Didn't someone else say that their school had known about it for weeks?

(02-27-2013 11:16 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 11:05 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 11:03 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:55 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:45 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  FBS transitional teams have counted as FBS games in the past. Cannot imagine the NCAA and the BCS wouldn't count them since they already allow one FCS win per year to count like any FBS win. The conference would have to vote on whether the games would count as conference eligible games, which would imagine they would vote to do so.

That's right you'd be in the same situation as ODU. Make '13 your first (FCS) transition year, play your SoCon schedule but be ineligible for the playoff. Then in '14 the Sunbelt could put you on the conference schedule and you'll be considered FBS games but still ineligible for bowl games. I think it's up to the conference to decide if you'd be eligible for a conference title in '14.

Since recruiting is all over, if we do not go above the sixty three scholarships until after this years season that should mean that we would be eligible for FCS playoffs this year it seems.

No. As soon as you declare for FBS you're ineligible for FCS playoffs.
USA was never eligible for FCS playoffs because our FBS intentions were always clear.

We were eligible for the playoffs last year despite anouncing our transition last spring. GaSt wasn't however even though they had no more scholarships than us, the difference in my mind is that last year was thier first transition year. I haven't read the NCAA regs but I think it's a situation where you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Announcement date doesn't matter. You were eligible for the playoffs because you didn't file your paperwork with the NCAA to move. As soon as you file that paperwork, you will not be eligible for playoffs. So, GSU is now one year ahead of you in transition. We will be bowl eligible in 2014, you will be in 2015.

Have heard the same thing from other posters Panthersville. What doesn't make sense is that two year moratorium on transitioning that according to the article I posted previously on here said a division one team could not start until this year. Maybe the NCAA made an exception for Georgia State. If so, that worked out well for the Panthers.

(02-27-2013 11:34 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Have heard the same thing from other posters Panthersville. What doesn't make sense is that two year moratorium on transitioning that according to the article I posted previously on here said a division one team could not start until this year. Maybe the NCAA made an exception for Georgia State. If so, that worked out well for the Panthers.

Moratorium was lifted in summer of 2011 - it wasn't an issue.

(02-27-2013 11:38 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 11:34 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Have heard the same thing from other posters Panthersville. What doesn't make sense is that two year moratorium on transitioning that according to the article I posted previously on here said a division one team could not start until this year. Maybe the NCAA made an exception for Georgia State. If so, that worked out well for the Panthers.

Moratorium was lifted in summer of 2011 - it wasn't an issue.

This was a different one. Most people had not heard a lot about it since it didn't affect them. Here is a NCAA article on it. Wouldn't worry about it if GaSt has already done their FCS transitional year though.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/publ...tification

(02-27-2013 11:48 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 11:38 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 11:34 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Have heard the same thing from other posters Panthersville. What doesn't make sense is that two year moratorium on transitioning that according to the article I posted previously on here said a division one team could not start until this year. Maybe the NCAA made an exception for Georgia State. If so, that worked out well for the Panthers.

Moratorium was lifted in summer of 2011 - it wasn't an issue.

This was a different one. Most people had not heard a lot about it since it didn't affect them. Here is the site. Wouldn't worry about it if GaSt has already done their FCS transitional year though.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/publ...tification

I'm getting an error message on that link, 70.

See if this one works better.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/publ...tification

You may want to do a copy and paste. I can go to the article, but my Windows 8 may be changing something, it does auto spelling kind of crazy. Just tried go direct and it didn't work but when I recopied and then pasted into a new window it worked. Don't ask me why.

(02-27-2013 11:55 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  See if this one works better.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/publ...tification

Nope.

(02-27-2013 11:28 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 11:16 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 11:05 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 11:03 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:55 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  That's right you'd be in the same situation as ODU. Make '13 your first (FCS) transition year, play your SoCon schedule but be ineligible for the playoff. Then in '14 the Sunbelt could put you on the conference schedule and you'll be considered FBS games but still ineligible for bowl games. I think it's up to the conference to decide if you'd be eligible for a conference title in '14.

Since recruiting is all over, if we do not go above the sixty three scholarships until after this years season that should mean that we would be eligible for FCS playoffs this year it seems.

No. As soon as you declare for FBS you're ineligible for FCS playoffs.
USA was never eligible for FCS playoffs because our FBS intentions were always clear.

We were eligible for the playoffs last year despite anouncing our transition last spring. GaSt wasn't however even though they had no more scholarships than us, the difference in my mind is that last year was thier first transition year. I haven't read the NCAA regs but I think it's a situation where you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Announcement date doesn't matter. You were eligible for the playoffs because you didn't file your paperwork with the NCAA to move. As soon as you file that paperwork, you will not be eligible for playoffs. So, GSU is now one year ahead of you in transition. We will be bowl eligible in 2014, you will be in 2015.

I misspoke (typed). I did mean once the official notification takes place.

Plus I posted it on about page 3 and have not had a message that that didn't work.

