|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Mar 22, 2023 16:00:11 GMT -5
Did they change that rule? It used to be that a D3 school could pick one sport to compete in as D1 -- but following D3 scholarship rules. The idea was mainly to allow them to play a D1 schedule and have D1 practice rules. At MIT that sport used to be rowing. I had the same question. Looks like they stopped allowing new instances of it in 2011. From the Division 1 manual: 20.6.1 Multidivision Classification. A member of Division II or Division III may have a sport classified in Division I,
provided the sport was so classified during the 2010-11 academic year. Such a classification shall continue until the institution
fails to conduct the sport in Division I in any subsequent academic year.And BTW these schools operate the one D1 sport with full scholarships..... |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Mar 22, 2023 16:23:02 GMT -5
I've been asking people about this since Miami left the Big East. Stewart Mandel mentioned it last week on The Athletic's football podcast and it might be the first time I've heard it in a mainstream media outlet. If D3 Johns Hopkins can join the Big 10 for Lacrosse, and Arkansas Little Rock can wrestle in the Pac 12 and Air Force can play lacrosse in the ASUN... why can't football teams leave without the rest of their department. In nearly 20 years, here's what I got... I had a Big 10 person tell me that the volleyball and soccer players want to play the same rivals as the football team. If you go to USC, no matter what sport it is, UCLA is a big game. Ohio State Michigan, Duke-Carolina, etc. But all of those have geographical components to them that they can still play every year in every sport. Nobody is going to be upset in we lose Miami-Louisville or Rutgers-Nebraska in anything. I've heard it hypothesized that there could be a title IX component if the Michigan football team is playing a Big 10 schedule while the soccer team plays a MAC type schedule. I don't know but I feel like Title IX is going to have to be updated or clarified with coming changes to college sports. And the other argument is that it isn't fair if Ohio State volleyball is using their football warchest to compete in the Horizon League. I still think for quality of life, for travel costs, for environmental impact, etc, it should get more study than it seems like it gets. Johns Hopkins lacrosse is the only D1 sport at an otherwise D3 school - which, I believe, isn't allowed anymore. Schools that have that setup with a solitary DI program got grandfathered in and allowed to continue when all other sports are D3. So, JH lacrosse being in a different conference than its other sports is necessitated by the fact that its conference for other sports is D3. This is a different situation than schools where every sport is D1 and therefore can be in the same conference. Also different is situations where a D1 school has a few sports in a different conference because its "main" conference doesn't sponsor a particular sport. None of this is to say that splitting a schools' sports programs between multiple conferences even when they could all be in the same conference is necessarily a bad thing. Johns Hopkins lacrosse is the only D1 sport at an otherwise D3 school - which, I believe, isn't allowed anymore. Schools that have that setup with a solitary DI program got grandfathered in and allowed to continue when all other sports are D3. So, JH lacrosse being in a different conference than its other sports is necessitated by the fact that its conference for other sports is D3. This is a different situation than schools where every sport is D1 and therefore can be in the same conference. Also different is situations where a D1 school has a few sports in a different conference because its "main" conference doesn't sponsor a particular sport. None of this is to say that splitting a schools' sports programs between multiple conferences even when they could all be in the same conference is necessarily a bad thing. Sorry, the point was that you have a 6000 undergrad private school in inner city Baltimore playing in a conference with large public schools, including one in rural areas like State College, or if you have a "directional school" in Arkansas competing in the Pac 12. These are examples of schools playing in a conference with members that are wholly unlike themselves. Johns Hopkins D3 identity was not really part of my point except I guess it reinforces that they don't share much in common with the Big 10 schools. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Mar 22, 2023 16:26:51 GMT -5
