|
|
Post by FIUFanatic on Aug 5, 2004 20:54:19 GMT -5
Today, the Division I NCAA Board of Directors had a meeting to discuss several matters. The most widely publicized matter was to put restrictions on "perks" and what a University can provide to a recruit in a recruiting visit. Another issue, more important to FIU, was supposed to be about the I-A requirements to have a Football program at that level. Only at the end of the NCAA.org release do they mention something along those lines, and it seems to me to be quite vague about the "ammendments" to the previous rule of 15,000 average attendance, 76.5 scholarships awarded per Football team per year, and the other requirements. Here's the paragraph devoted to this all-important issue to FIU Football: " In other action, the Board of Directors approved legislation related to Division I membership requirements. Specifically, the Board approved an amendment regarding penalties for institutions that do not meet Division I-A membership requirements in a given year.
Under this measure, institutions would first be subject to a "notice of failure." Any further failure to meet membership requirements within 10 years will result in an institution being placed in restricted membership.
What does that mean? Here's the link for the full release: www.ncaa.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by ARod on Aug 5, 2004 21:35:46 GMT -5
Here's the paragraph devoted to this all-important issue to FIU Football: " In other action, the Board of Directors approved legislation related to Division I membership requirements. Specifically, the Board approved an amendment regarding penalties for institutions that do not meet Division I-A membership requirements in a given year.
Under this measure, institutions would first be subject to a "notice of failure." Any further failure to meet membership requirements within 10 years will result in an institution being placed in restricted membership.
What does that mean? Here's the link for the full release: www.ncaa.org/Here is some clarification based on what I found at ESPN.com: The board also approved a measure that penalizes schools for failing to meet Division I-A football requirements.
The first time a school dropped below the standard, it would receive a notification letter. A second violation during the next 10 years would make that school ineligible for postseason bowl play for at least two years.Hope this helps ;D |
|
|
|
Post by FIUFanatic on Aug 5, 2004 21:55:29 GMT -5
Here is some clarification based on what I found at ESPN.com: The board also approved a measure that penalizes schools for failing to meet Division I-A football requirements.
The first time a school dropped below the standard, it would receive a notification letter. A second violation during the next 10 years would make that school ineligible for postseason bowl play for at least two years.Hope this helps ;D Ok... A bit more of information, but still cloudy. Is the attendance requirement still 15,000? No word of being "demoted" from I-A would imply a "softer" stance. However, the 10-year period for having two "sub-standard" years would imply a "harsher" penalty, in my opinion. The previous "requirement" (from what I remember)stated that if you failed to meet the 15,000, it would get you a warning; a second consecutive fail wouldput you in probation until the following season where you had to reach the 15k or be "demoted" to I-AA. However, if you met the standard you would go back to ground zero.....it was in a three-consecutive year period. Now, it seems, the window is broadened to 10 years, with just two sub-standard years!! Oh well. I guess we would have to wait a little bit for comments from people in the know..... |
|
|
|
Post by FIUFanatic on Aug 6, 2004 10:37:39 GMT -5
More information is coming by bits and pieces. It seems, according to the article in today's Sun Sentinel, that the attendance rule is still under review, and no definite "punishment" is set in stone. I guess, our administrators better look at this as a definite rule, and continue planning accordingly. Here's the link to the Sun Sentinel article, and a partial reproduction of the article, written by Ted Hutton, regarding the attendance requirement: www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-ncaa06aug06,0,4948432.story?coll=sfla-sports-front Attendance matters The Board moved more carefully on the rules for membership in I-A football, letting stand rules that went into effect Aug. 1 that require schools to offer at least 200 scholarships in its overall athletic program, schedule at least four home games against I-A opponents and average at least 15,000 in actual attendance in order to become or remain at that level. The Board did leave plenty of wiggle room by attaching no real penalty for the first violation and said the rules also were under review and could be changed at a later date. "We will spend this next year examining those standards, and make sure they don't create legal liabilities," Hemenway said. Failure to meet any of the standards would result in a school receiving a notice of non-compliance. A second failure would put the school on restricted status and make it ineligible for a post-season bowl game. A third failure would result in a reclassification to a lower division. Most of the discussion at the meeting was about the attendance issue, especially about how weather could impact the average. "In course of the year-long review, that is one of the things that will be looked at," Hemenway said. The rules are of particular interest to Florida Atlantic and Florida International. Both are starting the two-year transition from I-AA to I-A this season. Attendance is the toughest standard for both schools to meet. FAU averaged 6,909 last year and FIU 7,073. "Our plan hasn't changed," FAU Athletic Director Craig Angelos said. "We need to improve attendance to promote the program, meet the NCAA standards and drive revenue." |
|
|
|
Post by ARod on Aug 6, 2004 10:47:22 GMT -5
Hey FIUFanatic,
Found this article in a Tennessee newspaper from Murfreesboro (location of Middle Tennessee Univ.) that is the location for one of our fellow Sun Belt Conference teams. It gets a little more in detail:
This is the reason that we (FIU Athletic Dept.) need to market the team more. There are plenty of free things that you can do that don't cost money. Look at the articles I posted earlier from other schools and how they are getting involved in the community. If not, we'll be back playing in Div. I-AA before long.
