(06-17-2013 02:58 PM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 01:35 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 10:58 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 07:08 PM)Hilltop1215 Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 02:44 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Clearly I don't know the in's and out's of the rule as, like you pointed out, being non-FBS but in an FBS conference would present a bit of a quandary. It was just a reasonable (yet incomplete and most likely at least partially incorrect) assumption in regards to its possible ramifications.

But schools play non-FBS teams all the time in OOC so I'm not sure what you're talking about in that regard?

You are allowed 1 FCS team to count towards your 6 wins to gain bowl eligibility but FCS is DI... No FBS team plays non DI teams.

If they lose their DI status that does not mean they go FCS since that is a DI subcategory.

IF they are not DI then they do not count towards bowl eligibility and as such no one would play them.

I can tell you from speaking with those closely involved in the decision making process that FIU was not on the initial list of teams to receive and invite to CUSA. As the time the popular thought was the CUSA did more for FIU than FIU did for CUSA. No disrespect to FIU but they bring nothing to CUSA as a program. They are not respected in either major sport. I believe that after other avenues were explored FIU was added to add a bigger presence in Florida.

And as for the one FCS team counting toward BCS eligibility. FIU wouldn't even be in that discussion as they would not even be considered D-1. D-II, D-III, and NAIA schools do not count and that would be in the area FIU would be in IF they do not bring up their APR. Which if I understand right the APR requirement is going from 900 to 930 for this upcoming year. So FIU would be nothing more than a NAIA exhibition in basketball.

Why would CUSA keep FIU. They would do damage to CUSA's reputation and almost destroy the schedules of member schools.

So C-USA has no respect for FIU, and FIU brings nothing to C-USA.

FIU was also not on the initial list of potential invitees.

Based on all that you have said, C-USA must have really been desperate to invite FIU and more importantly no one on that initial list wanted to be a part of C-USA.

Did I misinterpret your post?

No. You read it right. And if you think I am wrong what does FIU bring other than location? Good football? Not at really. Good basketball? Nope. Nothing else matters. You are in Florida and have a decent TV market. In the beginning FIU was not going to be invited. It wasn't until the mass exodus of teams from CUSA did FIU come into the picture and with this recent development with your academics your stay could be a brief one.

So just to be clear, you are saying your conference hit rock bottom and was so desperate that they had no other choice but to grab FIU first, before MTSU and WKU?

And you are also suggesting that your team was not good enough to get out of a desperate conference?

Did I misinterpret your post?

(06-17-2013 02:12 PM)Hilltop1215 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 01:27 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 12:16 PM)Hilltop1215 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 10:00 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:41 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  His point was there are schools much further along this process than FIU. Read IT's defense of his program and the APR which followed, it's fairly enlightening. Hard to improve one's lot when transfers (following coaches to other schools) hurt the schools that are being left behind. The P5 have you coming and going.

Exactly. If other programs are further along and have not had their D1 status revoked, then we are getting way ahead of ourselves by painting this as an impending doom for FIU.

Also remember, APR is as much as or even more about retention than academics. The MBB APR issue is something we know needs to be fixed and the administration has taken steps towards fixing this.

ULM had a post season ban last year and does not have one this year. FIU does have one this year. So I don't know if they are "further along the process" or just had their issues a year ahead of you. Like the post above said.... Show improvement and they grant a waiver.

Also, the NCAA makes adjustments to APR to account for transfers that are in good academic standings. So everyone who transfered out must not have been in good academic standings.

ULM 2011-2012 APR is 974, their multiyear is 857. They "demonstrated academic improvement" hence no further post season ban. Really commendable work on the part of the coaching staff to get the numbers up. However as my previous post showed, they have been sub 900 for a long time. Hence the reason they had level 3 penalties (which includes level 1 and level 2 penalties as well).

In 09-10 and 10-11 our multiyear APR scores were above 900 (and only just above ) but IT final year and firing was a disaster and the departing kids essentially tanked their exams. Hence the level 1 penalties.

So is ULM further along than FIU, without a question (level 3 vs level 1). If 8 successive years of sub 900 APR scores and level 3 penalties (highest level) didn't get ULM kicked out of D1, why should it get us kicked out?

If ULM can turn it around after 8 years of sub 900 scores with an impressive 974, why can't we?

As stated previously (even though you choose to ignore it) the administration is aware of the problem and has made it a priority.

