Bylaws: Amend Proposal No. 2002-93, as follows:
"20.9.6 Division I-A Football Requirements. An institution classified in Division I-A shall meet the additional requirements listed below.
[20.9.6.1 through 20.9.6.4 unchanged.]
"20.9.6.5 Noncompliance with Division I-A Criteria.
"20.9.6.5.1 Notice of Noncompliance. An institution that fails to satisfy any of the Division I-A membership requirements set forth in Bylaws 20.9.6.1 through 20.9.6.4 shall receive notice of such noncompliance. After receiving notice, any further noncompliance with the Division I-A requirements within a ten-year period shall cause the institution be placed in restricted membership per Bylaw 20.9.6.5.2.
"20.9.6.5.2 Restricted Membership. While in restricted membership, the institution shall not be eligible for postseason football competition. At the conclusion of the one-year period, the institution shall be granted membership in its preferred division, provided the institution complies with the division's criteria. If the member does not meet the criteria of any division at the end of the restricted membership period, the institution may continue to be classified as a Division I member in sports other than football, provided the institution satisfies the Division I membership requirements set forth in Bylaws 20.9.1 through 20.9.5. A Division I member that loses Division I-A status must comply with the multidivision classification requirements set forth in Bylaw 20.4 to regain such status."
Source: NCAA Division I Management Council (Membership Subcommittee).
Effective Date: August 1, 2004
Proposal Category: Amendment
Topical Area: Membership/Legislative Process
Rationale: The membership subcommittee reviewed Proposal No. 2002-93, which establishes penalties for noncompliance with Division I-A membership requirements, and a draft proposal submitted by the Mid-American Conference during the recent conference submission period that also addresses penalties for noncompliance with Division I-A requirements. Although the subcommittee expressed support for the concepts in Proposal No. 2002-93, the proposed amendment provides additional flexibility to the Division I-A requirements without sacrificing the intent of the original enhancements.
<a href='http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_I/board_of_directors/2004/August/10_prt_2_proposals.htm' target='_blank'>http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance...2_proposals.htm</a>
This restricted membership is BULL CRAP. Taking away post-season competition for any team with this classification will cripple them. How can they build their program if they can't promiss their recruits and fans a chance to attend a championship game? The correct step is a 1 or 2 year warning then dismisal. Who writes these things?
FYI: I do not forsee UCF getting into this problem. I am just telling it as I see it.
I'm trying to picture how this would work.
Let me lay out a scenario:
If State U. only draws 14,000 in Year 1, it would receive a warning from the NCAA.
Let's say State U. then exceeds 15,000 for the next six years.
In year seven, if State U. again only draws 14,000 -- is it automatically placed into restricted membership?
That's the way I read this.
This is a little looser. It's progress. But it isn't as loose as we would like.
I suppose there is time to continue to advocate to loosen it a little more.
Schadenfreude,
That's how I read it too. If this is the case, then some schools are definately in trouble. I don't want to turn this into a Marshall versus the Mac or anything like that. To me basically the ruling says that any school that averages less than 15k in any two years over a ten year period will be moved to a division more suitable to their support.
If this legislation had been in place over the past 10 years, how many schools would have been dropped?
forphase1 Wrote:To me basically the ruling says that any school that averages less than 15k in any two years over a ten year period will be moved to a division more suitable to their support.
I don't read it quite that way.
Carrying out the State U. scenario:
If, in year one State U. misses 15K and receives a warning and in year seven State U. misses again and is dropped to restricted status, it could stay in I-A by hitting 15K in year eight.
If it were to miss in year nine, it would be dropped back to restricted status and have to hit 15K in year ten.
So this is an improvement ... but it isn't as quite as far as the MAC needs to go.
Alright, I just reread it again, and I see what you are saying. Basically, if you don't get less than 15k two years in a row, you are fine...except that during the 2nd year you are prohibited from playing in the post-season...which to me will make it that much harder to average the 15k needed. So, in the 10 years period, a school must average less than 15k 3 times, the last two of which must be in consecutive years in order to drop down a level.
Just curious, will the same standards be used before allowing a new school to JOIN I-A?
forphase1 Wrote:Just curious, will the same standards be used before allowing a new school to JOIN I-A?
The way I read it the move to I-A is a different procedure.
That would seem to be the readon for this line:
"A Division I member that loses Division I-A status must comply with the multidivision classification requirements set forth in Bylaw 20.4 to regain such status."
forphase1 Wrote:Just curious, will the same standards be used before allowing a new school to JOIN I-A?
