Significant news if it gets passed by whatever governing bodies need to do work on this subject to approve.

The student-athletes advisory council is pushing for automatic bids to be granted starting in year #3 of the NCAA transition process. With the WAC having multiple schools at varying steps of the process and potentially more in standby, could be something to follow.

Anyone have more intel?

I vote yes to the three year AQ.

"RISE of the ASUN" is so cringe.

The only reason that postseason ineligibility for reclassifying members is a thing is that they don't want a high volume of schools moving up. It started in the mid-90s for new NCAA members, after NAIA schools were joining by the dozens. For reclassifying members, I'm not quite sure when it started, but I think it was a little later.

(01-28-2021 10:44 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  The only reason that postseason ineligibility for reclassifying members is a thing is that they don't want a high volume of schools moving up. It started in the mid-90s for new NCAA members, after NAIA schools were joining by the dozens. For reclassifying members, I'm not quite sure when it started, but I think it was a little later.

More than this, the four year transition process is to ensure that all scholarship athletes meet NCAA D1 standards rather than the more flexible and less stringent standards for D2 or NAIA. Four years allows time for scholarship freshmen accepted under the old standards have time to graduate.

(01-28-2021 02:09 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  I vote yes to the three year AQ.

The four year requirement is a problem for recruiting. There’s no playoff option as a reward for a good season.

(01-29-2021 06:27 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 10:44 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  The only reason that postseason ineligibility for reclassifying members is a thing is that they don't want a high volume of schools moving up. It started in the mid-90s for new NCAA members, after NAIA schools were joining by the dozens. For reclassifying members, I'm not quite sure when it started, but I think it was a little later.

More than this, the four year transition process is to ensure that all scholarship athletes meet NCAA D1 standards rather than the more flexible and less stringent standards for D2 or NAIA. Four years allows time for scholarship freshmen accepted under the old standards have time to graduate.

Sounds reasonable, but what about the comparison to Prop 48 athletes. With one year of success meeting D1 standards, they are eligible, so why would there be a different requirement for those moving up?

It doesn't seem logical.

(01-29-2021 03:05 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 06:27 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 10:44 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  The only reason that postseason ineligibility for reclassifying members is a thing is that they don't want a high volume of schools moving up. It started in the mid-90s for new NCAA members, after NAIA schools were joining by the dozens. For reclassifying members, I'm not quite sure when it started, but I think it was a little later.

More than this, the four year transition process is to ensure that all scholarship athletes meet NCAA D1 standards rather than the more flexible and less stringent standards for D2 or NAIA. Four years allows time for scholarship freshmen accepted under the old standards have time to graduate.

Sounds reasonable, but what about the comparison to Prop 48 athletes. With one year of success meeting D1 standards, they are eligible, so why would there be a different requirement for those moving up?

It doesn't seem logical.

Logic and NCAA regulations don’t belong in the same sentence.

Everyone knows the process going in. It’s not like it’s a big surprise.

(01-30-2021 07:08 AM)Todor Wrote:  Everyone knows the process going in. It’s not like it’s a big surprise.

Sure, and prior to the loosening transfer regulations for student athletes everyone knew the rules before signing Letters of Intent. The point is the NCAA has the authority to affect changes when current regulations aren’t in the best interests of stakeholders.

(01-29-2021 06:27 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 10:44 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  The only reason that postseason ineligibility for reclassifying members is a thing is that they don't want a high volume of schools moving up. It started in the mid-90s for new NCAA members, after NAIA schools were joining by the dozens. For reclassifying members, I'm not quite sure when it started, but I think it was a little later.

More than this, the four year transition process is to ensure that all scholarship athletes meet NCAA D1 standards rather than the more flexible and less stringent standards for D2 or NAIA. Four years allows time for scholarship freshmen accepted under the old standards have time to graduate.

Why not just require freshmen accepted under the old standards to meet new requirement or be ineligible until they meet the D1 academic requirements?

(01-30-2021 10:40 AM)Vulpes88 Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 06:27 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 10:44 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  The only reason that postseason ineligibility for reclassifying members is a thing is that they don't want a high volume of schools moving up. It started in the mid-90s for new NCAA members, after NAIA schools were joining by the dozens. For reclassifying members, I'm not quite sure when it started, but I think it was a little later.

More than this, the four year transition process is to ensure that all scholarship athletes meet NCAA D1 standards rather than the more flexible and less stringent standards for D2 or NAIA. Four years allows time for scholarship freshmen accepted under the old standards have time to graduate.

Why not just require freshmen accepted under the old standards to meet new requirement or be ineligible until they meet the D1 academic requirements?

I think it was an attempt not to punish student athletes for actions taken by their school? Otherwise, I don’t know.

I do know it makes it hard for a school to recruit in equal terms while in transition since recruits are very aware there are no championships or playoffs in their future. I’m all for reducing the time frame to three years.

(01-30-2021 11:31 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 10:40 AM)Vulpes88 Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 06:27 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 10:44 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  The only reason that postseason ineligibility for reclassifying members is a thing is that they don't want a high volume of schools moving up. It started in the mid-90s for new NCAA members, after NAIA schools were joining by the dozens. For reclassifying members, I'm not quite sure when it started, but I think it was a little later.

More than this, the four year transition process is to ensure that all scholarship athletes meet NCAA D1 standards rather than the more flexible and less stringent standards for D2 or NAIA. Four years allows time for scholarship freshmen accepted under the old standards have time to graduate.

Why not just require freshmen accepted under the old standards to meet new requirement or be ineligible until they meet the D1 academic requirements?

I think it was an attempt not to punish student athletes for actions taken by their school? Otherwise, I don’t know.

I do know it makes it hard for a school to recruit in equal terms while in transition since recruits are very aware there are no championships or playoffs in their future. I’m all for reducing the time frame to three years.

It's a three year transition period for everyone moving to D2 except a D1-to-D2 move. A D1 moving to D2 is only a two year transition.

(01-30-2021 11:31 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 10:40 AM)Vulpes88 Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 06:27 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 10:44 PM)Inkblot Wrote:  The only reason that postseason ineligibility for reclassifying members is a thing is that they don't want a high volume of schools moving up. It started in the mid-90s for new NCAA members, after NAIA schools were joining by the dozens. For reclassifying members, I'm not quite sure when it started, but I think it was a little later.

More than this, the four year transition process is to ensure that all scholarship athletes meet NCAA D1 standards rather than the more flexible and less stringent standards for D2 or NAIA. Four years allows time for scholarship freshmen accepted under the old standards have time to graduate.

Why not just require freshmen accepted under the old standards to meet new requirement or be ineligible until they meet the D1 academic requirements?

I think it was an attempt not to punish student athletes for actions taken by their school? Otherwise, I don’t know.

I do know it makes it hard for a school to recruit in equal terms while in transition since recruits are very aware there are no championships or playoffs in their future. I’m all for reducing the time frame to three years.

Seems like if it were to not punish student athletes They could have done something better.

Definitely agree on recruiting being hindered.