POTENTIAL Division 1 UPGRADES thread

GCUfan · **Joined:** Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:50 pm **Posts:** 3

dbackjon wrote:

GCUfan wrote:

freaked4collegefb wrote:

GCUfan,thanks for the post.

WAC MB thread discussing GCU and FBS upgrade question for this situation at http://forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f ... 393720&p=1

Thanks, I have been participating in that discussion as well.

Things contiinue to percolate with GCU and the WAC. Hopefully there will be more to report soon. I know most don't give much thought to the possibility, but if activities at GCU since the article are any indication, GCU IS getting a closer look from the WAC.

I have a question for you all. In the event GCU is accepted by the WAC and the NCAA accepts their application, what happens next year to GCU athletes who are leigible by DII rules but not by DI rules. Are those athletes just out of luck?

That is one reason why there is the transition period of 5 years - so all of those athletes filter out. All new signees will have to meet DI standards, but DII eligible are not kicked out. Since a transitioning team is not post-season eligible, they are fine to stay

Thanks, but my unterstanding of the new process is that it is now a 4 year process (not 5) and the initial "exploratory" year has been done away with (as I read it, even in the old process, DI eligibility rules kicked in after the exploratory year). So now, the process starts with "Year 1" (NCAA Manual term) with institutions having to comply with all eligibility rules EXCEPT for those students entering their last year. So, schools that apply by June 1st of this year and accepted are subject to the year 1 requirements beginning August 1 of this year. If that is the case, the it would seem that any kids who are not seniors, who would have been DII eligible, but are not DI eligible would not be permitted to compete.

I'm hoping I am wrong about this, because since this will fall out as late as this summer, it will leave any impacted kids out in the cold, and I would have though that the NCAA would be more protective of the student-athletes than that. In speeding up the process for schools, they seem to have not thought about the impact on the student athlete. In addition, any DII school still thinkng about a move this year could have recruits they have already signed with the same eligibility problems - particularly if the SA is a transfer or international student.

Anyone have a good grip on the new process?

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:57 pm

GCUfan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

GCUfan wrote:

freaked4collegefb wrote:

GCUfan,thanks for the post.

WAC MB thread discussing GCU and FBS upgrade question for this situation at http://forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f ... 393720&p=1

Thanks, I have been participating in that discussion as well.

Things contiinue to percolate with GCU and the WAC. Hopefully there will be more to report soon. I know most don't give much thought to the possibility, but if activities at GCU since the article are any indication, GCU IS getting a closer look from the WAC.

I have a question for you all. In the event GCU is accepted by the WAC and the NCAA accepts their application, what happens next year to GCU athletes who are leigible by DII rules but not by DI rules. Are those athletes just out of luck?

That is one reason why there is the transition period of 5 years - so all of those athletes filter out. All new signees will have to meet DI standards, but DII eligible are not kicked out. Since a transitioning team is not post-season eligible, they are fine to stay

Thanks, but my unterstanding of the new process is that it is now a 4 year process (not 5) and the initial "exploratory" year has been done away with (as I read it, even in the old process, DI eligibility rules kicked in after the exploratory year). So now, the process starts with "Year 1" (NCAA Manual term) with institutions having to comply with all eligibility rules EXCEPT for those students entering their last year. So, schools that apply by June 1st of this year and accepted are subject to the year 1 requirements beginning August 1 of this year. If that is the case, the it would seem that any kids who are not seniors, who would have been DII eligible, but are not DI eligible would not be permitted to compete.

I'm hoping I am wrong about this, because since this will fall out as late as this summer, it will leave any impacted kids out in the cold, and I would have though that the NCAA would be more protective of the student-athletes than that. In speeding up the process for schools, they seem to have not thought about the impact on the student athlete. In addition, any DII school still thinkng about a move this year could have recruits they have already signed with the same eligibility problems - particularly if the SA is a transfer or international student.

Anyone have a good grip on the new process?

Yes it's 4 years instead of 5. I don't know anything about the rest

Kim Jong Skillz · **Posted:** Wed May 18, 2011 12:13 am

any news on grand valley st. trying to move to D1?

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Tue May 31, 2011 10:33 pm

GVSU has never wanted to be D-I their AD made a big deal about how they're better off in D-II last year

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7268

FCS MB thread discussing today's UNA BOT meetings regarding possible move to FCS.Link at http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthr ... S-decision

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7268

AL.com blog article with report that UNA BOT has voted to move to NCAA D-1.Apparently UNA will also hold a presser this afternoon.Link at http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/06/univers ... _tr_3.html

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7268

Another FCS MB thread discussing today's UNA BOT decision to move to NCAA D-1.Link at http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... =4&t=24203

TexasTerror · **Joined:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:18 pm **Posts:** 95

Story from AL.com that includes quotes from Terry Bowden, UNA head football coach - http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011 ... d_for.html

TexasTerror · **Joined:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:18 pm **Posts:** 95

UNA getting aggressive to sell Div I plan from Florence Times Daily... http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20110 ... pport-plan

Several problems to overcome for UNA, who will still be at bottom of D1 barrel... http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011 ... its_c.html

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3797

UMass-Lowell to Division 1 in all sports? It's very unlikely to happen

http://www.lowellsun.com/umlsports/ci_2 ... y-unlikely

mizzoufan1 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:51 am **Posts:** 102

Quinn wrote:

UMass-Lowell to Division 1 in all sports? It's very unlikely to happen

http://www.lowellsun.com/umlsports/ci_2 ... y-unlikely

They gotta come up with a Fight Song first!

robconstant · **Joined:** Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:34 pm **Posts:** 30

Is there anything about Wayne State upgrading to D1? The Detroit school has an enrollment of about 30,000 or so, sponsors football and is somewhat highly ranked academically.