Quote:Both new coaches, football's Ron Turner and men's basketball's Anthony Evans, vowed change from their athletes. Moses said improved technology and staffing would help on his end, along with a multi-point approach he detailed for the committee. Trustee Robert Barlick Jr. said he wanted to see more reporting on student-athlete progress, both more often and more data. Committee chair Jorge Arrizurieta said while [Student-Athlete Academic Center director] Moses inherited a mess and his position has been hampered with instability -- Moses was the fourth director in five years when he took over in January 2012 -- it's time to start fixing it before it starts being a blight on FIU's name.

FIU BOT Athletic Committee Meeting

I chose to ignore nothing... you all are arguing with me about something that I'm not saying. I have made no case that FIU is not worthy or should be out of C-USA. I have actually said I believe the opposite to the true. And never once cried about FIU getting an invite 1st. And yes, you all can improve and I truthfully hope you do.

But I'll keep saying this... While IT and his firing and how the players reacted were in fact big cause of the problems with MBB... I counted 15 other penalties for FIU outside of MBB... You cannot blame this all on MBB and that is why FIU is being looked upon harder than ULM.

Also, you all started the comparison on ULM. The only comparison I ever made was to WKU, my school. Count the number of times we went below 900. Count the number of penalties. None, and None.

Now look at the other schools that are joining C-USA. WKU and Charlotte are clean across the board. ODU, UNT, FAU have a few. MTSU and LaTech have a handful. None of the other new members reach your level of penalties. ULM has not and is not a candidate for C-USA so if you want to compare to them you can, but I'll look at our level.

But yes, they improved their numbers and so can you. But you cannot fault others for pointing out your numbers. Some are going to attack you, but some will stand with you as you work to improve. You'll find in time, I have your back. FIU joined the SB while I was a student at WKU and have enjoyed many good game together since then. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to point out the issues.

The main issue I see is your AD. Your comment there mentions a Trustee and a Student-Athlete Academic Center director, there is no mention of this falling on Garcia's shoulders. He should be held accountable.

ULM also has a significant number of penalties outside of MBB, so no reason to believe we should be treated differently.

We were in the Sun Belt with WKU, WKU IS STILL IN THE Sun Belt with ULM. My point is, when they got the post season ban last season I didn't see this kind of discussion from WKU fans about ULM getting kicked out of D1 or comments about them messing up the schedule. Do you recall such a discussion last season?

As for Garcia, I didn't think I needed to state the obvious. The BOT meeting showed that the Committee was not gonna wait until Garcia crash and burn before stepping in to help the student-athletes.

Hilltoppers can criticize FIU as much as they want to, but don't expect us to not responds when there is clearly misinformation and exaggerations being presented. Not necessarily you, as your points have been valid and your discussions have not devolved into knee-jerk rhetoric.

(06-17-2013 04:01 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 02:12 PM)Hilltop1215 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 01:27 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 12:16 PM)Hilltop1215 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 10:00 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  Exactly. If other programs are further along and have not had their D1 status revoked, then we are getting way ahead of ourselves by painting this as an impending doom for FIU.

Also remember, APR is as much as or even more about retention than academics. The MBB APR issue is something we know needs to be fixed and the administration has taken steps towards fixing this.

ULM had a post season ban last year and does not have one this year. FIU does have one this year. So I don't know if they are "further along the process" or just had their issues a year ahead of you. Like the post above said.... Show improvement and they grant a waiver.

Also, the NCAA makes adjustments to APR to account for transfers that are in good academic standings. So everyone who transfered out must not have been in good academic standings.

ULM 2011-2012 APR is 974, their multiyear is 857. They "demonstrated academic improvement" hence no further post season ban. Really commendable work on the part of the coaching staff to get the numbers up. However as my previous post showed, they have been sub 900 for a long time. Hence the reason they had level 3 penalties (which includes level 1 and level 2 penalties as well).

In 09-10 and 10-11 our multiyear APR scores were above 900 (and only just above ) but IT final year and firing was a disaster and the departing kids essentially tanked their exams. Hence the level 1 penalties.

So is ULM further along than FIU, without a question (level 3 vs level 1). If 8 successive years of sub 900 APR scores and level 3 penalties (highest level) didn't get ULM kicked out of D1, why should it get us kicked out?

If ULM can turn it around after 8 years of sub 900 scores with an impressive 974, why can't we?

As stated previously (even though you choose to ignore it) the administration is aware of the problem and has made it a priority.

