Mitch Vingle (WV Gazette): A re-set of the Big 12 expansion situation

[sportsart]

I don't believe that to be true from a statistic standpoint.

Here is the listing of all teams in 1A in 2000: http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2000/Internet/team/IA_team.pdf -- No Connecticut

Here is the listing of all teams in 1A in 2001: http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2001/Internet/team/IA_team.pdf -- No Connecticut

Here is the listing of all teams in 1A in 2002: http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2002/Internet/team/IA_team.pdf -- Connecticut listed as Independent.

If that doesn't make 'em stop, I say we nuke the dumb bastids. How many times are they going to try and put the round peg in the square frickin hole?

 

[whaler11]

No one they could collectively add right now would give a 10-15% boost in probability of a playoff appearance.

Right now, the Big 12 has 10 of 66 power conference spots (we'll just assume the playoff spots will come from the power conferences). That's a 15.2% chance of getting any one playoff spot, although there are actually four. There is, then, an 84.8% chance that they don't get each of the four playoff spots (ignoring qualitative strength for now). Since there are four spots, that's equal to 1 minus (.848 * .848 * .848 * .848) or 1 minus .517. That means there's a 48.3% chance of the Big 12 getting a playoff spot currently, if we assume all four are coming from the power conferences and we don't adjust for actual strength of teams.

Add two more teams, we increase the pool to 12 of 68 spots. That becomes 17.6% and 82.4% chance of not getting one. That's 82.4% raised to the fourth power, which equals 1-46.1% or 53.9% chance.

So by adding two schools, roughly they've only increased their chances by 4.5%.

Honestly, that assumes any school they would add gives them an average chance of getting a playoff appearance. The only school right now from the non-power conferences they could add that seems to give a better than average shot is Houston, and who knows if that will continue. Tom Herman has the program in a great spot, but we'll see if they continue at that level very long.

I think they have to expand right now if only because they need the appearance of togetherness, ambition and strength. However, if we assume the ACC is off-limits right now, I don't know there is much out there that can solve their problem(s).

By this methodology today the Big XII would have a 48% chance, the ACC 61%, the SEC 61%, the Pac 12 55% and the Big 10 61% of having at least one.

Obviously all their odds are quite a bit better than that because this methodology doesn't eliminate the balance of the league once a team gets a discreet slot. In this methodology teams 15 and 16 pretty much have the same benefit as 11 and 12 which I think most people would disagree with.

In reality the odds aren't 1/66+1/65+1/64+1/63 for each team if you ignore their actual strengths. It's something closer to .8*(1/teams in conf). Where .8 is a variable based on conference logistics and something less on average than .8 because some years two teams from the same league will get in and Notre Dame exists.

I don't put any faith in the reports on 4.5% or 10-15% because I don't know if they are talking about actual percentages or if they are talking in points.

 

[Marty Jackson]

so this is the reason Uconn keeps getting kicked in the nuts regarding CR? People are using 2000 and 2001 in there baseline for football comparisons? How stupid. Does anyone think we need to get Boren and Bevilacqua up to speed on this recent uncovering as well?

 

[HuskyHawk]

so this is the reason Uconn keeps getting kicked in the nuts regarding CR? People are using 2000 and 2001 in there baseline for football comparisons? How stupid. Does anyone think we need to get Boren and Bevilacqua up to speed on this recent uncovering as well?

None of them have even looked at our record. They haven't seen the stadium or facilities. They simply assume that UConn can't have ever been any good, plays in a dump of a stadium that holds 20k and is falling down, and that our facilities consist of a few used nautilus machines. They are entirely ignorant, even those who purport to be engaged in CR discussions.

 

[upstater]

None of them have even looked at our record. They haven't seen the stadium or facilities. They simply assume that UConn can't have ever been any good, plays in a dump of a stadium that holds 20k and is falling down, and that our facilities consist of a few used nautilus machines. They are entirely ignorant, even those who purport to be engaged in CR discussions.

If you read the CR boards on csnbbs you notice that people are discussing Kansas' possible invite to the SEC and B1G. It quickly becomes apparent that most agree this is viable because, one, Kansas has great basketball, and that Kansas is a flagship that dominates its market, despite the many problems of Kansas football.

