Hammersmith
-
Posts
955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Hammersmith
-
-
It's funny how much you think McFeely is pro-Bison and anti-UND. It's pretty obvious most of you only read his stuff when he writes about UND. If you'd read all his stuff, you'd realize he's passively or actively negative about EVERYTHING!.
IT'S
LITERALLY
HIS
FREAKING
JOB!
McFeely is employed by Forum Comm to be a social gadfly. A newspaper position that was invented about 30 minutes after newspapers. A gadfly writes columns to upset people and get them talking. The stronger the emotions the better. Basically, a slightly more intelligent version of clickbait.
And it's a healthy role to have filled. We need someone to poke at our blind spots and make us think. A good gadfly will do that at the same time as generating revenue. Is McFeely a good gadfly? He's not great, but he's about what you'd expect in a market our size.
And, yes, he pokes at the Bison all the time. I think there are at least three long-running threads on BV that are more critical of him than you guys have been here. (And, yes, I've written posts like this over there, too.)
A couple other things to think about:
1. McFeely said nothing in that column that hasn't been said here dozens of times by just about everyone. So it must just be the old "I can s**t talk my brother as much as I want, but if you do it, there'll be trouble" sort of thing.
2. With the state of UND football at the moment, this column needed to be written. Everybody that follows UND football knows that things aren't going well, and they're talking about it to each other. This board is a prime example. If it's such a major topic of conversation, it would be irresponsible for the local paper not to cover it. And consider this: If Forum Comm needed to write a column on it, who would they want to give the assignment to? (and some of you are cute the way you think McFeely chooses what to write about; he's an employee - he writes about what his editor tells him to.) If they give the story to Tom Miller, it could hurt his relationship with Bubba and the program. And they're not going to give it to Brad at the start of hockey season. McFeely is the logical choice. He can write a critical column because that's what he's employed to do, and by giving it to a Fargo writer, it doesn't harm the relationship between UND/Bubba and the GFH sports department.
One last, tiny thing to Mama: Just about every major NDSU coaching contract in the last decade and a half has been published in the Forum at one time or another. McFeely doing it for Bubba is nothing special.
-
3
-
-
26 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:
Baukols first year was 2007 I think.
It was either 2007 or 2010. The UND webpage on him isn't clear. It says that this is his 13th year at UND overall, but it doesn't specify if the 3 years he spent at UND as a grad student counts. If it was 2007, that means his only non-UND experience was his undergrad work at MSU-Moorhead and a single year at Wyoming.
-
1 minute ago, Yote 53 said:
Untapped? Gopher basketball has a pretty good following, but I admit there is room for another D1 on the Eastside.
Sorry, thought it was obvious that the Gophers were the 'almost' part of 'almost untapped'. Most other top-15 markets are shared by a bunch of DI MBB schools. I'll admit it was a bit of hyperbole.
-
1 minute ago, Siouxperfan7 said:
It will be interesting to see what St Thomas does with football. If they want to really invest in being D!, football is their money maker. Would be great to see them eventually joing the MVFC and play at Alianz Field!!
Actually, I'd say that MBB has the potential to be their real money maker. The return on investment is way bigger there than hockey or FCS football. Mid-sized private school in an almost untapped(for DI MBB) top-15 media market? Conferences will be salivating over them if they put the resources into it and perform well.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, UNDColorado said:
What will they do with their football program?
Pioneer for now. Maybe MVFC or whatever later down the line. ('whatever' because who knows what the landscape will be 10 years from now)
Have to assume the NCAA waiver is just a formality. Can't believe it's gotten to this point without ST or the SL getting a positive response from the NCAA.
-
27 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
What is the timeline to get all of this accomplished?
Library renovation will be finished early 2020.
New steam plant will be online spring 2020.
Old steam plant will be taken off-line fall 2020, demo shortly after.
Memorial Union will be finished summer 2021.
Business building fundraising is not complete. $40M has been publicly committed($20M matching donation/$20M state). $30M more is being sought. Don't know how much of that is left. No construction timeline until the money has been raised.
I assume the street work is wrapping up this month unless there's another phase of it coming next year.
-
2 hours ago, jdub27 said:
It's much more likely the WAC adds football, but at an FCS level. I could see some schools moving to the WAC for football in that scenario. However it remains incredibly unlikely that the WAC resurrects as an FBS G5 conference. There isn't the support or financial backing from enough schools in the west to make it viable.
