star2city Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Earlier, I had stated that NDSU/SDSU to the Gateway was a near lock. I may be wrong: Bloomington, Ill, Pantagraph: 2008 Gateway in question The Missouri State AD seems inclined to only take SDSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 We have three schools we need to worry about: 1. Missouri State - They're looking forward to moving up from the eighth place team to the seventh. Of course that's because the conference will be shrinking. Their program is in such bad shape that some doubt they'll keep football. 2. Youngstown State - They don't shy away from competition, but the trek to the Dakotas is pretty long for them considering how many other CS programs are within a bus ride. 3. Illinois State - Coach doesn't much care for the idea but the AD seems fairly unconcerned. Same article: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89rabbit Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 2. Youngstown State - They don't shy away from competition, but the trek to the Dakotas is pretty long for them considering how many other CS programs are within a bus ride. YSU has already signed a home and home with SDSU starting next year with the Jackrabbits going to Ohio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 YSU has already signed a home and home with SDSU starting next year with the Jackrabbits going to Ohio. True, but there's a difference between an occasional trip and a yearly one. I'm hoping that they just decide to grumble a bit, but there have been some comments to the media that YSU's people aren't completely happy with the idea of the Dakota SU's in the Gateway. I'm still betting 80/20 we're in. If the CS schools vote to add a twelfth game on January 6th, I'll bet 99/01. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 And if the playoffs get expanded to 24, there is also less reason for them to worry as the extra at larges would be mostly used on top auto bid conference teams that didn't win the confernece. BTW, which ISU is the article talking about? Indiana or Illinois? Illinois State may be moving to I-A not long after this gets built: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 And if the playoffs get expanded to 24, there is also less reason for them to worry as the extra at larges would be mostly used on top auto bid conference teams that didn't win the confernece. Is the NCAA/CS actually considering expanding the playoff field, or is that just message board fodder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Earlier, I had stated that NDSU/SDSU to the Gateway was a near lock. I may be wrong: Bloomington, Ill, Pantagraph: 2008 Gateway in question The Missouri State AD seems inclined to only take SDSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Is the NCAA/CS actually considering expanding the playoff field, or is that just message board fodder? They're voting Jan 6th on the 12 game schedule. Playoff expansion could follow. So to answer your question, it's just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Is the NCAA/CS actually considering expanding the playoff field, or is that just message board fodder? The CS schools will vote for one of three proposals at the January 6th meeting: 1. 12 game season; 16 team playoff 2. 11 game season; 24 team playoff 3. 11 game season; 16 team playoff (maintain the status quo) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 That's not true. They're only voting if they're going to add the 12th game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 That's not true. They're only voting if they're going to add the 12th game. You're right; my bad. I was lazy and didn't double-check the info. Since I was in the agenda for the meeting, here are a few other motions that could affect UND: NO. 2006-92 DIVISION MEMBERSHIP - PROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP PROCESS AND REQUESTING RECLASSIFICATION - EXPLORATORY YEAR - SPORTS SPONSORSHIP AND FINANCIAL AID REQUIREMENTS Intent: To specify that provisional and reclassifying members shall satisfy minimum sports sponsorship and financial aid requirements during the exploratory year of the applicable membership process.[as opposed to requiring the same during Reclass. Year 1] Rationale: This change would ensure that institutions making the transition into year one of the reclassification or provisional process are making the necessary commitment prior to engaging in the process, thereby enhancing the opportunities for studentathletes to compete successfully at the Division I level. Big one (in more ways than one). NO. 2006-93 DIVISION MEMBERSHIP - CHANGE OF DIVISION MEMBERSHIP - EXCEPTION TO RECLASSIFICATION PERIOD FOR DIVISION I CONFERENCE MEMBER Intent: To specify that a reclassifying institution that accepts an offer of membership from an active Division I conference may complete the reclassifying process after the second year, provided all requirements in the exploratory year, first year and second year are met, and provided the institution successfully completes an NCAA athletics certification orientation during the second year and a self-study and evaluation visit during the first year of active membership. Rationale: The current legislation governing change of division membership requires an institution to complete an exploratory plus four-year transition period to ensure the institution is appropriately prepared for Division I. If an institution joins a Division I conference that satisfies core and continuity-of-membership provisions and the institution is able to meet all requirements for reclassification in a condensed time period, it is practical for the institution to be granted full Division I status following year two of the reclassification process. Division I conference membership provides the additional administrative oversight and support for a reclassifying member; therefore, years three and four of the reclassification process are effectively completed by virtue of membership in the conference. Further, a reclassifying institution and its student-athletes are ineligible for NCAA championships during the four-year transition period. Denying a class of student-athletes the opportunity to participate in championships runs counter to the ideals of intercollegiate athletics and negatively impacts the student-athlete experience. Only a limited