitution 4.6.1-(c) that is composed of at least six football-sponsoring members and does
not have a representative on the Legislative Council; and (Revised: 10/31/02, 12/15/06, 11/1/07 effective
8/1/08)
(c) A representative selected by the conference from each Football Championship Subdivision conference
that conducts a football championship but is not listed in Constitution 4.6.1-(c), provided: (Revised:
12/15/06, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)
(1) The conference consists of at least six championship subdivision football-sponsoring members (regular or affiliate members of the conference) that play a single round-robin schedule that leads to the declaration of a conference football champion; and (Revised: 12/15/06)
(2) The affairs of the conference are administered by a conference listed in Constitution 4.6.1-(a),
4.6.1-(b) or 4.6.1-(c). (Revised: 12/15/06, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)
A Football Championship Subdivision conference represented on the committee that falls below the six-member requirement may continue to be represented on the committee for a one-year time period. Such a conference no longer shall be represented on the committee after the one-year period unless it is composed of at least six championship subdivision football-sponsoring members. Further, a Football Championship Subdivision conference that sponsors football and conducts a conference championship, but does not meet the six-member requirement, shall be permitted to have its Legislative Council member attend the Football Championship Subdivision Governance Committee meeting in a nonvoting capacity. (Adopted: 10/31/02, Revised: 12/15/06, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)

And because some of their basketball-only members are still transitioning, the GW can't vote on any other issues either.

[Fresno St. Alum]

Catmom, you think travel is far now? wait til you join the Sun Belt or WAC.

SHornet, CS Bakersfield does not have football but there is a 22,000 seat stadium the JUCO plays at. Yes CSUB is looking to join the Big West, I have no clue way a conference without football would want to have an odd number of teams. Add CSUB boom you have 10.

[FargoBison]

#2 should stop a lot of moveups

Here's a question I get often, but I admit i'm not 100% on the answer. To be sure I'm not giving the wrong answer to people, it would be great to know:

Is the Great West a voting conference?

No, the Great West has been hit especially hard by the core member rules. For all sports the conference had something like 13 years under the current rules until they qualify for an autobid. I'd imigane they would receive voting member status at that time.

The new rules could change this though since they claim how a conference is defined will be changed.

[Fresno St. Alum]

I don't remember which board but I posted that if the Great West was smart they would add the 4 Ind schools, Seattle, Longwood, CS Bakersfield, and Savannah St. with no exit fee so they won't say "no thanks we are holding out for the WCC, ASC, Big West, MEAC". The Great West will be down to 5 soon when N.Dakota fixes the Sioux problem they will get the Summit invite. The 4 would put them at 9 for a while. Would they count as a D-I conf? Since the old rule is gone? They'd have the minimum of 8 for all sports conf. If yes in 2011 they hit up Grand Canyon, UM-St.Louis, S.Indiana, Bellarmine, N.Kentucky, UN-Omaha, C.Missouri, C.Oklahoma, N.Alabama. Some will say no or have offers from the OVC, Big South, or ASC but still if you get even 2(charge an exit fee for D-II members) They would help protect against the Big West taking CSUB the WCC taking Seattle and the ASC taking Longwood.

[danefan]

No idea on that.

Holy shit, I saw you answered this topic and thought "Alright, I'm gonna get an answer to that question!" and then this happens. If dback don't know then I doubt the GWC commissioner even knows.

Now if danefan comes on here and says he don't know either then my world is gonna completely upside down.

I would have had to look it up.

But thanks to our historian/rules expert/all around good dude (UAalumn72) I didn't have to go through the painstaking task of searching the NCAA by-laws.

[henfan]

FTR, CAA Football and the Colonial Athletic Association are indeed separate legal entities, HOWEVER... since the Colonial administers the FB league, CAA Football is NOT subject to the same voting limitations as true one-sport leagues like the long-lost Yankee Conference. In fact, the protection afforded to the FB conglomeration in voting issues was the primary reason the YankCon had to surrender the FB league to the Atlantic 10 back in the '90s.

[FargoBison]

A few updates....

The Council put the finishing touches on recommendations for new Division I membership standards. The group generally concluded its discussion on the topic in January but tweaked a few things at the recent meeting, including:

•Football Championship Subdivision members who wish to join the Football Bowl Subdivision should have a bona fide offer of membership from an FBS conference to be considered for FBS membership. FCS members suggested this change as a way of being consistent – the Council is also recommending that new Division I members have a bona fide offer of membership from a Division I conference before beginning the reclassification process.

•The reclassification process will be four, rather than five years, with election to active membership in the fifth year. Reclassifying members must meet Division I requirements upon beginning the process to become Division I members.

•The application fee will be commensurate with either the estimated annual average value of direct benefits through distributions and championships made available to Division I members ($1.3 million) or the median annual value of direct benefits through distributions and championships ($900,000).

Those recommendations will go to the Division I Board of Directors next month. The Board could introduce legislation into the 2010-11 cycle that codifies the new standards.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome ... _ncaa_news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

So unless UTSA has a conference invite, their FBS plans could be hosed...

[danefan]

So unless UTSA has a conference invite, their FBS plans could be hosed...

This is what I expected to happen.

Pay for play and a conference invite in hand.

The question I have is how far in advance does an FCS team need a conference invite to begin the process of moving up?

2 years? 4 years?

Getting the invite isn't going to be an issue as I don't think there are really any teams moving from FCS to FBS as Indy (despite what UTSA has said, I cannot imagine they'd actually proceed beyond FCS status in 2013 unless they had a conference invite).

[Fresno St. Alum]

UTSA will get a call from the WAC or Sun Belt soon, after the Big 10 dominoes fall.

[Fresno St. Alum]

UTSA doesn't have to pay for play, that's for the D-II moving to D-I. UTSA has to find a home, as does Texas St., Jacksonville St., Charlotte. Only UTSA was nuts enough to move w/o a conf. The others planed on waiting for an invite. Almost all the FCS to FBS move ups don't leave until someone wants them anyway.