Which is exactly what the Tarleton poster in question is saying. The guy never mentions FBS at all. In fact, he's saying he's heard NMSU is ready to drop down. What the guy has heard is that the Southland is going to break apart from internal pressure which will free up SHSU and SFA, NMSU will drop down, and UNC will come over from Big Sky because the new WAC will suit them better.
The big difference between the Tarleton guy(wisdomgymrat) and our conference prognosticator on here is that wisdom actually has an inside source and that he also freely admits that this scenario has a bunch of moving parts and has a long way to go before it ever happens.
Here's the original source so you can all read his stuff for yourself. It's a long thread, but almost all the important wisdomgymrat stuff is on the first three pages.
https://www.d2football.com/forum/forum/football/super-region-4/lsc/429857-tarleton-to-wac
-
21 minutes ago, Dagger said:
We sell beer at Alerus and Ralph. Property not owned by UND. I.didn’t think North Dakota universities could sell beer on university land. Isn’t Shaq on NDSU property?
I believe the only actual restriction is that, per NDUS policy, the universities may not hold a liquor licence. So alcohol can be served on university property as long as someone else is doing the selling. (In this case, BWW.)
-
4 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
yes pretty much what I meant. IIRC, UND Foundation or CC don't back anything up front to get it going. Seems like all money needs to be pledged/signed/accounted for and signed off on by the board before they do anything. That is a BIG difference and one that is working against UND on things like getting HPC2 going, at least.
OK, that's fair.
I just want to be clear about the scope of things so people who don't follow this stuff as carefully as we do don't get the wrong idea. TM only gets involved in smaller capital projects that are on a tight timeline. I think all of these have been in the low six figures. And I think the athletic dept "pays it back" from future guarantee money; although it's really just moving numbers around on a page. In the case of bigger projects like the SHAC, the Foundation only guarantees a small portion of the overall project cost, mostly just to allow the project to not miss a construction window. I think in the case of the SHAC, it was something like $3M-$5M guaranteed on a $45M project. And most or all of that $3M-$5M was raised while construction was ongoing; I don't know how much, if any, money actually had to be loaned to the athletic department.
In your case, I don't know if the earlier HPC2 project ever got even close to the 90% funded stage to allow your Foundation to do something similar. Still, I could see where it could be a problem if they won't even work with you on the smaller stuff. Having a group like TM do stuff like this is really helpful to take advantage of time-sensitive situations when the athletic capital budgets are otherwise set on a biennial basis.
-
13 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
Doesn't TM back athletics projects on campus though to get them going? That is a HUGE difference, if so.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean guaranteeing the money to allow construction to begin like what happened with the FB office and locker room remodel in the FD or the last few million for the SHAC? If so, that was the Foundation/Alumni Assoc and not TM. IIRC, the only times I remember TM backing a capital project directly were smaller projects with a quick deadline. The bubble over Dacotah Field(something like 8 months from fundraising start to installation) and one or more of the turf replacements on Dacotah Field and/or the FB practice fields. Both of those turf projects were done in a hurry(the practice field project needed to be fast because the turf was the damaged stuff from the FD, and it was either buy it fast or it was going to be hauled away).
-
26 minutes ago, 90siouxfan said:
I have often wondered about the similarities between Champions Club and Teammakers. From my distant view it just appears that those scoundrels from the south went "all in" for their football program. Exhibit one being the loophole title 9 thing that I don't even faintly grasp or want to. Does the two comparable funding groups spread their funds differently?
I don't know how Champions Club does it, but 100% of the Team Maker funds have historically gone to scholarships*. That's what it was founded to do, and I believe it's in the charter. It might be getting slightly more complicated lately since Team Makers is now generating more funds than are needed for scholarships. I don't know if the extra is going into endowments or used for other things. TM only crossed the 100% funding threshold a few years ago, so they may be still figuring it out.
It's a little harder to see what CC is doing because it's just a division of the Foundation/Alumni Assoc. TM is it's own entity on paper, so it's a little more transparent. I'm sure there are advantages both ways, so don't take this as an attack or anything. People sometimes think TM is responsible for raising funds for stuff like the SHAC or the new IPF, but they're not. While the groups that fund-raise for those projects likely have access to the TM mailing lists, they actually are part of the athletic department or the Foundation/Alumni Assoc and not TM.
*And I mean scholarships across all programs, not just FB. The reason why NDSU is fully funded(including FCOA) in ALL sports is because of the huge jumps in TM revenue over the last decade. But the vast majority of that revenue is because of season ticket seat fees for FB.