number of institutions transitioning to Division I have received and accepted offers of full Division I conference membership by the end of the first year of reclassification. Accordingly, this limited exception will not significantly increase the number of new Division I membership applications. This is the committee that chooses who gets autobids. NO. 2006-98 COMMITTEES - NCAA FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE - COMPOSITION Intent: To reduce the size of the NCAA Football Championship Subdivision Committee from eight to five members; further, to specify that the committee shall include one member from each NCAA Football Championship Subdivision region. Rationale: The eight conferences that satisfy the requirements for and receive automatic qualification to the NCAA Division I Football Championship are equally distributed among the four NCAA Football Championship Subdivision regions. Reducing the committee size to five members will ensure that the eight qualifying conferences and all NCAA Football Championship Subdivision institutions receive adequate and equal representation on the committee. This is consistent with the Association Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Thanks for all the info Hammersmith! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 It's penance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Big one (in more ways than one). NO. 2006-93 DIVISION MEMBERSHIP - CHANGE OF DIVISION MEMBERSHIP - EXCEPTION TO RECLASSIFICATION PERIOD FOR DIVISION I CONFERENCE MEMBER Intent: To specify that a reclassifying institution that accepts an offer of membership from an active Division I conference may complete the reclassifying process after the second year, provided all requirements in the exploratory year, first year and second year are met, and provided the institution successfully completes an NCAA athletics certification orientation during the second year and a self-study and evaluation visit during the first year of active membership. Rationale: The current legislation governing change of division membership requires an institution to complete an exploratory plus four-year transition period to ensure the institution is appropriately prepared for Division I. If an institution joins a Division I conference that satisfies core and continuity-of-membership provisions and the institution is able to meet all requirements for reclassification in a condensed time period, it is practical for the institution to be granted full Division I status following year two of the reclassification process. Division I conference membership provides the additional administrative oversight and support for a reclassifying member; therefore, years three and four of the reclassification process are effectively completed by virtue of membership in the conference. Further, a reclassifying institution and its student-athletes are ineligible for NCAA championships during the four-year transition period. Denying a class of student-athletes the opportunity to participate in championships runs counter to the ideals of intercollegiate athletics and negatively impacts the student-athlete experience. Only a limited number of institutions transitioning to Division I have received and accepted offers of full Division I conference membership by the end of the first year of reclassification. Accordingly, this limited exception will not significantly increase the number of new Division I membership applications. This one strikes me as being huge. If UND is able to get an early invite (sorry for the "IF" S2C), the transition is negligible and wouldn't impact recruiting nearly as much, as the student-athletes and teams would be playing for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 This one strikes me as being huge. If UND is able to get an early invite (sorry for the "IF" S2C), the transition is negligible and wouldn't impact recruiting nearly as much, as the student-athletes and teams would be playing for something. If this passes and UND gets a conference invite...our southern neighbors will likely need (more) therapy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 If this passes and UND gets a conference invite...our southern neighbors will likely need (more) therapy. If this passes in January, wouldn't that also make NDSU and SDSU eligible immediately for the 2007-08 year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 If this passes in January, wouldn't that also make NDSU and SDSU eligible immediately for the 2007-08 year? I think so. I think we've passed, or will pass, all the requirements layed out in the motion. Still, don't get your hopes up on this one. This is only being pushed by the Southland Conference, and the Committee on Athletics Certification and the Management Council Membership Subcommittee both oppose it. I'd give it a 10% chance of passing max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 If this passes in January, wouldn't that also make NDSU and SDSU eligible immediately for the 2007-08 year? The Great West does not meet core and continuity-of-membership requirements. It should apply to the other sports though (I think). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The Great West does not meet core and continuity-of-membership requirements. It should apply to the other sports though (I think). Aren't these agenda items just for CS Football and would have no implications beyond that in regards to conferences or other sports. That being said, I don't think that it would affect NDSU in regards to the Mid-Con. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Aren't these agenda items just for CS Football and would have no implications beyond that in regards to conferences or other sports. That being said, I don't think that it would affect NDSU in regards to the Mid-Con. No, I should have been more specific when I posted the proposed legislation. On 6 Jan, there will be a Legislative Forum. After that meeting, there will be two override votes on legislation that was rejected by the DI Board of Directors. One of those two votes will be on the 12 game season. Only CS schools will vote on that one. On 7 Jan, the DI Management Council will meet and break the proposed legislation into three groups based on the DI MC Legislative Review Subcommittee's recommendations. The three groups are: 1. Approve and forward directly to the Board of Directors without further review. 