• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

West Florida joining the UAC in 2026 - just a brief stopover on the way to the FBS?

ElrodGrizzly said:
I am asking WHY a rule makes sense. Saying "because that is the rule" is really not very enlightening.

If their school isn't eligible, why would they get to play in the regular season where they are affecting the playoff chances of teams they play? It makes zero sense to me to allow them in to the FCS while simultaneously saying "you aren't eligible to play in the FCS, but we will let you play in the regular season, lol." I don't see any logic.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with all of this, but here are some justifications I found Googling for a bit:

The rule is in place so that schools won't make knee jerk decisions. This prevents a school being in D2 and getting a good coach who lands some stars from being able to transition to D1 for when those players are seniors.

The idea is to bring stability and ensure schools are committed to being at a level.

They don't want a lot of teams moving up and down divisions.

So schools are free to move up, but they have to be committed enough to go through the four year probation period.

I think the rule makes a lot of sense. Especially since schools could use it as a way to get around the old transfer rule where players had to sit out a year. If you transfer down you don't have to sit-out. So a D2 school could recruit D1 transfers and tell them that they can play right away at D2 and then the following year (their junior and senior) they will move up to be D1.
Click to expand...
(This was from 2020 before the transfer rules were changed)
It's to stop teams from bouncing back and forth between divisions when they think they have a particularly good team.
Click to expand...
It also requires teams to conform to the eligibility standards of athletes which are greater than Division II, and to make the investment into playing at D1 before they are rewarded with a championship opportunity.

If you move to D1 you have to see benefit in the move outside of the NCAA championship. Which, honestly, makes sense since so few teams make the championship.
Click to expand...
 
uofmman1122 said:
Not sure I agree with all of this, but here are some justifications I found Googling for a bit:


(This was from 2020 before the transfer rules were changed)
Click to expand...
Thank you on that. I can understand some of that logic, though I definitely disagree with the logic in there. Teams gaming the system to jump up and down between divisions would be a pretty extreme example to create an entire system to avoid.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
Thank you on that. I can understand some of that logic, though I definitely disagree with the logic in there. Teams gaming the system to jump up and down between divisions would be a pretty extreme example to create an entire system to avoid.
Click to expand...
Right.

It doesn't really square with me that the rule is based on both a process that is a massive institutional change that requires years of planning, logistics, and compliance but is also trivial enough that a school could move up and down very quickly.
 
uofmman1122 said:
Right.

It doesn't really square with me that the rule is based on both a process that is a massive institutional change that requires years of planning, logistics, and compliance but is also trivial enough that a school could move up and down very quickly.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and what end would the back and forth serve? Even in a world where a D2 team convinced a bunch of studs to drop down for a year and then they would move to the FCS and compete, then there would be no incentive to keep hopping back down. The goal of entering the FCS with a strong team would have been achieved.

Thanks for the info and explanation, though.
 
uofmman1122 said:
Not sure I agree with all of this, but here are some justifications I found Googling for a bit:


(This was from 2020 before the transfer rules were changed)
Click to expand...
Yeah, that looks like what HHB googled, too. I don't see "division hopping" as a real problem. Kind of like making a rule to prevent intentional crabwalking in the secondary. Nobody would do that. Especially in light of the nebulous "eligibility requirements" that apparently go far beyond academics. Speaking of those requirements, how about just requiring DI compliance before playing in DI contests that affect DI playoffs? That makes sense to me.

Then, postseason bans for teams that moved up would be even more of a solution in search of a problem than it already is.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
Yeah, that looks like what HHB googled, too. I don't see "division hopping" as a real problem. Kind of like making a rule to prevent intentional crabwalking in the secondary. Nobody would do that. Especially in light of the nebulous "eligibility requirements" that apparently go far beyond academics. Speaking of those requirements, how about just requiring DI compliance before playing in DI contests that affect DI playoffs? That makes sense to me.

Then, postseason bans for teams that moved up would be even more of a solution in search of a problem than it already is.
Click to expand...
Lets say that it takes 3 to 4 years to meet full compliance. How do you handle the final years at D2 while getting ready to transition to D1? You run into the same issue of schools not in compliance with the rules of the division. Do you just not compete in any athletics? Do you compete knowing that you can't make the post season?

I mean, FCS schools that announce they are transitioning to FBS become ineligible at the FCS level from the moment they announce.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
Lets say that it takes 3 to 4 years to meet full compliance. How do you handle the final years at D2 while getting ready to transition to D1? You run into the same issue of schools not in compliance with the rules of the division. Do you just not compete in any athletics? Do you compete knowing that you can't make the post season?