-
23 minutes ago, nodak651 said:
Worst schedule in the country. Looks like the Campbell game is in Florida and Seattle disappeared.
The home slate is horrible, but the overall schedule isn't that bad. Here were last year's Kenpom rankings of each team with UND included for comparison. Seems like a nice mix of programs. Some winnable, some challenging, some out of reach but good for experience.
2 Gonzaga
46 Minnesota
47 Nebraska
81 Oregon State
103 Georgia Southern
137 Montana
181 Campbell
213 FGCU
220 Valpo
237 Eastern Washington
271 UND
296 Milwaukee -
1 minute ago, tnt said:
But can a review only come from the booth in the last few minutes of the game?
Last 2:00, I think.
-
4 hours ago, tnt said:
Question. Are you not allowed to challenge pass interference the last few minutes, or had Green Bay used up all their challenges? Seems odd they didn't at least challenge the interception play, so I assumed there was some reason they didn't at least give it a shot.
It's becoming clear that the refs are only going to overturn extremely egregious mistakes when it comes to PI calls. And this isn't a bad thing. I think the coaches are beginning to get the message; especially with the PI reviews earlier in the game.
-
3 hours ago, Siouxphan27 said:
Thank you- I was just going to ask about how UND compares to others in regard to student fees.
If UND student fees are similar to surrounding schools who already put kids football seats near the Endzone, then that argument about fees doesn’t hold water and it’s time to make the seating switch.
Here's a little wider group of regional schools(ND/SD/MT/IA/NE). The first set are sorted by student fee dollar amount, the second set by percentage of athletic dept revenue, the third set is student fees per year per full-time undergrad student(also per year per FTE for ND schools). All data sets are from the 2017-18 academic year.
- $3.6M UND
- $3.0M USD
- $2.3M SDSU
- $2.2M UNO
- $2.0M MSU
- $2.0M UNI
- $1.5M NDSU
- $1.2M UM
- 15.3% USD
- 12.6% UND
- 10.5% UNO
- 10.4% SDSU
- 9.8% UNI
- 9.0% MSU
- 5.4% UM
- 5.3% NDSU
- $606 USD
- $425 UND ($312 by FTE)
- $273 SDSU
- $224 UNO
- $219 UNI
- $163 MSU
- $161 UM
- $139 NDSU ($122 by FTE)
Sources: USA Today NCAA Finances Report, US Dept of Ed: Equity in Athletics, NDUS Enrollment Report
-
1 hour ago, JohnboyND7 said:
They grandfathered the ones that are here now I think. No more weird colors.
They talked about changing the rules, but it never happened to my knowledge. The only group that can stop a non-green field is Boise State(because they've trademarked or copyrighted it). Schools like EWU, CCU and UCA had to get clearance from Boise St first.
-
3 hours ago, JohnboyND7 said:
It's small, even compared to the BSA which is small. I would imagine that's the "complaint."
Probably more than just that. The facilities category is defined as: "Not just the arena, but also practice facilities, weight room, locker rooms, etc."
I'm guessing it's the small size of the Betty combined with it being more of a high school configuration rather than a bowl style with a concourse and premium seating. Plus a lack of dedicated basketball practice facilities(shared with VB). I'm also guessing the weight room and locker room could be better as they're a major element of the HPF II project. Don't know if that's enough to really be in 7th place(don't know the Summit facilities well enough to say), but it must be a factor. Or the coaches that were interviewed didn't fully know UND's facilities yet and judged them inaccurately. Hard to know.
-
3 hours ago, nd1sufan said:
I'm a Bison fan and and did not realize NDSU EVER won a national championship in men's basketball. I really think they are confusing men's and women's BB. I am almost certain UND has had more men's BB success in D2 than NDSU.
NDSU definitely did not win a DII championship, and UND did have more DII success. The DII champ in 1977 was Chattanooga.
NDSU - 10 NCC championships, 9 NCAA tournament appearances, NCAA tourney record of 8-8; best finish: regional 3rd place winner(3x).
UND - 18 NCC championships; 19 NCAA tournament appearances; NCAA tourney record of 29-22; best finish: national 3rd place winner(2x) .
-
Here's the play if all you guys don't want to just go by memory: https://youtu.be/L3EM82AZtcE?t=6199
The called foul was NDSU #55 hitting UND #18. The UND player saw it coming and they were mostly facing each other at the time of the hit, so it wasn't a classic blind-side block. But it was definitely a foul under the new rules. The NDSU player took any doubt away when he paused while walking over the prone UND player. It's a player safety issue, so good call on the foul.