I've been asking people about this since Miami left the Big East. Stewart Mandel mentioned it last week on The Athletic's football podcast and it might be the first time I've heard it in a mainstream media outlet. If D3 Johns Hopkins can join the Big 10 for Lacrosse, and Arkansas Little Rock can wrestle in the Pac 12 and Air Force can play lacrosse in the ASUN... why can't football teams leave without the rest of their department. In nearly 20 years, here's what I got... I had a Big 10 person tell me that the volleyball and soccer players want to play the same rivals as the football team. If you go to USC, no matter what sport it is, UCLA is a big game. Ohio State Michigan, Duke-Carolina, etc. But all of those have geographical components to them that they can still play every year in every sport. Nobody is going to be upset in we lose Miami-Louisville or Rutgers-Nebraska in anything. I've heard it hypothesized that there could be a title IX component if the Michigan football team is playing a Big 10 schedule while the soccer team plays a MAC type schedule. I don't know but I feel like Title IX is going to have to be updated or clarified with coming changes to college sports. And the other argument is that it isn't fair if Ohio State volleyball is using their football warchest to compete in the Horizon League. I still think for quality of life, for travel costs, for environmental impact, etc, it should get more study than it seems like it gets. As others have posted, your examples are not cases of travel or wanting to play a sport in a different conference, but oddities generally where your conference doesn't sponsor a championship for a sport or a smaller school wanting to play at a higher level. As an example, two sports at Texas will be participating in a different conference when we join the SEC. The first is our new beach volleyball team. Currently neither the SEC or Big 12 sponsors beach volleyball so that team will be in an entirely different conference. The 2nd team is rowing. Currently the Big 12 sponsors rowing, but the SEC does not. In fact a handful of SEC teams are currently members of the Big 12 in rowing. When we join the SEC, I'm assuming we will stay in the Big 12 for rowing unless the SEC adds rowing to the sports it sponsors (same for beach volleyball). If you look at the members of conferences in sports like these, many of them have multiple members that play the majority of sports in a different conference. Looking at your Arkansas-Little Rock wrestling example, the Pac 12 wrestling memberships appears to include four Pac-12 schools, Arkansas Little Rock, Cal-Poly, and CSU-Bakersfield. I think I could see Title IX problems for your example (Michigan playing soccer in the MAC). There is no practical reason to do this (significant reduction of travel, higher level of play, etc). It likely would be viewed as a downgrade in competition and perhaps perceived as a reduction in "opportunties" for the soccer team. I also wouldn't expect it to happen as there usually is an agreement between conferences and schools that schools will play in that conference in all sports that the conference sponsors. Some exceptions (typically lower level schools playing up in a particular sport), but these are typically covered by an agreement between the conference and the school. The point that they do affiliate with unlike partners. So put your big money football program (and maybe a couple women's programs for Title IX) in whatever league you want, and then let everyone else play a more geographically sensible schedule to reduce missed class times and travel costs, and maybe increase fan travel to road games. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 22, 2023 17:58:45 GMT -5
As others have posted, your examples are not cases of travel or wanting to play a sport in a different conference, but oddities generally where your conference doesn't sponsor a championship for a sport or a smaller school wanting to play at a higher level. As an example, two sports at Texas will be participating in a different conference when we join the SEC. The first is our new beach volleyball team. Currently neither the SEC or Big 12 sponsors beach volleyball so that team will be in an entirely different conference. The 2nd team is rowing. Currently the Big 12 sponsors rowing, but the SEC does not. In fact a handful of SEC teams are currently members of the Big 12 in rowing. When we join the SEC, I'm assuming we will stay in the Big 12 for rowing unless the SEC adds rowing to the sports it sponsors (same for beach volleyball). If you look at the members of conferences in sports like these, many of them have multiple members that play the majority of sports in a different conference. Looking at your Arkansas-Little Rock wrestling example, the Pac 12 wrestling memberships appears to include four Pac-12 schools, Arkansas Little Rock, Cal-Poly, and CSU-Bakersfield. I think I could see Title IX problems for your example (Michigan playing soccer in the MAC). There is no practical reason to do this (significant reduction of travel, higher level of play, etc). It likely would be viewed as a downgrade in competition and perhaps perceived as a reduction in "opportunties" for the soccer team. I also wouldn't expect it to happen as there usually is an agreement between conferences and schools that schools will play in that conference in all sports that the conference sponsors. Some exceptions (typically lower level schools playing up in a particular sport), but these are typically covered by an agreement between the conference and the school. The point that they do affiliate with unlike partners. So put your big money football program (and maybe a couple women's programs for Title IX) in whatever league you want, and then let everyone else play a more geographically sensible schedule to reduce missed class times and travel costs, and maybe increase fan travel to road games. Schools can’t simply “put your teams” in a conference. Why would the Horizon League teams want to play against Ohio State, and all of their football money, in Olympic sports? |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Mar 22, 2023 18:08:12 GMT -5
