Quote:@UMass

By 2017, UMass won't be any slouch by any means as they've been steadily improving, and UAB is going to be struggling. Won't be very winnable, IMO.

Hopefully South Alabama and UAB can schedule games in 2020 and 2021.

(07-21-2015 03:16 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Hopefully South Alabama and UAB can schedule games in 2020 and 2021.

I liked all of the series we had scheduled. USA, Georgia State, & Troy. Those teams and Georgia Southern should be the first ones contacted for home and home offers.

Obviously filtered through the SID and not geared to answer rules nuts questions, but the impression from the release is that IF the folks at UAB assemble a FBS compliant schedule in 2017 they are FBS but if not it seems to imply regular rules would trigger. I don't take that as definitive because it wasn't written to answer those questions.

60% of games against FBS and 5 home games (4 of them FBS)? What other requirements are there?

(07-21-2015 03:52 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  60% of games against FBS and 5 home games (4 of them FBS)? What other requirements are there?

Sponsor 16 sports, award 200 grants-in-aid, average 15k.

I'm glad UAB is not rushing into things for 2016 like it was previously intimated. If taking an extra year helps ensure that UAB will be ready to go, then so be it. They must get this right.

(07-21-2015 03:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Obviously filtered through the SID and not geared to answer rules nuts questions, but the impression from the release is that IF the folks at UAB assemble a FBS compliant schedule in 2017 they are FBS but if not it seems to imply regular rules would trigger. I don't take that as definitive because it wasn't written to answer those questions.

The implication from this article is that UAB can choose whether or not to have an FBS-compliant schedule in 2017, and must be fully FBS compliant in 2018.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ogram-2017

Quote:The NCAA won't subject UAB to FBS requirements for three academic years beginning with 2015-16.

Quote:"We truly hope UAB is aspirational and that their plan intends to realize the wonderful opportunity they have going forward," Banowsky added. "If playing a conference schedule in 2017 makes the most sense for the ultimate long term success, then we will continue to work with them toward that goal."

Is there an NCAA requirements that says brand new programs must play in FCS before joining FBS? In other words could a school like Texas State or UTSA have made the jump without playing FCS first.

(07-21-2015 01:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 01:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So basically the death penalty. They probably wont win more than 1 or 2 games for several years.

Maybe they'll win a few more than that if they are smart about scheduling, and play 2 FCS teams plus 2 struggling FBS teams each year. Also, CUSA football in 2017 is not going to be as strong as SWC football in 1989, so UAB might be more competitive in conference games in 2017 than SMU was in 1989.

Considering a couple of recent start-ups and several weak teams in CUSA...they should fair better than SMU.

(07-21-2015 11:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Is there an NCAA requirements that says brand new programs must play in FCS before joining FBS? In other words could a school like Texas State or UTSA have made the jump without playing FCS first.

Basically yes. You can only move to FBS by invitation from a FBS conference. Any D1 school can start a FCS football team and be independent.

(07-22-2015 07:15 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Is there an NCAA requirements that says brand new programs must play in FCS before joining FBS? In other words could a school like Texas State or UTSA have made the jump without playing FCS first.

Basically yes. You can only move to FBS by invitation from a FBS conference. Any D1 school can start a FCS football team and be independent.

But even if you have a FBS invite you have to do two years as FCS before transitioning. (See Charlotte)

(07-21-2015 02:17 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  If they do a traditional FBS schedule, I'd guess they'd start with two FCS teams. Perhaps even three, if they can get a waiver (would they need a waiver?)

8 CUSA games satisfies number of FBS games, and 4 of 5 FBS home games, so AFAICT, if one of the FCS home games satisfies the FCS exemption (90%+ of FCS scholarship limit), they could play all four out of conference games against FCS schools.

Yeah, there must be some official rules in regards to having to play in FCS before playing in FBS, as a new program. Although, I wouldn't be able to tell you which section numbers to lookup in the NCAA DI manual.

Charlotte, ODU, South Alabama and Georgia State all technically played some number of seasons in the FCS before moving up to the FBS.

In ODU's case, they were basketball members of the CAA and at the time of their startup, I think they actually wanted to play CAA football (which is one of the best FCS leagues). Not sure if they always planned to move up or if they just got the CUSA's ear and went for it.

The others I think were technically FCS independents.

(07-21-2015 04:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 03:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Obviously filtered through the SID and not geared to answer rules nuts questions, but the impression from the release is that IF the folks at UAB assemble a FBS compliant schedule in 2017 they are FBS but if not it seems to imply regular rules would trigger. I don't take that as definitive because it wasn't written to answer those questions.

The implication from this article is that UAB can choose whether or not to have an FBS-compliant schedule in 2017, and must be fully FBS compliant in 2018.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ogram-2017

Quote:The NCAA won't subject UAB to FBS requirements for three academic years beginning with 2015-16.