The hit referred to by nd1sufan happens between NDSU #94 and UND #61. The two were engaged at the end of the play near the ball carrier and the NDSU player gave the UND player a shove right at the end(I think it was to prevent the UND player from piling on top of the NDSU ball carrier who was already down). The UND player was already unbalanced, so he went straight to the ground. He then got up and broke into the group of NDSU players to get into the face of the NDSU #94, which is what caused most of the following excitement. Personal opinion is if this had been called a foul, it would have been fairly ticky-tack unless the NDSU player had already been warned for similar behavior earlier in the game.
-
35 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:
No, but it's staring end-of-life in the face.
I'm not too awful worried; I strongly suspect it will be replaced next year or the year after. NDSU's football IPF will be built next summer or the summer after and that means two new turf fields to buy(one inside, one outside). If I were NDSU and the Fargodome, I'd see if I could get a small discount for three turfs since all would be identical and the installation crew would already be here. Heck, maybe even the Alerus could join in so the crew could install four turfs before heading back.
-
5 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:
have we every played an ivy league school in football
According to your media guide, no. Army once back in 1930.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Bison06 said:
Interesting. I wonder what the circumstances of the game were.
The typical arrangement is pay for play for FCS schools to travel to FBS schools. Wonder if Yale paid Army to travel to them.
It was part of the 100th anniversary of the Yale Bowl(stadium). Yale and Army have been playing on and off since 1893, and their games were often some of the biggest games of their eras. I don't know if Yale paid Army, or if Army agreed to do it just because of the history and that they're a public institution. I do know Army needed a waiver from the NCAA to allow a win over Yale to count as a win toward bowl eligibility(since Yale doesn't officially offer scholies), though it didn't matter because Yale actually won the game in OT.
I can also remember WKU playing a couple FCS away games, but that was because they were transitioning to FBS or had just finished(like the scenario you guessed at before.)
-
The real kickoff is Villanova at Colgate in a couple minutes. YSU/Samford at 2:00. Also Florida/Miami at 6:00 and Arizona/Hawaii at 9:30 in FBS action.
-
5 hours ago, jdub27 said:
What they actually "need" is a sixth soccer and baseball team sometime in the next 3 years (and it can be an affiliate until you can actually prove otherwise, ByLaw 20.02.5 below does not back up your claim). And considering how they handled it last time, they might not even need the teams, just a plan for them. Anything else is pure speculation, particularly the football scenario.
The three sections that apply to the situation are: 18.5, 20.02.5 & 31.3.4. Of the three, 18.5 is the most on-point for the discussion of autobids. None of the three sections appear to specifically exclude affiliate members from counting towards automatic qualifiers(maybe in basketball only). Here is all of it. Sorry it's so long, but it's the NCAA and it was likely written by lawyers.
Personally, I agree with several of you and suspect the plan is to add Augie and get a waiver to cover the 2-ish years needed, with the backup plan being going for UNC for baseball only. Or maybe the priority is reversed and the Summit will go for UNC first.
Quote18.5 Automatic Qualification by Conference.
18.5.1 Division Championship. To be eligible for automatic qualification into any Division I championship, a conference shall: (Revised: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06) (a) Have at least six member institutions classified in Division I in the sport in which automatic qualification is sought; and (b) Meet all requirements for conference automatic qualification into any division championship as set forth in Bylaw 31.3.4.
18.5.2 National Collegiate Championship. [#] To be eligible for automatic qualification into any National Collegiate Championship, a conference shall: (Adopted: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06) (a) Have at least six active members that sponsor the applicable sport in any division; (b) Meet all applicable requirements for conference automatic qualification into any National Collegiate Championship as set forth in Bylaw 31.3.4.
18.5.3 Men’s Basketball Eligibility Requirements. For automatic qualification in the sport of men’s basketball in Division I, a conference shall meet the following additional requirements: (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/91) (a) It shall determine a conference champion in at least six men’s sports [at least two of which must be team sports as set forth in Bylaw 31.3.4.1-(a)]; and in each of these six sports, at least six of the conference’s member institutions shall sponsor the sport on the varsity intercollegiate level; and (b) It shall conduct double round-robin, in-season conference competition, or a minimum of 14 conference games, before declaring its champion in basketball.
20.02.5 is listed above.