2. Defeat. 3. Forward to the membership for review and comment. On 8 Jan, the DI Board of Directors will meet and vote on the proposed legislation sent to them by the Management Council. In April, the Management Council will make a final decision on any proposed legislation that was sent to the membership for review and comment. What does this junk mean? Some of the bills will be thrown out before they reach the BoD(I think the reclass. exception will be one of these), some will go to the BoD and be adopted, a few will go to the BoD and be regected. and some decisions will be postponed until April. A few bills only apply to BS or CS schools, but the vast majority apply to all DI membership; that includes the reclassification exception bill. NDSU grad is correct in that the GWFC does not satisfy the requirements of the proposed legislation. The Mid-Con and the Big Sky do, however. As I said before, I think this would cut one year off of NDSU's and SDSU's transition, but I'm not certain. I do believe it's a moot point, though, since I highly doubt that this piece of legislation will make it out of the Management Council on 7 January. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The one bill is being pushed by the Southland for the sake of Central Arkansas, which is good enough to win the Southland and, thus, receive the auto bid. If the bill passes, I would be interested to know if it only applies to schools that apply for DI after the passage or for schools still in transition. It would be cool if NDSU could be selected for an at large for the 2007. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WYOBISONMAN Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 While Montana was supportive of NDSU and the Big Sky, I can't help it but wonder if they really wanted us in the conference that the Griz rule. Perhaps the same thoughts are in the Gateway too. It really surprises me as I would think that any conference would love a good solid competitor joining rather than a doormat. I guess time will tell..... If we stay in the Great West.....I can surely live with that. I like the teams we are partnered with. It would just be nice to get the auto bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 No, I should have been more specific when I posted the proposed legislation. On 6 Jan, there will be a Legislative Forum. After that meeting, there will be two override votes on legislation that was rejected by the DI Board of Directors. One of those two votes will be on the 12 game season. Only CS schools will vote on that one. On 7 Jan, the DI Management Council will meet and break the proposed legislation into three groups based on the DI MC Legislative Review Subcommittee's recommendations. The three groups are: 1. Approve and forward directly to the Board of Directors without further review. 2. Defeat. 3. Forward to the membership for review and comment. On 8 Jan, the DI Board of Directors will meet and vote on the proposed legislation sent to them by the Management Council. In April, the Management Council will make a final decision on any proposed legislation that was sent to the membership for review and comment. What does this junk mean? Some of the bills will be thrown out before they reach the BoD(I think the reclass. exception will be one of these), some will go to the BoD and be adopted, a few will go to the BoD and be regected. and some decisions will be postponed until April. A few bills only apply to BS or CS schools, but the vast majority apply to all DI membership; that includes the reclassification exception bill. NDSU grad is correct in that the GWFC does not satisfy the requirements of the proposed legislation. The Mid-Con and the Big Sky do, however. As I said before, I think this would cut one year off of NDSU's and SDSU's transition, but I'm not certain. I do believe it's a moot point, though, since I highly doubt that this piece of legislation will make it out of the Management Council on 7 January. Thanks for the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobIwabuchiFan Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 While Montana was supportive of NDSU and the Big Sky, I can't help it but wonder if they really wanted us in the conference that the Griz rule. Perhaps the same thoughts are in the Gateway too. It really surprises me as I would think that any conference would love a good solid competitor joining rather than a doormat. I guess time will tell..... If we stay in the Great West.....I can surely live with that. I like the teams we are partnered with. It would just be nice to get the auto bid. After watching you guys slap around the gophers in Mpls, I'm sure there are a lot of people in comfortable conference positions that don't want you guys coming in and dominating. I hope the situation works out for both UND and NDSU and they can start playing again as soon as possible... BobIwabuchiFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSUFREAK10 Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 While Montana was supportive of NDSU and the Big Sky, I can't help it but wonder if they really wanted us in the conference that the Griz rule. Perhaps the same thoughts are in the Gateway too. It really surprises me as I would think that any conference would love a good solid competitor joining rather than a doormat. I guess time will tell..... If we stay in the Great West.....I can surely live with that. I like the teams we are partnered with. It would just be nice to get the auto bid. sorry, but I do not want to reamain in the great west with the teams in there. Dont get me wrong, I love to watch the BISON play Cal-Davis and Cal Poly. They have become GREAT opponents for us in our transition and cant thank them enough for the games they have given the BISON. But I think it comes down to traveling with SDSU to the Gateway to settle scheduling and getting even better opponents to play, and plus that all important auto. A great rivalry could be made with UNI and a continueing one with SDSU. NDSU and UND could play an ooc game every year going back and forth between the FFD and the tin shed. Travel is a lot less in the Gateway and we can all live hapily ever after! (this all of course speculateing that the Gateway would except NDSU and SDSU) 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.