|
|
|
|
Post by FIUFanatic on Aug 6, 2004 11:05:45 GMT -5
I just found yet another article regarding this issue. It is from the DNJ paper, written by Adam Sparks. This article paints a "better" picture in terms of the possible future effects of this rule. Basically, it states the rule is sort of "in the air". Here's the reproduction of the article I found in one of the SBC boards:
NCAA attendance requirement no longer 'do-or-die'
By Adam Sparks / DNJ Staff Writer
The only numbers that will define MTSU's place in Division I-A football this season will be on the scoreboard.
That realization comes from the results of Thursday's NCAA Board of Directors meeting in Indianapolis, an event that saw the Division I-A football attendance requirements amended by a unanimous vote in favor of schools battling to reach the average home attendance mark of 15,000.
"This is good news for MTSU," said MTSU President Sidney McPhee, who pushed for the amendment as a member of the NCAA Board of Directors.
"We amended the original recommendation and then approved it. And what it means is that it's not going to be one year and you're out (of Division I-A). This gives universities like Middle Tennessee time to adjust and grow — a little bit of time, but still time."
The original recommendation of the guideline called for all I-A members to draw a home average of 15,000 fans over a season, or else face immediate expulsion from the I-A level.
The amended version instead makes a first offense — failing to reach the 15,000 mark — a warning. If a member school's average is below the 15,000 mark for the first year, a second offense within the next nine years would bring ejection from I-A.
However, that is assuming a second year under the new rule ever arrives.
"More significantly is that we have approved a full year to review the rule," McPhee said. "That's the bigger news. We're going to take some time to study the membership criteria, so that we can put it to a legal test and examine other issues involved in it because there are a lot of questions to be answered.
"That also provides some time so that there won't be any concerns this year as far as a do-or-die situation. It's not going be a this-way-or-the-highway thing like when it was proposed three years ago. The Board has the final say now, and we exercised that authority."
The board of directors may study the attendance policy itself for next year's final vote or a subcommittee could be appointed.
McPhee, who seconded the motion for the one-year overview, said the policy could face some integrity issues.
"We'll look over every issue with the policy, and then we can either totally eliminate it or affirm it."
Either way, MTSU — which averaged an attendance of 11,021 last year — knows that its Division I-A status will not be in jeopardy when this season's home opener kicks off against Florida Atlantic Sept. 18.
"It's kind of a Catch-22 for me because I don't want us to relax and take a deep breath. In that way, I have mixed feelings," McPhee said. "We have to keep our focus on filling that stadium. This just gives us a little more time and some temporary relief.
"It was explained to us (during the NCAA meeting) that it's a soft landing rather than a crash. That's a good way to describe it."
Another notable issue passed in Thursday's meeting was an eight-part policy that places university presidents in a heightened position of authority and accountability in terms of their athletic department's recruiting practices.
The policy calls for university presidents to approve the recruiting guidelines for their own school's athletic department — therefore, making those presidents accountable for potential violations.
"With power comes accountability, and that puts presidents in the middle of everything," McPhee said. "But if you hire good coaches and a good athletic director like we have at Middle Tennessee, you don't have to overstep your bounds.
"This just demands that presidents become more involved and informed in their own institution's athletics. It doesn't mean that you run the operations, but you'd better know what's going on."
|
|
BLUE & GOLD