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

_________________

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

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

_________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

They gotta come up with a Fight Song first!

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.

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.....

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....