If you compare this to the perception of UConn, the points in Kansas's favor are diametrically dismissed when it comes to UConn. UConn's basketball is irrelevant and its market is inconsequential. No matter that UConn is the only D1 FB school in the state while Kansas has K. St. I'm not knocking Kansas here but just doing a comparison.

The UConn women's bball team isn't part of this discussion at all.

I can only conclude three things about perceptions of UConn after reading the posts on Kansas:

1. The ACC twice passing UConn over must mean that UConn is not a worthy P5.
2. Anti-Yankee bias
3. Geographically, Kansas is a big state, and Connecticut is a teeny one.

 

[HuskyJ]

If you read the CR boards on csnbbs you notice that people are discussing Kansas' possible invite to the SEC and B1G.

I can only conclude three things about perceptions of UConn after reading the posts on Kansas:

1. The ACC twice passing UConn over must mean that UConn is not a worthy P5.
2. Anti-Yankee bias
3. Geographically, Kansas is a big state, and Connecticut is a teeny one.

Kansas has the benefits of being in the club already and has the mystique of time on its side. People watch sports for the now but inevitably talk sports in the past. The longer the past the more the mystique.

 

[Dooley]

If you read the CR boards on csnbbs you notice that people are discussing Kansas' possible invite to the SEC and B1G. It quickly becomes apparent that most agree this is viable because, one, Kansas has great basketball, and that Kansas is a flagship that dominates its market, despite the many problems of Kansas football.

If you compare this to the perception of UConn, the points in Kansas's favor are diametrically dismissed when it comes to UConn. UConn's basketball is irrelevant and its market is inconsequential. No matter that UConn is the only D1 FB school in the state while Kansas has K. St. I'm not knocking Kansas here but just doing a comparison.

The UConn women's bball team isn't part of this discussion at all.

I can only conclude three things about perceptions of UConn after reading the posts on Kansas:

1. The ACC twice passing UConn over must mean that UConn is not a worthy P5.
2. Anti-Yankee bias
3. Geographically, Kansas is a big state, and Connecticut is a teeny one.

AMEN. Since making our full, complete FBS move in 2002, we have a FAR better football record than every "basketball school" other than Louisville. UConn football vs Kansas football?

UConn - 86-86, 6 bowl games, 1 BCS berth.
Kansas - 62-104, 4 bowl games, 1 BCS berth.

Most of UConn's wins during this stretch came as a Big East member, so it can't be attributed to a "G5 schedule" argument.

I don't understand why Kansas football is given some sort of free pass and UConn isn't. Other than AAU affiliation, we are the exact same school...just one has much better football.

 

[mike012]

A few of them even have Kansas St. going to either conference Kansas doesn't go too. Let that settle into your brain for a few minutes....... before it explodes with ????????????

 

[specialisthusky]

If you read the CR boards on csnbbs you notice that people are discussing Kansas' possible invite to the SEC and B1G. It quickly becomes apparent that most agree this is viable because, one, Kansas has great basketball, and that Kansas is a flagship that dominates its market, despite the many problems of Kansas football.

If you compare this to the perception of UConn, the points in Kansas's favor are diametrically dismissed when it comes to UConn. UConn's basketball is irrelevant and its market is inconsequential. No matter that UConn is the only D1 FB school in the state while Kansas has K. St. I'm not knocking Kansas here but just doing a comparison.

The UConn women's bball team isn't part of this discussion at all.

I can only conclude three things about perceptions of UConn after reading the posts on Kansas:

1. The ACC twice passing UConn over must mean that UConn is not a worthy P5.
2. Anti-Yankee bias
3. Geographically, Kansas is a big state, and Connecticut is a teeny one.

That board almost universally despises UConn. It's an utter wasteland of bias and ACC homerisms. I enjoy it.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If you read the CR boards on csnbbs you notice that people are discussing Kansas' possible invite to the SEC and B1G. It quickly becomes apparent that most agree this is viable because, one, Kansas has great basketball, and that Kansas is a flagship that dominates its market, despite the many problems of Kansas football.