Also read on the WAC Scout board that a TXST Insider WACjack said this was all but a done deal but heard JMU was the 3rd team, they say he's been pretty spot on and had the USU Move to the MWC a Couple weeks before happen...

It does make since.. with the NBE Contract smaller then many though adding Tulsa they can break into Division and save on travel cost..

WKU does feel in a big gap in CUSA and UAB Must be going West

And NMSU, AppSt, GaSo. will work out great for the Belt with East / West Division

Here, I just copied it from that site.

Latest News

Publish date: Apr 28, 2011

Board directs alternative approach to Division I certification

By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
NCAA.org

No schools will enter the Division I Athletics Certification Program to give the Committee on Athletics Certification time to develop an alternative approach to institutional accountability for athletics programs.

The Division I Board of Directors decided Thursday that those in the beginning stages of the third cycle will continue with the certification process but will be allowed to opt for an abbreviated process if the staff determines that the self-study identified few negative issues.

In January, President Mark Emmert directed the NCAA staff to review the nearly two-decade-old certification program with an eye toward reducing the burden on institutions, increasing cost-effectiveness and improving the overall value.

Officials estimate that the entire athletics certification experience costs each Division I member about $300,000 and requires an average of 400 hours of campus committee and other personnel time.

The recommendations approved by the Board charge the Division I Committee on Athletics Certification with the development of the new program, including an outline of a new approach to certification that is managed by the institution, rooted in technology and outcome-based (meaning schools with no or minor issues would experience a more streamlined process than schools with more significant issues).

Board members were keenly interested in a certification process that would still have some accreditation outcome and would keep the student-athlete experience at the forefront.

The gathering and assessing of institutional information would be entirely electronic and produce “indicator” products similar to the already-existing financial dashboard indicators. The reports would provide benchmark data in four areas: student-athlete experience, academics, finances (incorporating existing financial dashboard data) and diversity/inclusion.

The Committee on Athletics Certification will consider a program that would:
1.Define accountability measures with a broad spectrum of options to be presented to the Board.
2.Eliminate the current peer-review team system and replace it with a streamlined, issue-focused review that reduces the number of membership individuals and resources involved.
3.Require certification data be provided annually by each Division I member, with the committee determining the appropriate timeframe for each member to review the data and respond appropriately. The penalty for not providing the data as specified would be ineligibility for all postseason competition for all teams, similar to the penalties for not providing Academic Performance Program data.
4.Operate under a different name.
5.Provide a different program for reclassifying members (a modified or more substantial process than that required of active members).

The committee will engage the membership for feedback throughout its review. The membership will be asked for input on the mission and purpose of the new program, whether or not it should be a certification/accreditation program or simply a self-study, consequences for not meeting minimum standards, the roles of the committee and the NCAA staff in the new program and whether or not external review should be an element of the process.

Modifications to the certification program would require legislative changes. The committee will provide reports to the Board in October 2011 and April 2012, with possible legislative proposals sent to the Board no later than October 2012. The committee’s goal is to have Board-sponsored legislative proposals ready for membership consideration during the 2012-13 legislative cycle.

The recommendations will include a phased-in approach that allows for time to develop the necessary technology, educate the membership and implement the new program.

No active Division I members will begin the athletics certification process from Aug. 1, 2011 until Aug. 1, 2013. Reclassifying members will remain subject to all athletics certification legislation throughout the moratorium period.

(02-27-2013 11:55 AM)hapapp Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 11:55 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  See if this one works better.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/publ...tification

Nope.

Just copied and pasted it, in case you left site, it's on there direct now. Notice the date and where it came from and you can go there direct also if you want.

(02-27-2013 09:53 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:50 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:35 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:23 AM)BariBlue Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:21 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  WKU will be joining CUSA for the 2014 season. The Belt will be discussing the addition of App st and GSU along with the third addition being NMSU. This will put the conference back to 10/12 format.

West

ASU
UALR
ULM
Texas St
NMSU

East

TROY
USA
ULL
Georgia st
Georgia southern
App st

GSU has already been invited into the Sun Belt

Is another thread really going to be derailed over a name issue? It is really getting old.

Get it right and it will not be a problem. There is GSU, and there is GaSo - just ask ESPN.

When ESPN can get half the mascots right for the schools I will then think about asking them how to abreviate a schools name.

Then ask Southern's own ID guide.

To strengthen the University’s identity and avoid confusion with other institutions, the
abbreviation “GSU” MUST NOT be used in publications, ads, Web sites, or other media;

Source: http://news.georgiasouthern.edu/marketin...manual.pdf

(02-27-2013 12:14 PM)GSUdpb Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:53 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:50 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:35 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:23 AM)BariBlue Wrote:  GSU has already been invited into the Sun Belt

Is another thread really going to be derailed over a name issue? It is really getting old.

Get it right and it will not be a problem. There is GSU, and there is GaSo - just ask ESPN.

When ESPN can get half the mascots right for the schools I will then think about asking them how to abreviate a schools name.

Then ask Southern's own ID guide.