Quote31.3.4 Automatic Qualification. Each governing sport committee shall forward annually to the applicable sport oversight committee or the Competition Oversight Committee those conferences that should receive automatic qualification for their teams or individual student-athletes into NCAA championships. Prior to forwarding the list of conferences to receive automatic qualification, a governing sport committee shall ensure that the member conference meets the requirements specified in Bylaws 31.3.4.1 through 31.3.4.7. A member conference may appeal to the applicable sport oversight committee or the Competition Oversight Committee the automatic qualification review of the sport committee and the committee’s decision to find, or not find, a conference qualified for automatic-qualification status. The decision on such appeals will be final. (Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 4/27/00, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08, 8/7/14, 10/4/17)
31.3.4.1 Requirements—Division Championship. To be eligible for automatic qualification in a Division Championship, a member conference must meet the following requirements: (Revised: 12/9/91, 8/13/93, 12/5/94, 10/18/95, 10/27/98, 4/20/99, 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06, 12/15/06) 2018-19 Division I – August 31 Executive Regulations 408
(a) Conference competition must be conducted in the applicable sport and the conference champion in that sport must be determined not later than the date on which participants are selected for the NCAA championship, either by regular in-season conference competition or a conference meet or tournament, as indicated at the time of application. If a conference’s competition to determine its automatic qualifier is unexpectedly terminated (e.g., due to inclement weather), the conference may designate its qualifier, provided it has established objective criteria for making that designation and has communicated that information to the appropriate sports committee by a specified deadline.
(b) In the event of a tie for the conference championship, the conference shall have the responsibility of determining which team or individual shall represent the conference in NCAA competition. If a play-off is held, such competition shall be considered conference competition, not NCAA competition.
(c) In sports other than championship subdivision football, a conference may establish subdivisions and conduct competition within each subdivision to determine a conference champion, as long as each subdivision consists of at least four members. Conferences with subdivisions of four members must conduct double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament, to determine their champion. Conferences with subdivisions of five or more members may conduct either single or double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament to determine their champion. (Note: This regulation does not apply to Division I men’s or women’s basketball. In those sports, a conference may conduct either double round-robin, in-season competition, or a minimum of 14 conference games in order to determine its champion.)
(d) In championship subdivision football, football-playing conferences that subdivide into five or more teams are required to conduct a single round-robin competition within each division and develop a formula for determination of the conference champion, which must be approved by the Football Championship Committee prior to the start of the season. A postseason championship game is not required.
(e) The conference must maintain and actively enforce compliance with eligibility rules at least as stringent as those in Bylaw 14 applicable to its members. The use of an ineligible student-athlete by a team in a conference that has been granted automatic qualification may result in the involved team being denied the right to be the automatic entry in the NCAA championship. The governing sports committee may recommend loss of the automatic-qualification privilege for the conference during the season in which the violation occurred or for a future championship.
(f) All eligible member institutions must agree to participate in the appropriate NCAA championship. If a conference champion is ineligible to compete, declines to compete or cannot compete for any reason, automatic qualification shall be withdrawn for that year and the remaining conference members shall be considered at large. Automatic qualification for a conference shall not be withdrawn if a conference champion declines to compete in an NCAA championship for reasons related to written religious policies against competition on certain days. Under such circumstances, the conference’s second-place team (as determined by the conference) shall receive the automatic bid to the NCAA championship.
(g) All institutions may hold membership in only that conference in the sport in which automatic qualification is sought and may participate in only that conference’s process to determine the automatic qualifier.
31.3.4.2 Requirements—National Collegiate Championship. [#] To be eligible for automatic qualification in a National Collegiate Championship, a member conference must meet the following general requirements: (Adopted: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)
(a) Have at least six active members that sponsor the applicable sport in any division (Note: A provisional member in the process of becoming an NCAA member may not be used to meet the requisite number.);
(b) The six active members must have conducted conference competition together for the preceding two years in the applicable sport;
(c) There shall be no waivers of the two-year waiting period; and
(d) Any new member added to a conference that is eligible for an automatic bid shall be immediately eligible to represent the conference as the automatic qualifier.
31.3.4.3 Notification—Automatic Qualification in Jeopardy. A governing sports committee must issue a written warning one year in advance to a conference that is in jeopardy of losing its automatic qualification. (Note: This regulation does not apply to championships in which a play-in system has been established.)