Actually, the answer to that is no.
Any school wanting to join Divison 1-A that didn't move up before August 1, 2004 has to make the 15,000 attendance number to move up.
Once a school makes that number they can move to division 1-A, and then be subject to the 3 strikes and you're out rule from that point forward.
And given the August 1st 2004 date when the new requirements are to take effect, this is all the more change we can expect. The MAC wanted its 3 year rule and got a compromise.
Let's look at what schools would have been dropped since 1998 if this rule had been passed then... (all figures come from NCAA.org)
1998 the following schools were below 15k:
Utah St., Idaho, Arkansas St, San Jose St., Northern Ill., Eastern Mich., Bowling Green, North Texas, SouthWestern La., Akron, and Kent St.
In 1999:
Tulsa, Arkansas St, La-Monroe, New Mexico St, Middle Tenn St, Eastern Mich, Bowling Green, Kent, San Jose State, and Akron.
So Arkansas St, Eastern Michigan, Bowling Green, San Jose State, Kent and Akron all have 1 year to get to 15k or be dropped. Same with La-Monroe if that is the same school as Southwestern LA. Not sure, and don't care to take the time to look.
In 2000:
Wyoming, Ball St, La-Lafayette, North Texas, Northern Ill, San Jose St, Arkansas St, Akron, Middle Tenn, Eastern Mich, La-Monroe, Buffalo, Kent, Bowling Green.
Arkansas St, Eastern Michigan, La-Monroe, Kent, Akron and Bowling Green all failed to get 15k, and so are dropped to another division. Middle Tenn St has 1 year to improve.
In 2001:
Miami, Oh, Northern Ill, Eastern Mich, Akron, Buffalo, Ark St, San Jose St, La-Layfayette, La-Monroe, Kent State. No new teams dropped, but now Buffalo, La-Lafayette and Northern Ill have 1 year to improve.
In 2002:
Houston, Wyoming, Ark St, Ball St, Akron, Buffalo, MTSU, Idaho, EMU, San Jose, Kent, La-Monroe.
Buffalo dropped, Ball St has one year to improve as does Wyoming, MTSU, and Idaho.
In 2003:
Utah St, La-Layfayette, CMU, Akron, Buffalo, Ball St, Idaho, La-Monroe, EMU, MTSU, Kent.
Ball St., MTSU and Idaho are dropped.
Final analysis: If these requirements would have been in effect since 1998, the following schools all would have been dropped from I-A. Akron, Kent, EMU, Buffalo, Ball St., Bowling Green, MTSU, Idaho, Ark St, La-Monroe, and La-Lafayette.
Again, this is not a MAC knock, and we all know the numbers will be different now than they were from 1998 - 2003, but the MAC would have lost SIX members, or half of what their membership will be after this year. Just food for thought.
Scenario:
2004 - Miss attendance requirement. Receive notice.
2005 - Make attendance requirement.
2006 - Miss attendance requirement. Restricted membership starts.
2007 - Make attendance requirement. Restricted membership ends.
2008 - Miss attendance requirement. Restricted membership starts.
2009 - Make attendance requirement. Restricted membership ends.
2010 - Miss attendance requirement. Restricted membership starts.
2011 - Make attendance requirement. Restricted membership ends.
2012 - Miss attendance requirement. Restricted membership starts.
2013 - Make attendance requirement. Restricted membership ends.
So, you still ain't gotta make it but half the time. Remember that the Division change only happens if you miss it two years in a row. If the Board of Directors figures this out, which they may or may not, they might change it to mean that you get reclassed if you miss it again in the 10 year period so it really is a 3 strikes and you're out rule.
forphase1 Wrote:In 2000:
Wyoming, Ball St, La-Lafayette, North Texas, Northern Ill, San Jose St, Arkansas St, Akron, Middle Tenn, Eastern Mich, La-Monroe, Buffalo, Kent, Bowling Green.
Arkansas St, Eastern Michigan, La-Monroe, Kent, Akron and Bowling Green all failed to get 15k, and so are dropped to another division. Middle Tenn St has 1 year to improve.
In 2001:
Miami, Oh, Northern Ill, Eastern Mich, Akron, Buffalo, Ark St, San Jose St, La-Layfayette, La-Monroe, Kent State. No new teams dropped, but now Buffalo, La-Lafayette and Northern Ill have 1 year to improve.
