Should the "Transition Rule" for schools moving up from D-II/D-III go away?

[bonarae]

Looks interesting, but it's an opinion piece...

https://herosports.com/fcs-transition-rule-change-ncaa-zmzm/

[Professor Chaos]

Nothing more than a clickbait article IMO. The author is playing off the wildly popular "NCAA is the big bad boogeyman" sentiment that brought us unrestricted (first time) undergrad transfers and NIL. The problem with using that argument in this scenario is the NCAA isn't some foreign overlords dictating these rules on their peasant member schools. Call it "blatant incompetence of the NCAA to promote growth within college athletics" if you want but the rule exists because the NCAA's member schools want schools to pay a price when they reclassify. Whether that's to ensure those reclassifying schools are committed and aren't going to hop back and forth or whether it's just because that's what the rest of them had to do when they reclassified (or a combination of both) it's what the majority of the member schools want because it would be easy to change if they didn't.

[ElCid]

Nothing more than a clickbait article IMO. The author is playing off the wildly popular "NCAA is the big bad boogeyman" sentiment that brought us unrestricted (first time) undergrad transfers and NIL. The problem with using that argument in this scenario is the NCAA isn't some foreign overlords dictating these rules on their peasant member schools. Call it "blatant incompetence of the NCAA to promote growth within college athletics" if you want but the rule exists because the NCAA's member schools want schools to pay a price when they reclassify. Whether that's to ensure those reclassifying schools are committed and aren't going to hop back and forth or whether it's just because that's what the rest of them had to do when they reclassified (or a combination of both) it's what the majority of the member schools want because it would be easy to change if they didn't.

This is true about vetting schools. At least in design and theory.

But you have to wonder how NCAA rules and regulations, like the process on how to change them or interpret them, are run by the hired bureaucracy and lawyers and not the members. Or at least not the important members. If schools want to address them, what hoops are they made to go through? I honestly don't know the actual environment of the NCAA inner workings. But I suspect, just as in any big organization, it's not the decentralized member schools and conferences, as constituent parts, that have much real power. It's the central organization that has power by controlling the mechanisms. As an example is like whether to include an issue on the agendas or keeping it in committee until its support peters out. Or quickly pushing through pet issues of little concern or importance just to get them visibility. Just an observation from seeing this phenomenon too often, and a thought.

[Go...gate]

I'd like to see it.

[DFW HOYA]

I'd like to see it.

Disagree. Schools that are not committed to D-I sport sponsorship and/or spending standards are not good long term members. If the entire Empire 8 Conference moved en masse to Division I, how competitive would they be?

[The Cats]

Should the "Transition Rule" for schools moving up from D-II/D-III go away? - Yes

[lionsrking2]

No, the transition period should not go away. It exists for a reason.

[JacksFan40]

I know they want to prevent teams jumping between divisions, so I'd keep a transition rule for if a team drops down, but not one for moving up. I don't see why St. Thomas shouldn't get to go to the FCS playoffs after winning the PFL, and instead Davidson gets to go instead. Similarly I don't see why 8-3 JMU can't play in a bowl game but 5-7 Rice can.

[JacksFan40]

Disagree. Schools that are not committed to D-I sport sponsorship and/or spending standards are not good long term members. If the entire Empire 8 Conference moved en masse to Division I, how competitive would they be?

We haven't seen conferences move up as a collective in decades so that's an entirely different topic. But I don't see why Merrimack can win the NEC regular season and tournament in basketball yet not be allowed into the tournament simply because they moved up from D2 a few years ago. Same case with St. Thomas winning the PFL yet not being allowed in the playoffs.

[ElCid]

I know they want to prevent teams jumping between divisions, so I'd keep a transition rule for if a team drops down, but not one for moving up. I don't see why St. Thomas shouldn't get to go to the FCS playoffs after winning the PFL, and instead Davidson gets to go instead. Similarly I don't see why 8-3 JMU can't play in a bowl game but 5-7 Rice can.

Exactly. The restriction on post season don't seem to make sense. At least on the surface. Are their differing standards for lower div athletes that make it unfair? Different procedures that affect play. There may be a legit reason to restrict schools moving up from post season play. If so maybe someone can enlighten everyone. Sounds like it was a blanket rule simply applied in universal manner that doesn't have a logical purpose. But I'd be open to someone explaining.

[atthewbon]

I think the reasoning for the rule is to make sure teams are committed before moving up a division. I can see the argument because I think there are to many schools moving up to D1 and there are to many D1 schools in general that aren't as committed as I think should be required for D1. But a postseason ban seems like an odd way of doing this and sucks for the athletes. Maybe making the ban shorter is a better option but it has never made much sense to me.

[Professor Chaos]

This is true about vetting schools. At least in design and theory.