If you compare this to the perception of UConn, the points in Kansas's favor are diametrically dismissed when it comes to UConn. UConn's basketball is irrelevant and its market is inconsequential. No matter that UConn is the only D1 FB school in the state while Kansas has K. St. I'm not knocking Kansas here but just doing a comparison.

The UConn women's bball team isn't part of this discussion at all.

I can only conclude three things about perceptions of UConn after reading the posts on Kansas:

1. The ACC twice passing UConn over must mean that UConn is not a worthy P5.
2. Anti-Yankee bias
3. Geographically, Kansas is a big state, and Connecticut is a teeny one.

#1 is the position of those who are clueless and fear losing their status. #3 is only for the stupid.

On #2, having moved from CT to Lawrence KS for law school (after moving with my family from KC to CT at a young age), I can confirm that there is some bias. It isn't "anti-Yankee" so much as it considers "back east" (their word for everything from DC to Maine, including Philly, but excluding Pittsburgh) to be just a different kind of place. We are perceived as pro-sports fans, who live in big cities and favor colleges like Harvard, Yale and Princeton over our state universities, which are small in enrollment and unpopular as a result. I think the Louisville over UConn decision, driven by FSU, Clemson and others focused on a similar cultural differences.

They aren't wrong from a historical perspective. UConn basketball and our recent growth in size and academic profile has caused UConn, uniquely really, to be more like state universities are in the midwest. Those schools are the top choice of most students. You know well that Buffalo isn't to NY what U Iowa is to Iowa or OU is to Oklahoma. It's role is minor in the overall landscape. UMass, UNH, UVM, URI...same for all. They simply aren't aware that UConn is different now. By the way, even for football, KU dominates KS everywhere but Manhattan and is #1 in metro KC ahead of Mizzou.

 

[HuskyHawk]

AMEN. Since making our full, complete FBS move in 2002, we have a FAR better football record than every "basketball school" other than Louisville. UConn football vs Kansas football?

UConn - 86-86, 6 bowl games, 1 BCS berth.
Kansas - 62-104, 4 bowl games, 1 BCS berth.

Most of UConn's wins during this stretch came as a Big East member, so it can't be attributed to a "G5 schedule" argument.

I don't understand why Kansas football is given some sort of free pass and UConn isn't. Other than AAU affiliation, we are the exact same school...just one has much better football.

Much better is a stretch. KU won it's BCS game and finished with a top 10 ranking. They didn't slide in with 3 losses, they had a one loss season (to #3 Missouri) while playing 7 ranked teams. Like UConn, coaching has been the main issue. Historically, KState was much weaker of the two, pre-Snyder.

In any event, Indiana, Kentucky and others are not exactly hotbeds of football success, so I agree we are held to an unreasonable standard.

 

[UC1995]

If doesn't work click here to enjoy our competition!

 

[kyleslamb]

I don't believe that to be true from a statistic standpoint.

Here is the listing of all teams in 1A in 2000: http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2000/Internet/team/IA_team.pdf -- No Connecticut

Here is the listing of all teams in 1A in 2001: http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2001/Internet/team/IA_team.pdf -- No Connecticut

Here is the listing of all teams in 1A in 2002: http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2002/Internet/team/IA_team.pdf -- Connecticut listed as Independent.

I've been studying NCAA archives for several years. In fact, I spent five days at the NCAA library in Indianapolis last summer doing research. I promise I'm sure of this. You have to understand many times the NCAA puts together those lists and they're displaying fully fledged voting members, but statistically, some teams will still count as that level. Incarnate Word and Grand Canyon have been playing at Division I level for a few years now, with fully integrated schedules, but if you look at the alignment history page of the Division I record book, you'll see they won't count as fully fledged Division I until next year, even though they've statistically counted for the last three seasons.

But if you don't believe me, here is a screenshot of UConn's program history page on the NCAA stats archive page. Notice that 2001 is the first year listed for Division I-A.

For the record, I'm not taking any sort of stance on the debate itself. I'm just saying that as far as competition is concerned, while UConn's first year as a voting member was 2002, statistically its first season was indeed 2001.

 

[huskymedic]

I've been studying NCAA archives for several years. In fact, I spent five days at the NCAA library in Indianapolis last summer doing research. I promise I'm sure of this.