To strengthen the University’s identity and avoid confusion with other institutions, the
abbreviation “GSU” MUST NOT be used in publications, ads, Web sites, or other media;

Source: http://news.georgiasouthern.edu/marketin...manual.pdf

(02-27-2013 12:04 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Here, I just copied it from that site.

Latest News

Publish date: Apr 28, 2011

Board directs alternative approach to Division I certification

By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
NCAA.org

No schools will enter the Division I Athletics Certification Program to give the Committee on Athletics Certification time to develop an alternative approach to institutional accountability for athletics programs.

The Division I Board of Directors decided Thursday that those in the beginning stages of the third cycle will continue with the certification process but will be allowed to opt for an abbreviated process if the staff determines that the self-study identified few negative issues.

In January, President Mark Emmert directed the NCAA staff to review the nearly two-decade-old certification program with an eye toward reducing the burden on institutions, increasing cost-effectiveness and improving the overall value.

Officials estimate that the entire athletics certification experience costs each Division I member about $300,000 and requires an average of 400 hours of campus committee and other personnel time.

The recommendations approved by the Board charge the Division I Committee on Athletics Certification with the development of the new program, including an outline of a new approach to certification that is managed by the institution, rooted in technology and outcome-based (meaning schools with no or minor issues would experience a more streamlined process than schools with more significant issues).

Board members were keenly interested in a certification process that would still have some accreditation outcome and would keep the student-athlete experience at the forefront.

The gathering and assessing of institutional information would be entirely electronic and produce “indicator” products similar to the already-existing financial dashboard indicators. The reports would provide benchmark data in four areas: student-athlete experience, academics, finances (incorporating existing financial dashboard data) and diversity/inclusion.

The Committee on Athletics Certification will consider a program that would:
1.Define accountability measures with a broad spectrum of options to be presented to the Board.
2.Eliminate the current peer-review team system and replace it with a streamlined, issue-focused review that reduces the number of membership individuals and resources involved.
3.Require certification data be provided annually by each Division I member, with the committee determining the appropriate timeframe for each member to review the data and respond appropriately. The penalty for not providing the data as specified would be ineligibility for all postseason competition for all teams, similar to the penalties for not providing Academic Performance Program data.
4.Operate under a different name.
5.Provide a different program for reclassifying members (a modified or more substantial process than that required of active members).

The committee will engage the membership for feedback throughout its review. The membership will be asked for input on the mission and purpose of the new program, whether or not it should be a certification/accreditation program or simply a self-study, consequences for not meeting minimum standards, the roles of the committee and the NCAA staff in the new program and whether or not external review should be an element of the process.

Modifications to the certification program would require legislative changes. The committee will provide reports to the Board in October 2011 and April 2012, with possible legislative proposals sent to the Board no later than October 2012. The committee’s goal is to have Board-sponsored legislative proposals ready for membership consideration during the 2012-13 legislative cycle.

The recommendations will include a phased-in approach that allows for time to develop the necessary technology, educate the membership and implement the new program.

No active Division I members will begin the athletics certification process from Aug. 1, 2011 until Aug. 1, 2013. Reclassifying members will remain subject to all athletics certification legislation throughout the moratorium period.

Seems like this only covers transitioning to Div I from lower divisions not moves from subdivision FCS to FBS

(02-27-2013 10:29 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:28 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:35 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:23 AM)BariBlue Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:21 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  WKU will be joining CUSA for the 2014 season. The Belt will be discussing the addition of App st and GSU along with the third addition being NMSU. This will put the conference back to 10/12 format.

West

ASU
UALR
ULM
Texas St
NMSU

East

TROY
USA
ULL
Georgia st
Georgia southern
App st

GSU has already been invited into the Sun Belt

Is another thread really going to be derailed over a name issue? It is really getting old.

Then get it right ASU

I go with GaSt and GaSo.

Yes. ^^^This!^^^ The GSU/GSU name squabble is getting old. Or maybe Georgia Southern could change to the University of Southern Georgia, like Mississippi Southern changed to the Univesity of Southern Mississippi back in the late 50s.

Georgia State fans are some of the most annoying fans on this board.

(02-27-2013 01:30 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:29 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:28 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:35 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 09:23 AM)BariBlue Wrote:  GSU has already been invited into the Sun Belt

Is another thread really going to be derailed over a name issue? It is really getting old.

Then get it right ASU

I go with GaSt and GaSo.

Yes. ^^^This!^^^ The GSU/GSU name squabble is getting old. Or maybe Georgia Southern could change to the University of Southern Georgia, like Mississippi Southern changed to the Univesity of Southern Mississippi back in the late 50s.

I don't think we're going to change the name of our university. Just use GaSo. I'd rather NOT be confused with GaSt. The GSU thing doesn't bother me in the least. It's just an acronym.

(02-27-2013 01:32 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Georgia State fans are some of the most annoying fans on this board.

Well, since the Toppers are headed for coosa country, you guys shouldn't be bothered with it much longer. Jus' sayin'.