(02-27-2013 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(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

Actually has nothing to do with classification.

The NCAA has a certification process that started 15 or 20 years ago. You have to examine your program to make sure you are complying with Title IX, have adequate compliance procedures, have good practices in monitoring student-athlete academic progress, provide reasonable resources to your sports, have good practices for monitoring coach, player, and administrative activities, have solid university oversight of athletics and such.

It is a requirement for all Division I institutions to be certified or if denied certification to adopt a remedial plan in order to be certified.

This is required whether you play football or not or are FBS or FCS. Has nothing at all to do with a moratorium on changing membership. It is simply telling schools up for certification to not start the process until they adopt a new process.

(02-27-2013 01:36 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(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'.

I'm still not convinced.

(02-27-2013 01:36 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(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'.

Haha...

(02-27-2013 10:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:10 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Why don't we just start them so they don't have to go to the bother.
Going to enjoy the crap out of it when the Sun Belt is considered much better than CUSA.

CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

Don't see how football will be better either. Don't think any program in this conference matches up with Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech etc talking overall body of work. MT has been very good and consistent in football for the conference. FIU and FAU both had runs in the last 5-6 years. It isn't like Arkansas State has been a world beater for a ton of years in football. South Alabama just started and ULM just made their first bowl game ever (and got rocked.). ULL, Troy, Ark St are football programs I hope continue to do well but I don't see how football overall will be better.

(02-27-2013 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(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

Actually has nothing to do with classification.

The NCAA has a certification process that started 15 or 20 years ago. You have to examine your program to make sure you are complying with Title IX, have adequate compliance procedures, have good practices in monitoring student-athlete academic progress, provide reasonable resources to your sports, have good practices for monitoring coach, player, and administrative activities, have solid university oversight of athletics and such.

It is a requirement for all Division I institutions to be certified or if denied certification to adopt a remedial plan in order to be certified.

This is required whether you play football or not or are FBS or FCS. Has nothing at all to do with a moratorium on changing membership. It is simply telling schools up for certification to not start the process until they adopt a new process.

Gotch, thanks for the translation. I admittadly just skimmed it.

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:10 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Why don't we just start them so they don't have to go to the bother.
Going to enjoy the crap out of it when the Sun Belt is considered much better than CUSA.

CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

Don't see how football will be better either. Don't think any program in this conference matches up with Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech etc talking overall body of work. MT has been very good and consistent in football for the conference. FIU and FAU both had runs in the last 5-6 years. It isn't like Arkansas State has been a world beater for a ton of years in football. South Alabama just started and ULM just made their first bowl game ever (and got rocked.). ULL, Troy, Ark St are football programs I hope continue to do well but I don't see how football overall will be better.

South Alabama has not "just started" Sun Belt baseball. lol

(02-27-2013 10:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:10 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Why don't we just start them so they don't have to go to the bother.
Going to enjoy the crap out of it when the Sun Belt is considered much better than CUSA.

CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

Baseball I might give you, both conference have traditionally been very strong in baseball, often times finishing one or two spots apart in conference RPI, often times both in the top ten. Last year was a bit of an aberration, CUSA was 6th about where they usually are, but the Sun Belt was way down at 16th. CUSA is taking some good baseball from the Sun Belt in FAU/FIU/MT and potentially WKU but the Sun Belt is also adding good baseball in UTA and Texas State and potentially in App, Southern and NMSU. CUSA will always be stronger at the very top so long as Rice is around, but the Sun Belt may end up being the better top to bottom league in baseball moving forward, but I expect the two to continue being very good baseball leagues and finishing close to one another in most years.

Football...I'm not going to touch that one, I'll just say that I like CUSA moving forward just as much as you like the Sun Belt moving forward. There are a lot of moving parts in both conferences, only time will tell how it all shakes out.

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:10 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Why don't we just start them so they don't have to go to the bother.
Going to enjoy the crap out of it when the Sun Belt is considered much better than CUSA.

CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

Don't see how football will be better either. Don't think any program in this conference matches up with Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech etc talking overall body of work. MT has been very good and consistent in football for the conference. FIU and FAU both had runs in the last 5-6 years. It isn't like Arkansas State has been a world beater for a ton of years in football. South Alabama just started and ULM just made their first bowl game ever (and got rocked.). ULL, Troy, Ark St are football programs I hope continue to do well but I don't see how football overall will be better.