31.3.4.4 Additional Requirements—Sports Other Than Basketball.
31.3.4.4.1 Multisport Conference. To be considered eligible for automatic qualification in a particular sport, a multisport conference (see Bylaw 20.02.5) must be a core conference (see Bylaw 31.02.3) and must include six institutions that sponsor the sport and conduct conference competition together. (Revised: 4/27/00 10/00, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 8/5/04, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
31.3.4.4.2 Single-Sport Conference. To be considered for automatic qualification in a particular sport, a single-sport member conference for a sport sponsored by less than 50 percent of the Division I membership must include six institutions that have conducted conference competition together the preceding two years in the sport in question at the Division I level. (Adopted: 8/5/04, Revised: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06) 2018-19 Division I – August 31 Executive Regulations 409
31.3.4.4.3 Grace Period. A conference shall remain eligible for automatic qualification for two years following the date of the withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s membership to fall below six institutions that sponsor the sport and conduct conference competition together provided the conference maintains at least five Division I members. (Adopted: 8/5/04, Revised: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
31.3.4.5 Additional Requirements—Basketball. To be considered eligible for automatic qualification in basketball, a member conference must be a core conference (see Bylaw 31.02.3) and must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5. (Revised: 8/14/90, 12/3/90, 4/27/00, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
31.3.4.5.1 Grace Period. A conference shall remain eligible for automatic qualification for two years following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s membership to fall below seven institutions that sponsor the sport and conduct conference competition together, provided the conference maintains at least six Division I members (see Bylaw 20.02.5). (Adopted: 4/27/00, Revised: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
31.3.4.6 Sports Groupings for Automatic Qualification. For purposes of evaluating criteria for automatic qualification, the various sports shall be grouped as follows: (Revised: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08, 8/7/14, 10/4/17)
(a) Team Sports—baseball, basketball, bowling, field hockey, football, ice hockey, lacrosse, rowing, soccer, softball, volleyball and water polo. In this category, subject to the approval of the applicable sport oversight committee or the Competition Oversight Committee, a sport committee may grant exceptions to the six-team requirement for sports that are sponsored by less than 30 percent of the membership, provided the conference previously included six teams that sponsored the sport;
(b) Timed Individual Sports—indoor track and field, outdoor track and field, and swimming; and
(c) Other Individual Sports—cross country, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rifle, skiing, tennis and wrestling. In this category, a sports committee may grant exceptions to the six-team requirement, subject to the approval of the applicable sport oversight committee or the Competition Oversight Committee.
31.3.4.7 Limitations on Automatic-Qualifying Positions.
31.3.4.7.1 Team Sports Other Than Men’s Basketball. In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.6-(a), excluding football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, the sport committee must award, if a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide play-in criteria. In sports other than men’s volleyball, men’s water polo and women’s water polo, the remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams. It will be the responsibility of the applicable sport oversight committee or the Competition Oversight Committee to determine if a conference play-in to a championship field is to be administered by the NCAA championships staff or by the member conference. (Adopted: 4/20/99, Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08, 4/28/11 effective 8/1/11, 8/7/14, 10/4/17)
31.3.4.7.2 Men’s Basketball. In men’s basketball, subject to the championships-access guarantee afforded to the subdivisions as set forth in Constitution 4.01.2.3.1 (e.g., all contests that are part of the championship shall be administered and funded by the NCAA and broadcast on television and any team that participates in the championship shall be awarded at least one financial unit), there shall be a minimum of 34 at-large selections and the remainder of the championship field automatic-qualifying positions. All competition in the championship is to be administered by the NCAA championships staff. (Adopted: 4/20/99, Revised: 12/15/06)
31.3.5 Selection of Balance of Championship Field. Once the official representative(s) of each qualifying conference is determined, the governing sports committee responsible for selection of the balance of the championship field shall consider objectively and without prejudice the competitive records of all other eligible student-athletes and teams (including representatives of the other members of the conferences receiving automatic qualification). To the best of its ability, the committee shall select the most highly qualified individuals and teams to complete the championship field in accordance with the regional structure, if any, approved for the particular championship.
31.3.6 Institution Trademarks. Participation in a national collegiate championship constitutes acquiescence by the member institution that the Association may use the institution’s name, mascot and other identifying marks in championship-related activities, including television, promotion, licensing and merchandising programs incident to the championship. Revenues derived from such activities, less expenses, will be remitted to the member institution. (Revised: 11/3/93)
Conference Realignments - Take 2
in NCAA News
Posted
UWGB wasn't DIII. They started as NAIA in 1969/70, moved to DII in 1974, and went DI in 1980/81. FGCU did the same path, starting in the NAIA around 1999 with a limited number of sports, moving to DII in 2002 with a full set of sports, then started the DI move in 2007 and finished in 2011.