Hamburger · **Posted:** Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:03 am

Two things -

1) I am pretty sure that UMSL -- (Missouri-St. Louis) intends to move to Division I

2) In 2008 Grand Canyon University announced they were adding Football, then in 2009 they announced they were not adding football "at this time" because it could be detrimental to their goals for their sports programs. Nearly immediately they started investigating moving to Division I. With all the flak they are getting for being a "for profit" school moving to Division I, could it be that they intended to move to Division I before they added football so as to make less waves in the process? It seems easier to add football after they are already in Division I than to try to make the move with the additional concerns that a for-profit Division I football team would bring.....

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1622

Hi Hamburger _

Welcome to the board.

Where are you getting this about UMSL ? I live about 5 miles from there and my kids occasionally use their swimming pool, which is one of their incredibly under-utilized facilities.

My son just sttarted Freshman year at UM-Columbia (SEC, huge athletics budget).
There are 3 satellite campuses - UM-Rolla (now known as Missouri University of Sciennce & Technology (or S&T)) - D-2 (decent athletics at that level, including football)
UM-KC (no football, bottom rung of D-1, left the Summit for the WAC, theory goes that it was because they couldn't compete in the Summt)
UM-SL (no football, D-2, really not much buzz about athletics there.

When you are in / around UMSL's athletics facilities, it seems just a little more vibrant than the St. Louis Community College System).
They had a hey-day about 20-30 years ago, when St. Louis was the soccer mecca of the US.
Since then, not much of anything in the trophy case. I get the vibe that their atletics budget is rather lean.

10 miles east into the city of St. Louis is St. Louis U. I liked your summary of the Catholic Colleges on the other thread.
SLU is indeed a Jesuit college, and they are headed up by a Priest - Father Lawrence Biondi.
He has been a big promoter of SLU Athletics and brought in (the late) Rick Majerus.
He has been single-mindedly pursuing getting SLU reunited with old rivals (Marquette, DePaul, Dayton, etc.) in the Big East.
We'll see if it happens - they'll need to maintain a high profile fo r their BB program in the post-Majerus era.
SLU has a healthy athletics budget, and any recruit would much rather attend SLU than UMSL, if they can handle the academics.

SLU gets moderate coverage in the St. Louis media. UMSL get virtually none.

Hamburger · **Posted:** Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:16 pm

tute79 wrote:

Hi Hamburger _

Welcome to the board.

Where are you getting this about UMSL ? I live about 5 miles from there and my kids occasionally use their swimming pool, which is one of their incredibly under-utilized facilities.

My son just sttarted Freshman year at UM-Columbia (SEC, huge athletics budget).
There are 3 satellite campuses - UM-Rolla (now known as Missouri University of Sciennce & Technology (or S&T)) - D-2 (decent athletics at that level, including football)
UM-KC (no football, bottom rung of D-1, left the Summit for the WAC, theory goes that it was because they couldn't compete in the Summt)
UM-SL (no football, D-2, really not much buzz about athletics there.

When you are in / around UMSL's athletics facilities, it seems just a little more vibrant than the St. Louis Community College System).
They had a hey-day about 20-30 years ago, when St. Louis was the soccer mecca of the US.
Since then, not much of anything in the trophy case. I get the vibe that their atletics budget is rather lean.

10 miles east into the city of St. Louis is St. Louis U. I liked your summary of the Catholic Colleges on the other thread.
SLU is indeed a Jesuit college, and they are headed up by a Priest - Father Lawrence Biondi.
He has been a big promoter of SLU Athletics and brought in (the late) Rick Majerus.
He has been single-mindedly pursuing getting SLU reunited with old rivals (Marquette, DePaul, Dayton, etc.) in the Big East.
We'll see if it happens - they'll need to maintain a high profile fo r their BB program in the post-Majerus era.
SLU has a healthy athletics budget, and any recruit would much rather attend SLU than UMSL, if they can handle the academics.

SLU gets moderate coverage in the St. Louis media. UMSL get virtually none.

Hi Tute. I get my information as a graduate of UMSL and a former coach at Mizzou. When I grew up in Rolla, it was the Missouri School of Mines. I am pretty educated about the UM system, lol. There is actually quite a backlash in the Missouri Division II Athletic Community to Lindenwood moving to Division II. Most schools want to distance themselves from the whole For-Profit model. (just read up on all the backlash from Grand Canyon moving to Division I - also for-profit). UMSL isn't alone....

POTENTIAL Division 1 UPGRADES thread

Who is online