But you have to wonder how NCAA rules and regulations, like the process on how to change them or interpret them, are run by the hired bureaucracy and lawyers and not the members. Or at least not the important members. If schools want to address them, what hoops are they made to go through? I honestly don't know the actual environment of the NCAA inner workings. But I suspect, just as in any big organization, it's not the decentralized member schools and conferences, as constituent parts, that have much real power. It's the central organization that has power by controlling the mechanisms. As an example is like whether to include an issue on the agendas or keeping it in committee until its support peters out. Or quickly pushing through pet issues of little concern or importance just to get them visibility. Just an observation from seeing this phenomenon too often, and a thought.
I don't know the specifics either of changing this rule either but I'm pretty sure it would involve the NCAA Division 1 Council (https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/1/13/division-i-council.aspx) and that is just a committee of representatives from the NCAA D1 member schools and conferences.


I know they want to prevent teams jumping between divisions, so I'd keep a transition rule for if a team drops down, but not one for moving up. I don't see why St. Thomas shouldn't get to go to the FCS playoffs after winning the PFL, and instead Davidson gets to go instead. Similarly I don't see why 8-3 JMU can't play in a bowl game but 5-7 Rice can.
So what about if a schools drops from D1 to D2 for a year or two and then moves back to D1? Should they be immediately postseason eligible once they're back? I agree that, much like the previous undergrad transfer rules, the rule was put in place to dissuade move-ups. It's a "pay your dues" mentality. I can see the argument for or against lifting the postseason ban for transitioning schools I just think if it was the no-brainer that the article in the OP made it out to be it would've been done yesterday or last year or ten years ago.


I think the reasoning for the rule is to make sure teams are committed before moving up a division. I can see the argument because I think there are to many schools moving up to D1 and there are to many D1 schools in general that aren't as committed as I think should be required for D1. But a postseason ban seems like an odd way of doing this and sucks for the athletes. Maybe making the ban shorter is a better option but it has never made much sense to me.
I don't know if there's any other way other than postseason ineligibility for the NCAA as a whole to "punish" transitioning schools.

[kdinva]

I know they want to prevent teams jumping between divisions, so I'd keep a transition rule for if a team drops down, but not one for moving up. I don't see why St. Thomas shouldn't get to go to the FCS playoffs after winning the PFL, and instead Davidson gets to go instead. Similarly I don't see why 8-3 JMU can't play in a bowl game but 5-7 Rice can.

This......like last March Bellarmine's men's hoops team won the ASun, stayed home, and last month, same with Merrimack (but FDU fooled 'em all!!!).

[Baron Sardonicus]

I would limit the transition period to FBS football. Anything further would simply be a device to restrict competition.

[uni88]

Would you see schools moving to D1 hoping to get a piece of the men's basketball tourney pie?

[Baron Sardonicus]

When St. Thomas got its waiver, there was supposedly a proposal to allow any D-III school to move directly into D-I. What happened to that legislation?

[Baron Sardonicus]

Would you see schools moving to D1 hoping to get a piece of the men's basketball tourney pie?

Already seen that for the past 35 years. Moveups must still have a conference invitation. If newbies are welcomed into a conference - and contribute to a conference - they should get some of the conference TV loot.

...depending on conference allocation rules, of course.

[Baron Sardonicus]

If the entire Empire 8 Conference moved en masse to Division I, how competitive would they be?

Not for you to judge in advance.

I say bring them on. If they meet the D-I scholarship guidelines, there's no reason they can't get up to speed quickly with a zillion athletes in the portal.


P.S. A different NCAA rule, however, might prohibit 8 schools from moving up without an invitation from an existing D-I conference. xconfusedx

[Bisonoline]

We haven't seen conferences move up as a collective in decades so that's an entirely different topic. But I don't see why Merrimack can win the NEC regular season and tournament in basketball yet not be allowed into the tournament simply because they moved up from D2 a few years ago. Same case with St. Thomas winning the PFL yet not being allowed in the playoffs.

Because its an NCAA rule you cant.

[lucchesicourt]

This rule penalizes a school right off the bat. My school had to wait 4 years , and I heard that academics were more stringent than D2. Yet, UC Davis is by far ,.more academically qualified than at least 75% of the D1 existing schools at the time. They should penalize only the teams that.move up and Down. Not quality schools.

[lucchesicourt]

After 4 years of trying to get good athletes for your school due to this waiting period, you are essentially making that team weaker than when they were D2. We beat Stanford as a D2 team.

[Go...gate]

Disagree. Schools that are not committed to D-I sport sponsorship and/or spending standards are not good long term members. If the entire Empire 8 Conference moved en masse to Division I, how competitive would they be?

Perhaps more competitive than you believe.