In 2002:
Houston, Wyoming, Ark St, Ball St, Akron, Buffalo, MTSU, Idaho, EMU, San Jose, Kent, La-Monroe.
Buffalo dropped, Ball St has one year to improve as does Wyoming, MTSU, and Idaho.
In 2003:
Utah St, La-Layfayette, CMU, Akron, Buffalo, Ball St, Idaho, La-Monroe, EMU, MTSU, Kent.
Ball St., MTSU and Idaho are dropped.
Final analysis: If these requirements would have been in effect since 1998, the following schools all would have been dropped from I-A. Akron, Kent, EMU, Buffalo, Ball St., Bowling Green, MTSU, Idaho, Ark St, La-Monroe, and La-Lafayette.
I think looking at just the last four years would yield a clearer picture of who is currently at risk:
After 2000:
Wyoming, Ball St, La-Lafayette, North Texas, Northern Ill, San Jose St, Arkansas St, Akron, Middle Tenn, Eastern Mich, La-Monroe, Buffalo, Kent, Bowling Green all eat a pass year.
After 2001:
Miami, Oh and ULL eat a pass year
NIU, Eastern Mich, Akron, Buffalo, Ark St, San Jose St, La-Monroe, Kent State go on probation
After 2002:
Houston, Idaho, MTSU all eat a pass year
Wyoming and Ball St go on probation
Ark St, Akron, Buffalo, EMU, San Jose, Kent, La-Monroe get declassified
After 2003:
Utah St and CMU eat a pass year
Idaho, MTSU go on probation
Ball St is declassifed
My analysis says only 5 MAC schools would be declassified from 1-A. The MAC can backfill with Temple or Youngstown St and still maintain the 8 schools needed to qualify as a Division 1-A conference.
The SBC would be hit the hardest because they only have 8 schools to begin with, and losing ArkSt, ULM, possibly MTSU, and probably FIU and FAU would leave this league with just 3 Division 1-A members. North Texas would probably bolt for the WAC.
Backfill, now that positive forward thinking. :rolleyes:
This discussion reminds me of how they changed the speed limit into town from 65 to 50 and then showed how many cars exceeded the limit before enforcement was to officially begin.
I expect Toledo will start giving out tickets soon to people who used to smoke in restaurants. :rolleyes:
axeme Wrote:This discussion reminds me of how they changed the speed limit into town from 65 to 50 and then showed how many cars exceeded the limit before enforcement was to officially begin.
I expect Toledo will start giving out tickets soon to people who used to smoke in restaurants. :rolleyes:
True.
Just judging by history though Akron, Kent, EMU, and Buffalo never make the 15,000 so projecting them to make it CONSISTANTLY which is what they are going to have to do to maintain Division 1-A membership is very optimistic.
movin on up Wrote:Backfill, now that positive forward thinking. :rolleyes:
At least we are getting rid of the bottom feeders.
You're stuck with Tulsa, SMU, UTEP, and Rice.
Joke's on Marshall.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>A CAVEAT</span>
The schools that did not make attendance weren't TRYING for the most part to make attendance. Remember they were scheduling under I-A criteria that permitted them to remain I-A based on home/away attendance or by conference membership (last not quite so true for the Sun Belt teams since many had extended bouts of being an independent). They scheduled and promoted based on the existing standard. When California adopted its emission standards for cars few if any manufacturers met the standard and based on the numbers you could have assumed few cars could be legally sold in California when the new standard came in, yet absent a few foreign specialty cars everyone now meets the standard.
Last season for example Arkansas State began an agressive marketing program and made attendance with plenty of cushion. This season with four home games they should again make it make with room to spare.
Louisiana-Monroe in addition to starting an agressive marketing program has locked in 5 games in Little Rock, Arkansas against the University of Arkansas. They will play Arkansas in 04, 06, 08, 10, and 12 and be designated the home team. Arkansas controls the ticket sales and pays ULM a guarantee but under the new NCAA rules Arkansas can only count one game in Little Rock as a home and they are contracted to play no fewer than 2 games there under their contract with the city. Basically they will count their SEC games there and not their non-conference games for NCAA purposes.
That contract essentially assures ULM will have a crowd of 48,000 to 53,000 each of those years. On a five game home slate they need to draw 75,000. So if the Arkansas game draws 47,000 they need to draw 28,000 over four games in Monroe or 7,000 per game. They will qualify with ease each of those years.
