The Sicatoka Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 The key in reading that is reading what it says: " ... shall average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance ... " That means that you need to follow either section 20.9.7.3.1.1 Actual Attendance or 20.9.7.3.1.2 Paid Attendance. NOTE: In the NCAA manual if you follow 20.9.7.3.1.2, you must include all the subsections like 20.9.7.3.1.2.1.1 and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 If I'm wrong so is the "2009-10 NCAA Division I Manual" because that's where that was copied and pasted from. So who's wrong now. OK I see it now. I was correct in regards to using paid attendance to meet the 15k requirement (although it appears you can in fact count tickets sold for less than 1/3rd of the highest price if they are actually used to get into the stadium). I just didn't know you could also choose to use actual attendance instead. Obviously no one does that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RD17 Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 In addition to dumping the conference "core member" requirement, the NCAA is also looking at requiring any new D-I member to have a conference membership lined up prior to making the move up. link It's probably a good thing that UND made the move when it did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 In addition to dumping the conference "core member" requirement, the NCAA is also looking at requiring any new D-I member to have a conference membership lined up prior to making the move up. link It's probably a good thing that UND made the move when it did. Certainly, as far as money goes. UND would've had to may a million+ dollars instead of whatever the application fee was. But I do think that once the nickname is settled for good, the Summit would've given UND membership either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 More details about these new "DI move up" standards. " ... an application fee equal to the average annual value of distributions and championships benefits realized by Division I members" ... " a figure that was set at about $1.4 million in the most recent distribution year." That's a hefty "cover charge" to join their party. And you have to be invited to join because of a proposed requirement that you have "a bona fide offer of membership in a Division I conference" to be allowed to start the transition process. http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WC...recommendations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 UC-San Diego to start football, move to DI? It's been rumored that the Big West will invite UC-San Diego to move up from DII to DI once the NCAA moratorium is over. UCSD has 27,000 students and is highly rated academically. If UC-San Diego moved up and added football, it would certainly seek admission to the Great West for football only. Gupta said that this postponement would put the referendum under the voting power of the 2010-11 council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Academically, they're probably the same as Cal or UCLA. Just absolutely no history of athletics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 There's some buzz right now that Pitt will be invited to join the Big Ten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 There's some buzz right now that Pitt will be invited to join the Big Ten. The rumor says Feb 4th and Piit has been informing student-athletes. What a joke. Not going to happen in that manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 The rumor says Feb 4th and Piit has been informing student-athletes. What a joke. Not going to happen in that manner. We'll see I guess. I kinda like it because, AFAIK, I have been one of the only ones who thinks Pitt is one of the best choices. Everyone else has been fairly dismissive of them. It might also signal that the B10 will be looking to go to 14 in the near term, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 We'll see I guess. I kinda like it because, AFAIK, I have been one of the only ones who thinks Pitt is one of the best choices. Everyone else has been fairly dismissive of them. It might also signal that the B10 will be looking to go to 14 in the near term, as well. Pitt denies story on Big Ten Multiple officials at the University of Pittsburgh are denying speculation that the school is set to leave the Big East and become the 12th school in the Big Ten. "There is no announcement to make because there is nothing happening," said Pitt spokesman Mike Gladysz told ZagsBlog.com. Associate athletic director for media relations E.J. Borghetti also made a comment on his Twitter feed: "Now hear this: rumors on Internet message boards should be read for amusement purposes only, and not consumed as responsible journalism." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 UTSA is starting football with plans to move to the FBS level and is hoping for a CUSA or possibly WAC / Sunbelt berth by mid-decade. For the transition years that UTSA will be in the FCS, UTSA has informed the Southland that they will not play a Southland conference football schedule. Withholding it's football team from the Southland Conference is in violation of Southland rules. UTSA is in danger of being evicted from the Southland in all other sports- it may not happen for a few years, but is a definite possibility. Therefore, UTSA may be on the prowl for a non-football conference in the near term. The only conference that would likely consider them is the Summit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 UTSA is starting football with plans to move to the FBS level and is hoping for a CUSA or possibly WAC / Sunbelt berth by mid-decade. For the transition years that UTSA will be in the FCS, UTSA has informed the Southland that they will not play a Southland conference football schedule. Withholding it's football team from the Southland Conference is in violation of Southland rules. UTSA is in danger of being evicted from the Southland in all other sports- it may not happen for a few years, but is a definite possibility. Therefore, UTSA may be on the prowl for a non-football conference in the near term. The only conference that would likely consider them is the Summit. Can't see the Summit wanting to expand its footprint like that. Upper midwest/great