But if you don't believe me, here is a screenshot of UConn's program history page on the NCAA stats archive page. Notice that 2001 is the first year listed for Division I-A.

For the record, I'm not taking any sort of stance on the debate itself. I'm just saying that as far as competition is concerned, while UConn's first year as a voting member was 2002, statistically its first season was indeed 2001.

Not a matter of believing you or not. Sure appears to be a contradiction @ the NCAA (imagine that) as the info is coming from the same database in theory?

From another wiki source: >>UConn football finally reached Division 1-A status in 2000, was included in official Division 1-A statistics for the first time in 2002, and became a full Big East member in 2004. UConn has been recognized as having the fastest progression out of I-AA in NCAA history, as it was invited into a BCS conference only two years after becoming a full I-A member, was bowl-eligible in its first season in I-A, and was invited to a bowl game in its first season as a conference member. <<

I'm done... Too much time spent on it in the first place. It is what it is.

 

[kyleslamb]

Sure appears to be a contradiction @ the NCAA (imagine that) as the info is coming from the same database.

From another wiki source: >>UConn football finally reached Division 1-A status in 2000, was included in official Division 1-A statistics for the first time in 2002, and became a full Big East member in 2004. UConn has been recognized as having the fastest progression out of I-AA in NCAA history, as it was invited into a BCS conference only two years after becoming a full I-A member, was bowl-eligible in its first season in I-A, and was invited to a bowl game in its first season as a conference member. <<

I'm done... Too much time spent on it in the first place. It is what it is.

Well, this is the part where I jokingly lecture you about trusting wiki as a source (ha ha). But in seriousness, I get your point. It's not necessarily a contradiction because often the NCAA publishes member lists based on full membership, not statistical qualification. So beware assuming it's a contradiction as much as a difference in which criteria the publication is using at the time.

For transitions between divisions, the process is 3-5 years. Although schools are often playing a compliant schedule in year two, those reclassification cycles don't *require* a compliant schedule until year three at which time they count for statistical purposes (aside from records broken). But schools have the option to elect to be counted as soon as they're compliant with scheduling.

The transition between subdivisions, however, is a two-year process and I believe schools are required to be compliant in year two. So I don't see why they wouldn't count for statistical purposes. I know all the schools recently that have made that same transition have started counting in the second season (UMass, Georgia State, UTSA, etc.) I believe that standard has been around a while. I don't know, it's possible some of the documentation contains an error, but I'm fairly certain they were statistically counted toward Division I-A in 2001.

If you're interested, here is the NCAA's policy from its statistics policies guide (page 26). Unfortunately it's not real clear about FBS to FCS reclassifying.

An institution that is changing divisions goes through a multi-year process to enter another division. The process is the same whether the school is moving up or down in divisions. The first year of this process is called an “exploratory year.” If moving to Division I, the second year after the exploratory year the institution must be playing a Division I schedule and will be included in the RPI. An institution that arranges a Division I schedule the year following its exploratory year could be included in the RPI if it notifies the NCAA by September 15. A school in its exploratory year will be included in the weekly statistical rankings in its old division. If the school continues with the process, that reclassifying school will be included at the bottom of the weekly statistical rankings once the scheduling requirements for its new division have been met. It is required to do this by its second year after the exploratory year. In the first year after the exploratory year, if a school moving to Division I has met the criteria to be included in the RPI, it will also be included in the statistical rankings. These reclassifying schools will not be ranked but rather listed at the bottom of the weekly rankings in all individual and team categories for which they would qualify. However, if a school changing divisions has not met the scheduling criteria in the first year after the exploratory year, it will be included in the statistics for the division it is leaving. Once a reclassifying school has reached full-fledged membership in its new division, it will be ranked along with the other schools in that division.

Schools reclassifying into Divisions II or III will be listed at the bottom of the weekly statistical rankings the first year after the exploratory year. These reclassifying schools will not be ranked but rather listed at the bottom of the weekly rankings in all individual and team categories for which they would qualify. Once a reclassifying school has reached full-fledged membership in its new division, it will be ranked along with all the other schools in that division.