Quote:Both new coaches, football's Ron Turner and men's basketball's Anthony Evans, vowed change from their athletes. Moses said improved technology and staffing would help on his end, along with a multi-point approach he detailed for the committee. Trustee Robert Barlick Jr. said he wanted to see more reporting on student-athlete progress, both more often and more data. Committee chair Jorge Arrizurieta said while [Student-Athlete Academic Center director] Moses inherited a mess and his position has been hampered with instability -- Moses was the fourth director in five years when he took over in January 2012 -- it's time to start fixing it before it starts being a blight on FIU's name.

FIU BOT Athletic Committee Meeting

I chose to ignore nothing... you all are arguing with me about something that I'm not saying. I have made no case that FIU is not worthy or should be out of C-USA. I have actually said I believe the opposite to the true. And never once cried about FIU getting an invite 1st. And yes, you all can improve and I truthfully hope you do.

But I'll keep saying this... While IT and his firing and how the players reacted were in fact big cause of the problems with MBB... I counted 15 other penalties for FIU outside of MBB... You cannot blame this all on MBB and that is why FIU is being looked upon harder than ULM.

Also, you all started the comparison on ULM. The only comparison I ever made was to WKU, my school. Count the number of times we went below 900. Count the number of penalties. None, and None.

Now look at the other schools that are joining C-USA. WKU and Charlotte are clean across the board. ODU, UNT, FAU have a few. MTSU and LaTech have a handful. None of the other new members reach your level of penalties. ULM has not and is not a candidate for C-USA so if you want to compare to them you can, but I'll look at our level.

But yes, they improved their numbers and so can you. But you cannot fault others for pointing out your numbers. Some are going to attack you, but some will stand with you as you work to improve. You'll find in time, I have your back. FIU joined the SB while I was a student at WKU and have enjoyed many good game together since then. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to point out the issues.

The main issue I see is your AD. Your comment there mentions a Trustee and a Student-Athlete Academic Center director, there is no mention of this falling on Garcia's shoulders. He should be held accountable.

ULM also has a significant number of penalties outside of MBB, so no reason to believe we should be treated differently.

We were in the Sun Belt with WKU, WKU IS STILL IN THE Sun Belt with ULM. My point is, when they got the post season ban last season I didn't see this kind of discussion from WKU fans about ULM getting kicked out of D1 or comments about them messing up the schedule. Do you recall such a discussion last season?

As for Garcia, I didn't think I needed to state the obvious. The BOT meeting showed that the Committee was not gonna wait until Garcia crash and burn before stepping in to help the student-athletes.

Hilltoppers can criticize FIU as much as they want to, but don't expect us to not responds when there is clearly misinformation and exaggerations being presented. Not necessarily you, as your points have been valid and your discussions have not devolved into knee-jerk rhetoric.

You're blaming people on this board for bringing up the DI aspect and it did not originate here. It was taken from the news articles written about the release of the APR numbers and the post season ban for FIU.

I didn't join this board until WKU was invited so I never visited the SB side that often. But I can remember comments on HilltopperHaven about ULM's poor performance related to the post season ban.

Don't think they got off lightly. Now, I don't recall any discussion about losing DI status as I don't recall it being mentioned in the articles like it was for FIU.

We are all reacting to the news articles, not just making stuff up. While some were attacking... others like me were just discussing what that actually would mean if the NCAA pulled that trigger. Doesn't even really have to be FIU that gets hit. Just the idea that it could happen and what it would mean.

And I think that discussion is good for schools because, I think that punishment would be a killer for a program. So having that idea out there could really drive home the importance of the APR. And that is a good thing, IMO.

(06-17-2013 04:23 PM)Hilltop1215 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 04:01 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 02:12 PM)Hilltop1215 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 01:27 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 12:16 PM)Hilltop1215 Wrote:  ULM had a post season ban last year and does not have one this year. FIU does have one this year. So I don't know if they are "further along the process" or just had their issues a year ahead of you. Like the post above said.... Show improvement and they grant a waiver.

Also, the NCAA makes adjustments to APR to account for transfers that are in good academic standings. So everyone who transfered out must not have been in good academic standings.

ULM 2011-2012 APR is 974, their multiyear is 857. They "demonstrated academic improvement" hence no further post season ban. Really commendable work on the part of the coaching staff to get the numbers up. However as my previous post showed, they have been sub 900 for a long time. Hence the reason they had level 3 penalties (which includes level 1 and level 2 penalties as well).

In 09-10 and 10-11 our multiyear APR scores were above 900 (and only just above ) but IT final year and firing was a disaster and the departing kids essentially tanked their exams. Hence the level 1 penalties.