Texas st, USA, ULL, Georgia southern, ASU, and TROY all have solid baseball programs. App st, Georgia southern and USA will be strong football programs in the near future to go along with ASU, ULL, and TROY. I would even say Texas st will surprise some people in football also.

What's left of the Belt will basically be competing against the bottom half of what use to be in the Belt.

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:10 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Why don't we just start them so they don't have to go to the bother.
Going to enjoy the crap out of it when the Sun Belt is considered much better than CUSA.

CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

Don't see how football will be better either. Don't think any program in this conference matches up with Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech etc talking overall body of work. MT has been very good and consistent in football for the conference. FIU and FAU both had runs in the last 5-6 years. It isn't like Arkansas State has been a world beater for a ton of years in football. South Alabama just started and ULM just made their first bowl game ever (and got rocked.). ULL, Troy, Ark St are football programs I hope continue to do well but I don't see how football overall will be better.

South Alabama has the best history of any baseball program in the Sun Belt. Among programs with at least 40 years history USA is a top 20 team all-time (last I checked we were #16). We've had a few down years but we have never had a downright awful team. By the way, USA has started this year 8-0 and is ranked #30...

(02-27-2013 01:58 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:10 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Why don't we just start them so they don't have to go to the bother.
Going to enjoy the crap out of it when the Sun Belt is considered much better than CUSA.

CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

Don't see how football will be better either. Don't think any program in this conference matches up with Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech etc talking overall body of work. MT has been very good and consistent in football for the conference. FIU and FAU both had runs in the last 5-6 years. It isn't like Arkansas State has been a world beater for a ton of years in football. South Alabama just started and ULM just made their first bowl game ever (and got rocked.). ULL, Troy, Ark St are football programs I hope continue to do well but I don't see how football overall will be better.

Texas st, USA, ULL, Georgia southern, ASU, and TROY all have solid baseball programs. App st, Georgia southern and USA will be strong football programs in the near future to go along with ASU, ULL, and TROY. I would even say Texas st will surprise some people in football also.

What's left of the Belt will basically be competing against the bottom half of what use to be in the Belt.

Did you just say that FAU/FIU/MT/WKU were bottom half in baseball?

(02-27-2013 01:48 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

Don't see how footballwill be better either. Don't think any program in this conference matches up with Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech etc talking overall body of work. MT has been very good and consistent in football for the conference. FIU and FAU both had runs in the last 5-6 years. It isn't like Arkansas State has been a world beater for a ton of years in football. South Alabama just started and ULM just made their first bowl game ever (and got rocked.). ULL, Troy, Ark St are football programs I hope continue to do well but I don't see how football overall will be better.

South Alabama has not "just started" Sun Belt baseball. lol
[/quote]

Pretty sure he was indicating that USA had just started Football.

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

USA has a long history in baseball and have even made it to the top of the polls in the past. Top 25 was a regular thing up until the late 90s. I believe Calvi has us heading back in the right direction. That said, I see the two conferences fairly even as long as Rice is in CUSA.

(02-27-2013 02:04 PM)HCJag Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

USA has a long history in baseball and have even made it to the top of the polls in the past. Top 25 was a regular thing up until the late 90s. I believe Calvi has us heading back in the right direction. That said, I see the two conferences fairly even as long as Rice is in CUSA.

Wonder how many NCAA Tourneys each current SBC member has been to, in their respective histories ?

I would think USA may be at the top.

Has Arkansas State ever made a tourney ?

(02-27-2013 02:04 PM)OwlFamily Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:48 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

Don't see how footballwill be better either. Don't think any program in this conference matches up with Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech etc talking overall body of work. MT has been very good and consistent in football for the conference. FIU and FAU both had runs in the last 5-6 years. It isn't like Arkansas State has been a world beater for a ton of years in football. South Alabama just started and ULM just made their first bowl game ever (and got rocked.). ULL, Troy, Ark St are football programs I hope continue to do well but I don't see how football overall will be better.

South Alabama has not "just started" Sun Belt baseball. lol

Pretty sure he was indicating that USA had just started Football.
[/quote]

Yep. Which is why I put that in the football paragraph.....

Add App State in there for baseball. Been at least thirty something wins each season for the last seven years, and over forty last year. Sounds like we will have plenty of baseball power schools.