As others have posted, your examples are not cases of travel or wanting to play a sport in a different conference, but oddities generally where your conference doesn't sponsor a championship for a sport or a smaller school wanting to play at a higher level. As an example, two sports at Texas will be participating in a different conference when we join the SEC. The first is our new beach volleyball team. Currently neither the SEC or Big 12 sponsors beach volleyball so that team will be in an entirely different conference. The 2nd team is rowing. Currently the Big 12 sponsors rowing, but the SEC does not. In fact a handful of SEC teams are currently members of the Big 12 in rowing. When we join the SEC, I'm assuming we will stay in the Big 12 for rowing unless the SEC adds rowing to the sports it sponsors (same for beach volleyball). If you look at the members of conferences in sports like these, many of them have multiple members that play the majority of sports in a different conference. Looking at your Arkansas-Little Rock wrestling example, the Pac 12 wrestling memberships appears to include four Pac-12 schools, Arkansas Little Rock, Cal-Poly, and CSU-Bakersfield. I think I could see Title IX problems for your example (Michigan playing soccer in the MAC). There is no practical reason to do this (significant reduction of travel, higher level of play, etc). It likely would be viewed as a downgrade in competition and perhaps perceived as a reduction in "opportunties" for the soccer team. I also wouldn't expect it to happen as there usually is an agreement between conferences and schools that schools will play in that conference in all sports that the conference sponsors. Some exceptions (typically lower level schools playing up in a particular sport), but these are typically covered by an agreement between the conference and the school. The point that they do affiliate with unlike partners. So put your big money football program (and maybe a couple women's programs for Title IX) in whatever league you want, and then let everyone else play a more geographically sensible schedule to reduce missed class times and travel costs, and maybe increase fan travel to road games. The point is that they only affiliate with unlike partners when their conference (like partners) don't sponsor a sport. At the P5 level, typically that's one or two sports for most schools. Being realistic, USC and UCLA going to the Big 10 is the first significant geographic imbalance in the P5 conferences. The addition of Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC only moved the western border of the conference about 100 miles. For both Texas and OU, it doesn't make a significant change in the distance traveled. So if you are being realistic, you are really only talking about USC and UCLA playing a more geographically sensible schedule. |
|
|
|
Post by JHAM on Mar 22, 2023 18:17:38 GMT -5
West Virginia to the Big 12 was pretty geographically significant as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Apr 5, 2023 18:47:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by noreaster on May 11, 2023 8:13:29 GMT -5
Lemoyne going D1 to join the NEC and replace St. Francis Brooklyn. lemoyne.edu/Dolphins-Go-Division1Lemoyne had been D1 in baseball and women's lacrosse until 2007 when the MAAC, tired of Lemoyne winning their wlax automatic bid, decided that you had to be a full D1 member to play in their conference. They were vagabond independents until 2011 when they gave up on finding D1 homes for their two D1 programs. Now they will be D1 in all sports. |
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on May 11, 2023 14:06:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on May 11, 2023 14:19:34 GMT -5
That sounds about right. The only thing I'd be curious about is if the lower payout would be for as long as they're members, or it would be a lower payout to start with and then gradually get them up to speed with everyone else? The Pac 12 has looked like a dead cat bounce to me ever since the announcement of USC/UCLA to the Big 10. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on May 11, 2023 14:30:40 GMT -5