I mean, FCS schools that announce they are transitioning to FBS become ineligible at the FCS level from the moment they announce.
Click to expand...
Let them play where it makes the most sense. What specific DI requirements would make a program ineligible to compete in DII? Ability to offer more scholarships, for instance, doesn't necessitate doing so. (see, e.g., USD)
 
CDAGRIZ said:
Let them play where it makes the most sense. What specific DI requirements would make a program ineligible to compete in DII? Ability to offer more scholarships, for instance, doesn't necessitate doing so. (see, e.g., USD)
Click to expand...
The list of compliance items encompasses a wide arrange of items. From GPA to necessary core classes, to how many credits must be completed within certain timeframes, to numerous items within the athletic department, to numerous items within the institution. You want to dwell on a handful of things, but there are literally so many items throughout the entire institution that you would have to be a NCAA compliance officer, or trained in NCAA compliance. Is the system overcomplicated, yeah, probably so, but the answer isn't as simple as you suggest.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
The list of compliance items encompasses a wide arrange of items. From GPA to necessary core classes, to how many credits must be completed within certain timeframes, to numerous items within the athletic department, to numerous items within the institution. You want to dwell on a handful of things, but there are literally so many items throughout the entire institution that you would have to be a NCAA compliance officer, or trained in NCAA compliance. Is the system overcomplicated, yeah, probably so, but the answer isn't as simple as you suggest.
Click to expand...
Hence the, "for instance" in my post. I'm wondering what thing or things that make a school DI compliant would make them DII non-compliant. Gemini says DI standards are more stringent than DII, so a DI program would generally exceed DII standards and thus be "more than" DII eligible (provided that they follow DII scholarship limits).

So, there you go. Let them play in the DII playoffs until they're ready to be DI eligible, then let them play in the DI playoffs. To me, that makes more sense than letting them play DI games when they aren't DI eligible.

Here's the quote:

"Yes, a school that meets the more stringent DI standards while following DII scholarship guidelines would be fully eligible for DII membership. In the NCAA, the divisions function as 'floors' and 'ceilings.' DI requirements are almost universally higher than DII requirements, so meeting DI standards naturally satisfies DII criteria.

[explanation of multiple differing requirements]

In summary: A DII school can be 'DI-caliber' in its facilities, number of sports, and athlete GPA, provided it strictly caps its athletic aid at the DII equivalency levels."
 
Last edited:
CDAGRIZ said:
Hence the, "for instance" in my post. I'm wondering what thing or things that make a school DI compliant would make them DII non-compliant. Gemini says DI standards are more stringent than DII, so a DI program would generally exceed DII standards and thus be "more than" DII eligible (provided that they follow DII scholarship limits).

So, there you go. Let them play in the DII playoffs until they're ready to be DI eligible, then let them play in the DI playoffs. To me, that makes more sense than letting them play DI games when they aren't DI eligible.
Click to expand...
Should we not let D1 teams schedule D2 teams then?
 
Kind of amazed that people are so stuck on a situation that mostly only impacts the school that decides to transition when they know full well before they decide to of the path that is required. Do I think it might be excessive, probably, but I also think there should be barriers.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
Kind of amazed that people are so stuck on a situation that mostly only impacts the school that decides to transition when they know full well before they decide to of the path that is required. Do I think it might be excessive, probably, but I also think there should be barriers.
Click to expand...
There are barriers. A DII school has to become DI eligible. You've noted that the list of requirements is quite extensive in multiple posts.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
Is a DII team on a DI teams schedule competing in a DI season? I don't think they are. Different scenario.
Click to expand...
No, but one of the arguments was a team missing out because they might lose to a transitioning team. Seems like a comparable argument to that viewpoint. I still don't see an issue with making a school meet the requirements prior to being eligible for the post season. If you want to argue that the requirements may be excessive, than I would probably agree. But how arbitrary do you want the eligibility requirements to be?
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
Yet here we are complaining about barriers.
Click to expand...
No. We're seeking the logical reason behind a playoff ban. So far, we have, "the teams know the rule going in, division hopping, and meeting more stringent requirements." Knowing a rule doesn't justify/provide a valid reason for that rule.

If there is a law that says everyone has to break dance crossing the street, and the reason provided is that we don't want to allow lizards to become accountants, it doesn't justify the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top