Arkansas State got an even better deal from Missouri. We contacted Mizzou and notified them that we intended to cancel the 2006 game because we needed the date to schedule a home opponent to meet I-A criteria. Mizzou offered to move the game to 2005 to fill an opening they had and make it an ASU home game conditioned on ASU playing the game at Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City (Mizzou has never played there). We pay Mizzou a guarantee, we rent the stadium and get all the remaining profit. In short it has the potential to be rather lucrative and cover our attendance needs in 2005.
I know from the grapevine that Alabama is offering a home-home series with one game Tuscaloosa and the "return" game in Birmingham. Don't know if they have found a taker yet. Florida's AD has indicated that they may consider a similar home-home type deal with one game at home and the other in either Tampa, Orlando, or Jacksonville. I don't know if they've signed any deals but they are looking at it.
In short it is highly unlikely that any school will be reclassified I-AA simply because the schools historically under 15,000 will schedule better at home and market more aggressively and if that fails there are a number of I-A programs willing to collaborate with them to use the neutral site loophole to keep them in I-A.
Thanks. Quite interesting.
If you think about it though, it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Due to these pressures, a school like Arkansas State is now selling out its home games as home games in name only, while playing them at places where their opponents can bring all the fans. So ASU could theoretically have zero fans in attendance in Kansas City, yet the numbers would keep the NCAA satisfied. Missouri gets a virtual home game out of the deal and the money that goes with it. The result? Good luck ever getting a real home game with a big-name opponent again.
Now I'm not saying this is a new thing. I remember at Ole Miss, they used to play home games against Florida in Jacksonville back in the 80s. But now that the incentive to enter into one of these deals with the devil is tied to the very survival of your program, all the leverage in scheduling goes to the power elite.
Future example: Colorado is looking for a team to play. They scan the attendance records and see that EMU is one year away from restriction. Hmm... Let's do the Hurons a favor and play them at their place. Their place in DENVER! <evil laughter, as scene fades out>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the NCAA state that for a game to be considered a home game, it must be played in the same state as the home team resides? I want to say I remember reading that somewhere. If so, then the Mizzou game, while speaking of profits may be great for Ark St., the attendance may not be counted as a home game for the NCAA. There is still a lot of details to be worked out.
If the NCAA sees these schools bypassing the regulation with odd scheduling, they will probably take measures to not count these games as valid home attendance. The purpose seems to be to have support at HOME, with HOME fans. If the NCAA is serious about the regulations, then they will take the steps to ensure they are not being evaded.
Personally I feel there does need to be some standard in order to be I-A. Is attendence the best measure? Perhaps...perhaps not.
Neutrals have been around forever. Tennessee has done a few in Memphis and Nashville and Southern Miss did one years ago in Jacksonville with FSU. Notre Dame used to do TONS of them.
It's just the same song different verse.
I don't know that Arkansas State will ever do any more. I know we turned down an offer from Bama and one from Georgia. The Mizzou game was a special circumstance, we go from having to pay the buy-out of a game in Columbia to a profit making situation in Kansas City.
There were never going to be many of the big six conference schools hitting the road against the rest of I-A. Why would a BCS dreg schedule to go on the road against non-BCS when they could find another BCS dreg to play home-home? The middle of the pack would have just scheduled in a I-AA game. As for the elite they can still afford to buy a home game or get a I-AA. With the computers being de-emphasized in the BCS there is little difference between playing Eastern Kentucky at home or playing Buffalo. Miami and Va.Tech both demonstrated that they could play a I-AA with little BCS impact under the old system.
arkstfan Wrote:There were never going to be many of the big six conference schools hitting the road against the rest of I-A. Why would a BCS dreg schedule to go on the road against non-BCS when they could find another BCS dreg to play home-home? The middle of the pack would have just scheduled in a I-AA game. As for the elite they can still afford to buy a home game or get a I-AA. With the computers being de-emphasized in the BCS there is little difference between playing Eastern Kentucky at home or playing Buffalo. Miami and Va.Tech both demonstrated that they could play a I-AA with little BCS impact under the old system.
You do need to have 9 Division 1-A wins to qualify for the BCS so right there it gives the non-BCS schools some leverage. Plus a Kansas or Indiana would rather play the non-BCS out of conference becaue their league schedules are too tough for them. And they can sign a 2 for 1 with a non-BCS school as opposed to a 1 for 1 with a BCS school.