Quote:"We truly hope UAB is aspirational and that their plan intends to realize the wonderful opportunity they have going forward," Banowsky added. "If playing a conference schedule in 2017 makes the most sense for the ultimate long term success, then we will continue to work with them toward that goal."

Assuming the NCAA is trying to stick to the Division I Manual rather than creating a procedure out of whole cloth I think their logic is this.

UAB met all criteria in 2014 and preceding years so is entitled to the grace season set forth in the rules.

UAB not playing at all in 2015 isn't being treated as a grace season because UAB isn't competing at the specified level so they allow that season to carry forward.

In 2016 what we've seen so far hints at the possibility UAB may play football but isn't going to have a Division I complying schedule (ie. won't comply with FBS or FCS schedule requirements) and may not even play outside competition within Division I or possibly even the NCAA. That would give the NCAA cover for declaring that year to not be an attempt at playing Division I football.

The indication is UAB wants to resume something resembling a Division I schedule (whether full FBS compliant remains to be seen) and that would be the "attempt" and therefore trigger the grace season.

Again this is heavily reading between the lines but I think the timeline probably looks something like this:

2015 recruit players to sign in February of 2016.
2016 If enough bodies are on campus, conduct spring drills and then in the fall of 2016 either: 1. hold a series of intra-squad scrimmages or 2. play a schedule of non-NCAA members such as club teams, jucos, prep schools, and NAIA schools or 3. same as two but play some Division II and FCS schools but fewer than 7 of those. I would lean to prep and juco to get a headstart on evaluating prospects.
2017. Either: 1. Play an FBS compliant schedule which could be a CUSA schedule plus a mix of FCS and Division II with FBS schools or 2. Play a non-complying schedule that has a mix of FBS, FCS and maybe Division II, then use the grace season to not play a complying schedule until 2018.

I think the ideal schedule for 2017 would be compliant by playing a full CUSA schedule (8 FBS games, four of those at home and at least one high scholarship FCS at home to meet the home schedule requirement) and I would fill out the remaining three dates with some mix of FCS, Division II, and NAIA. That would all be eliminate bowl eligibility unless they beat a high scholarship FCS and went 5-3 in CUSA play but it is FBS compliant and presents a better opportunity to develop confidence.

(07-21-2015 01:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 01:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  So basically the death penalty. They probably wont win more than 1 or 2 games for several years.

Maybe they'll win a few more than that if they are smart about scheduling, and play 2 FCS teams plus 2 struggling FBS teams each year. Also, CUSA football in 2017 is not going to be as strong as SWC football in 1989, so UAB might be more competitive in conference games in 2017 than SMU was in 1989.

They are raising money for facility improvements.
They have a good coach and will have momentum starting back .
I think they will surprise people and be competitive within three years.

(07-22-2015 08:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 02:17 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  If they do a traditional FBS schedule, I'd guess they'd start with two FCS teams. Perhaps even three, if they can get a waiver (would they need a waiver?)

8 CUSA games satisfies number of FBS games, and 4 of 5 FBS home games, so AFAICT, if one of the FCS home games satisfies the FCS exemption (90%+ of FCS scholarship limit), they could play all four out of conference games against FCS schools.

They could play home and home with the FCS teams to save costs.
No way to be bowl eligible but it could pay off and save money vs a money game.

(07-22-2015 08:10 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:15 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Is there an NCAA requirements that says brand new programs must play in FCS before joining FBS? In other words could a school like Texas State or UTSA have made the jump without playing FCS first.

Basically yes. You can only move to FBS by invitation from a FBS conference. Any D1 school can start a FCS football team and be independent.

But even if you have a FBS invite you have to do two years as FCS before transitioning. (See Charlotte)

But is this mandatory?

(07-22-2015 09:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 08:10 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:15 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Is there an NCAA requirements that says brand new programs must play in FCS before joining FBS? In other words could a school like Texas State or UTSA have made the jump without playing FCS first.

Basically yes. You can only move to FBS by invitation from a FBS conference. Any D1 school can start a FCS football team and be independent.

But even if you have a FBS invite you have to do two years as FCS before transitioning. (See Charlotte)

But is this mandatory?

Yes. I know UTSA was a year behind Texas St when they went to the WAC.

(07-22-2015 09:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 09:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 08:10 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:15 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Is there an NCAA requirements that says brand new programs must play in FCS before joining FBS? In other words could a school like Texas State or UTSA have made the jump without playing FCS first.

Basically yes. You can only move to FBS by invitation from a FBS conference. Any D1 school can start a FCS football team and be independent.

But even if you have a FBS invite you have to do two years as FCS before transitioning. (See Charlotte)

But is this mandatory?

Yes. I know UTSA was a year behind Texas St when they went to the WAC.

As far as I can tell I haven't found a rule that says this. Only the FBS invite from a conference. Seems an awful lot like these schools volunteered to be FCS first to get their programs ready.