West Virginia to the Big 12 was pretty geographically significant as well. That was done for desperation after Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, and A&M bolted. There simply aren't many viable schools out there. It's ended up being a decent move for West Virginia, even with the travel issues. They weren't ever getting into the SEC or Big 10. There were problems getting into the ACC, and WVU has made out like bandits compared to the ACC schools financially anyway. The difference with the USC/UCLA invite is that it came from a position of strength for the Big 10. To me that changed the dynamics completely about what is possible with realignment. There are some significant geographic differences between Miami/FSU and Syracuse/Boston College as well. But, I mean, it DOES say Atlantic Coast in the name of the conference. I just don't think the founders of the conference were initially thinking about covering the ENTIRE coast. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 11, 2023 14:39:59 GMT -5
it DOES say Atlantic Coast in the name of the conference. I just don't think the founders of the conference were initially thinking about covering the ENTIRE coast. And Louisville, Kentucky. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 11, 2023 15:09:42 GMT -5
McMurphy is pretty reliable, so I tend to give him more credence than some other reporters. It doesn't really make sense to me that the Big Ten could think that they can cripple the Pac-12 by taking USC and UCLA, but if they don't take anyone else until more schools depart for another conference (i.e. the Big 12), then the Big Ten is somehow not responsible for killing the Pac-12. But I can believe that perhaps the Big Ten has deluded itself into thinking that.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 10,957 
Member is Online
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 11, 2023 16:18:16 GMT -5
McMurphy is pretty reliable, so I tend to give him more credence to him than some other reporters. It doesn't really make sense to me that the Big Ten could think that they can cripple the Pac-12 by taking USC and UCLA, but if they don't take anyone else until more schools depart for another conference (i.e. the Big 12), then the Big Ten is somehow not responsible for killing the Pac-12. But I can believe that perhaps the Big Ten has deluded itself into thinking that. I have seen this said multiple times (B1G doesn't want blood on their hands). What I don't know is the reason. I can only think of two possibilities: 1) Legal: This one doesn't make that much sense, but I suppose the other PAC schools could sue the B1G - and they want to avoid this? I mean - if it means getting USC, they will take that liability, but for OR/WA, they don't want that potential liability? 2) Public Relations: They don't want the negative PR associated with killing the PAC. This one also doesn't really make sense to me. Will it really matter? Again - PR hit to get USC is much different than taking a PR hit to OR/WA? Which gets me to the idea that the interest from the B1G in OR/WA is lukewarm. But given the smoke - it does sound like it is there. And I do think it would shut ESPN out of any significant college football in the pacific time zone for a long time. And then we have the issue on the reduced $'s that OR/WA would be willing to take - and whether they would have the opportunity to made whole with the rest of the conference in time. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 11, 2023 16:46:58 GMT -5
McMurphy is pretty reliable, so I tend to give him more credence to him than some other reporters. It doesn't really make sense to me that the Big Ten could think that they can cripple the Pac-12 by taking USC and UCLA, but if they don't take anyone else until more schools depart for another conference (i.e. the Big 12), then the Big Ten is somehow not responsible for killing the Pac-12. But I can believe that perhaps the Big Ten has deluded itself into thinking that. I have seen this said multiple times (B1G doesn't want blood on their hands). What I don't know is the reason. I can only think of two possibilities: 1) Legal: This one doesn't make that much sense, but I suppose the other PAC schools could sue the B1G - and they want to avoid this? I mean - if it means getting USC, they will take that liability, but for OR/WA, they don't want that potential liability? 2) Public Relations: They don't want the negative PR associated with killing the PAC. This one also doesn't really make sense to me. Will it really matter? Again - PR hit to get USC is much different than taking a PR hit to OR/WA? Which gets me to the idea that the interest from the B1G in OR/WA is lukewarm. But given the smoke - it does sound like it is there. And I do think it would shut ESPN out of any significant college football in the pacific time zone for a long time. And then we have the issue on the reduced $'s that OR/WA would be willing to take - and whether they would have the opportunity to made whole with the rest of the conference in time. I'm not sure if ESPN cares about college football in the Pacific Time Zone per se. They need some programming in that late Saturday slot, but it doesn't necessarily need to be schools actually on the West Coast. Arizona and Arizona State are effectively on Pacific Time for most of football season. BYU is already used to playing in that late time slot during their independent period because ESPN put them there quite often. A school like Colorado could do the same. And I think ESPN would be tempted to put Mountain West schools there for dirt cheap rather than pay the Pac-12 a premium. |
|