(02-27-2013 02:02 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:58 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:10 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Why don't we just start them so they don't have to go to the bother.
Going to enjoy the crap out of it when the Sun Belt is considered much better than CUSA.

CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

Don't see how football will be better either. Don't think any program in this conference matches up with Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech etc talking overall body of work. MT has been very good and consistent in football for the conference. FIU and FAU both had runs in the last 5-6 years. It isn't like Arkansas State has been a world beater for a ton of years in football. South Alabama just started and ULM just made their first bowl game ever (and got rocked.). ULL, Troy, Ark St are football programs I hope continue to do well but I don't see how football overall will be better.

Texas st, USA, ULL, Georgia southern, ASU, and TROY all have solid baseball programs. App st, Georgia southern and USA will be strong football programs in the near future to go along with ASU, ULL, and TROY. I would even say Texas st will surprise some people in football also.

What's left of the Belt will basically be competing against the bottom half of what use to be in the Belt.

Did you just say that FAU/FIU/MT/WKU were bottom half in baseball?

No I said UNT, FAU, FIU, MTSU, and WKU are bootom half in football. It is my belief App st and Georgia southern will be better for the conference than those five were in football.

(02-27-2013 02:13 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 02:02 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:58 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

Don't see how football will be better either. Don't think any program in this conference matches up with Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech etc talking overall body of work. MT has been very good and consistent in football for the conference. FIU and FAU both had runs in the last 5-6 years. It isn't like Arkansas State has been a world beater for a ton of years in football. South Alabama just started and ULM just made their first bowl game ever (and got rocked.). ULL, Troy, Ark St are football programs I hope continue to do well but I don't see how football overall will be better.

Texas st, USA, ULL, Georgia southern, ASU, and TROY all have solid baseball programs. App st, Georgia southern and USA will be strong football programs in the near future to go along with ASU, ULL, and TROY. I would even say Texas st will surprise some people in football also.

What's left of the Belt will basically be competing against the bottom half of what use to be in the Belt.

Did you just say that FAU/FIU/MT/WKU were bottom half in baseball?

No I said UNT, FAU, FIU, MTSU, and WKU are bootom half in football. It is my belief App st and Georgia southern will be better for the conference than those five were in football.

Then your idea of top half is Ark St/ULL/Troy? Because ULM just got to their first bowl game and got spanked. And S Alabama hasn't made a bowl game (started later than others).

I think some of you look at Sun Belt football as if it started 2-3 years ago. Don't see how MT is bottom half in football and Ark St is top half.

Also if a program like Arkansas State is "solid" in baseball then so are all the ones that left. FAU is something like 10-5-1 all time vs ASU in baseball.

(02-27-2013 10:51 AM)Complacent Cajun Wrote:  Louisiana in the east makes no sense at all. Seems like Scott Farmer wants two personal trips to Troy and Georgia every year. :irate:

You read my mind on that one!

To add to my earlier post and a couple other poster's subsequent posts, USA had been a mainstay in the polls in baseball throughout its history. USA was even ranked #1 in baseball at one time during the regular season.

(02-27-2013 02:13 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 02:02 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:58 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 01:44 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(02-27-2013 10:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  CUSA will be a better basketball conference but the belt will be better at football and baseball.

How will the Belt be better in baseball? I know ULL and Georgia Southern are very good but who else? I don't see how anyone can say the overall conference will be better in baseball than CUSA. FIU/FAU/MT were all pretty good for this conference in baseball.

Don't see how football will be better either. Don't think any program in this conference matches up with Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech etc talking overall body of work. MT has been very good and consistent in football for the conference. FIU and FAU both had runs in the last 5-6 years. It isn't like Arkansas State has been a world beater for a ton of years in football. South Alabama just started and ULM just made their first bowl game ever (and got rocked.). ULL, Troy, Ark St are football programs I hope continue to do well but I don't see how football overall will be better.

Texas st, USA, ULL, Georgia southern, ASU, and TROY all have solid baseball programs. App st, Georgia southern and USA will be strong football programs in the near future to go along with ASU, ULL, and TROY. I would even say Texas st will surprise some people in football also.

What's left of the Belt will basically be competing against the bottom half of what use to be in the Belt.

Did you just say that FAU/FIU/MT/WKU were bottom half in baseball?

No I said UNT, FAU, FIU, MTSU, and WKU are bootom half in football. It is my belief App st and Georgia southern will be better for the conference than those five were in football.

Oh...okay.