So is ULM further along than FIU, without a question (level 3 vs level 1). If 8 successive years of sub 900 APR scores and level 3 penalties (highest level) didn't get ULM kicked out of D1, why should it get us kicked out?

If ULM can turn it around after 8 years of sub 900 scores with an impressive 974, why can't we?

As stated previously (even though you choose to ignore it) the administration is aware of the problem and has made it a priority.

Quote:Both new coaches, football's Ron Turner and men's basketball's Anthony Evans, vowed change from their athletes. Moses said improved technology and staffing would help on his end, along with a multi-point approach he detailed for the committee. Trustee Robert Barlick Jr. said he wanted to see more reporting on student-athlete progress, both more often and more data. Committee chair Jorge Arrizurieta said while [Student-Athlete Academic Center director] Moses inherited a mess and his position has been hampered with instability -- Moses was the fourth director in five years when he took over in January 2012 -- it's time to start fixing it before it starts being a blight on FIU's name.

FIU BOT Athletic Committee Meeting

I chose to ignore nothing... you all are arguing with me about something that I'm not saying. I have made no case that FIU is not worthy or should be out of C-USA. I have actually said I believe the opposite to the true. And never once cried about FIU getting an invite 1st. And yes, you all can improve and I truthfully hope you do.

But I'll keep saying this... While IT and his firing and how the players reacted were in fact big cause of the problems with MBB... I counted 15 other penalties for FIU outside of MBB... You cannot blame this all on MBB and that is why FIU is being looked upon harder than ULM.

Also, you all started the comparison on ULM. The only comparison I ever made was to WKU, my school. Count the number of times we went below 900. Count the number of penalties. None, and None.

Now look at the other schools that are joining C-USA. WKU and Charlotte are clean across the board. ODU, UNT, FAU have a few. MTSU and LaTech have a handful. None of the other new members reach your level of penalties. ULM has not and is not a candidate for C-USA so if you want to compare to them you can, but I'll look at our level.

But yes, they improved their numbers and so can you. But you cannot fault others for pointing out your numbers. Some are going to attack you, but some will stand with you as you work to improve. You'll find in time, I have your back. FIU joined the SB while I was a student at WKU and have enjoyed many good game together since then. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to point out the issues.

The main issue I see is your AD. Your comment there mentions a Trustee and a Student-Athlete Academic Center director, there is no mention of this falling on Garcia's shoulders. He should be held accountable.

ULM also has a significant number of penalties outside of MBB, so no reason to believe we should be treated differently.

We were in the Sun Belt with WKU, WKU IS STILL IN THE Sun Belt with ULM. My point is, when they got the post season ban last season I didn't see this kind of discussion from WKU fans about ULM getting kicked out of D1 or comments about them messing up the schedule. Do you recall such a discussion last season?

As for Garcia, I didn't think I needed to state the obvious. The BOT meeting showed that the Committee was not gonna wait until Garcia crash and burn before stepping in to help the student-athletes.

Hilltoppers can criticize FIU as much as they want to, but don't expect us to not responds when there is clearly misinformation and exaggerations being presented. Not necessarily you, as your points have been valid and your discussions have not devolved into knee-jerk rhetoric.

You're blaming people on this board for bringing up the DI aspect and it did not originate here. It was taken from the news articles written about the release of the APR numbers and the post season ban for FIU.

I didn't join this board until WKU was invited so I never visited the SB side that often. But I can remember comments on HilltopperHaven about ULM's poor performance related to the post season ban.

Don't think they got off lightly. Now, I don't recall any discussion about losing DI status as I don't recall it being mentioned in the articles like it was for FIU.

We are all reacting to the news articles, not just making stuff up. While some were attacking... others like me were just discussing what that actually would mean if the NCAA pulled that trigger. Doesn't even really have to be FIU that gets hit. Just the idea that it could happen and what it would mean.

And I think that discussion is good for schools because, I think that punishment would be a killer for a program. So having that idea out there could really drive home the importance of the APR. And that is a good thing, IMO.

I am not blaming anyone on this board for anything, if the athletic department didn't mess up there would be no fodder for this thread. And by the way, all this was started by a tweet from the FAU beat writer who ran with the worst case scenario without including a look at how the NCAA historically handle these situation (like the effects of demonstrated academic improvement). I don't blame him either, I fully understand his reasons for sensationalizing the story.

All the best to hilltoppers this upcoming season.