lakes schools are the Summit's future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 How many present day FCS (DI-AA) programs of today west of the Mississippi will still be playing FCS (DI-AA) in 2015? I suspect a number will have fiscal issues and drop the sport and another group will look at FBS after 2011 and whatever moves the western BCS conferences may make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 How many present day FCS (DI-AA) programs of today west of the Mississippi will still be playing FCS (DI-AA) in 2015? I suspect a number will have fiscal issues and drop the sport and another group will look at FBS after 2011 and whatever moves the western BCS conferences may make. You're essentially talking about the Big Sky teams, the Great West football teams, U San Diego, USD and UND. I know some Big Sky teams are having financial trouble or are in states with financial trouble and others are looking at FBS. Poly and Davis seem pretty committed to maintaining football, though not sure how long in the FCS. Southern Utah and U San Diego (especially) seem on islands. No idea if they'll keep football. I'm sure the Dakota 4 are pretty committed to FCS football for the foreseeable future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 This would really get domino's falling out west. PAC10 commissioner looking at expansion They are talking in only 6-12 months as they are trying to get new TV deal, so a bit quicker than Big Ten. Also interesting they hired a guy that helped Big Ten Network to get going. Long shot question: Does this put some heat on Texas to decide to leave? They now have a dang good pick of where they could go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 This would really get domino's falling out west. PAC10 commissioner looking at expansion They are talking in only 6-12 months as they are trying to get new TV deal, so a bit quicker than Big Ten. Also interesting they hired a guy that helped Big Ten Network to get going. Long shot question: Does this put some heat on Texas to decide to leave? They now have a dang good pick of where they could go. In the Salt Lake media right now, there are a number of reports that Utah/Colorado are the schools that would go. If Colorado leaves the Big 12, Texas and the Big Ten might be more likely. This report suggests Boise State, but Boise State is no where close to PAC-10 academic standards. MSNBC speculation BYU would never get an invite either, largely because of a secular/LDS divide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I don't see why the Pac 10 wouldn't go after Texas too, for the same reason that the Big 10 would be interested in them. Or if nothing else, say Texas gets woo'ed to the Big 10, then the Pac 10 cold strike back by taking Texas A&M or Oklahoma, along with Colorado, or maybe even Nebraska or Kansas. Who knows. I don't see why Utah would all of a sudden be a target. They're not AAU, even though they do spend a decent amount on research. They're not a peer institution on the level of a U of Arizona or a U of Colorado, they're a half step below with schools like U of NM, U of NV, U of Wyo, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I'm a bit surprised by the Utah one as well and dang would that ruffle BYU. I guess it does have location going for it. Would Colorado want to give up their midwest rivalries to constantly travel to the west coast and their bad time slots? Personally I think they should. There's always non-conference to play rivals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I'm a bit surprised by the Utah one as well and dang would that ruffle BYU. I guess it does have location going for it. Would Colorado want to give up their midwest rivalries to constantly travel to the west coast and their bad time slots? Personally I think they should. There's always non-conference to play rivals. It comes down to money from the new PAC10 TV contract. If CU can get millions more by switching to the PAC10, they will make the change. The PAC10 are high research schools with great athletics, there is no reason that CU would not want to be affiliated with those schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the green team Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Great read about things are beginning to fall. http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/129...nce-cannibalism Admittidly, I was not a believer that we would see some of these things happen but it looks like there is something that could very well occur here with some of the major conferences, which would have a trickle down effect down to a lot of schools including those in the WAC, Mountain West, & yes even the Big Sky. Hey, I just didn't see this coming. But I think we better be ready when things start happening to be pro-active as an institution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 ... the full certification of the BCS system and the death of the plucky small school. The superconferences are flexing their muscles. No one should be surprised. I predict that if this doesn't re-establish their "top dogs" place at the table, the logical outcome is mentioned by a Duke A-AD here: http://forum.siouxsports.com/index.php?sho...amp;#entry21017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Big12 to be cannibalized by Big10 and Pac10? The Pac-10 and Big Ten easily could do a number of the Big 12, which suffers from the same top-heavy structural flaws that helped take down the Southwest Conference. In fact, it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Rule 1, point F: Even the richest athletic programs need more money, and while a playoff system might generate billions, the big schools are more concerned with protecting the regular season and bowls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 What's FCS (DI-AA) when you have data like this in FBS (DI-A) from spring 2009: Want proof there really are two different worlds in Division I-A? Just consider that last week trustees at the University of Alabama approved $6.5 million for football coaches next season. The Tide will spend more on 10 football coaches this fall than 32 non-BCS schools spent on their entire football programs in 2007-08 There's that massive of a gap in FBS football. FCS (DI-AA) doesn't even register. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.