A reclassifying school cannot be considered for statistical records (game, season or career) in a division until it is a full-fledged member of that division. Although reclassifying schools do not qualify for statistical records in their old or new divisions, they can qualify for “Collegiate Records” since they still are active NCAA members. Individuals or schools that qualify in this situation will be indicated as reclassifying in the records. For individual career records, only the years in which a school is a full-fledged member of a division will count toward career records of that division.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Well, this is the part where I jokingly lecture you about trusting wiki as a source (ha ha). But in seriousness, I get your point. It's not necessarily a contradiction because often the NCAA publishes member lists based on full membership, not statistical qualification. So beware assuming it's a contradiction as much as a difference in which criteria the publication is using at the time.

For transitions between divisions, the process is 3-5 years. Although schools are often playing a compliant schedule in year two, those reclassification cycles don't *require* a compliant schedule until year three at which time they count for statistical purposes (aside from records broken). But schools have the option to elect to be counted as soon as they're compliant with scheduling.

The transition between subdivisions, however, is a two-year process and I believe schools are required to be compliant in year two. So I don't see why they wouldn't count for statistical purposes. I know all the schools recently that have made that same transition have started counting in the second season (UMass, Georgia State, UTSA, etc.) I believe that standard has been around a while. I don't know, it's possible some of the documentation contains an error, but I'm fairly certain they were statistically counted toward Division I-A in 2001.

If you're interested, here is the NCAA's policy from its statistics policies guide (page 26). Unfortunately it's not real clear about FBS to FCS reclassifying.

Who cares? The reality is that we were not as bad as some reported. End of story. In fact, as the first and last team to jump from 1AA to a BCS conference, we exceeded every reasonable expectation.

 

[upstater]

They aren't wrong from a historical perspective. UConn basketball and our recent growth in size and academic profile has caused UConn, uniquely really, to be more like state universities are in the midwest. Those schools are the top choice of most students. You know well that Buffalo isn't to NY what U Iowa is to Iowa or OU is to Oklahoma. It's role is minor in the overall landscape. UMass, UNH, UVM, URI...same for all. They simply aren't aware that UConn is different now. By the way, even for football, KU dominates KS everywhere but Manhattan and is #1 in metro KC ahead of Mizzou.

I get your point in this paragraph and agree, but of course, of all the schools listed in New England and New York, Buffalo is the only one in the AAU. It doesn't mean it is a destination for NYC (although I promise you that it has a rep upstate, especially certain colleges inside it) like UConn is for Connecticut residents. I think this has something to do with sports.

 

[huskymedic]

Well, this is the part where I jokingly lecture you about trusting wiki as a source (ha ha). But in seriousness, I get your point. It's not necessarily a contradiction because often the NCAA publishes member lists based on full membership, not statistical qualification. So beware assuming it's a contradiction as much as a difference in which criteria the publication is using at the time.

I lied (slow afternoon) I can't help myself - please see this link for all D1 football stats in 2001: Ranking Summary (note no Connecticut included). As a matter of fact if you select the FCS button instead of the FBS button at the top -- Ranking Summary -- you will find Connecticut there and who their statistics compare to -- kinda neat to see Dan O's Passing Efficiency rating compared to the national leader Tony Romo @ Eastern Illinois)

Now... check this link for all D1 football stats in 2002. Ranking Summary (Note UConn included in Bowl/FBS statistics and all the usual suspects for statistical comparison)

Imagine that..

 

[CL82]

Well, this is the part where I jokingly lecture you about trusting wiki as a source (ha ha). But in seriousness, I get your point. It's not necessarily a contradiction because often the NCAA publishes member lists based on full membership, not statistical qualification. So beware assuming it's a contradiction as much as a difference in which criteria the publication is using at the time.

For transitions between divisions, the process is 3-5 years. Although schools are often playing a compliant schedule in year two, those reclassification cycles don't *require* a compliant schedule until year three at which time they count for statistical purposes (aside from records broken). But schools have the option to elect to be counted as soon as they're compliant with scheduling.

The transition between subdivisions, however, is a two-year process and I believe schools are required to be compliant in year two. So I don't see why they wouldn't count for statistical purposes. I know all the schools recently that have made that same transition have started counting in the second season (UMass, Georgia State, UTSA, etc.) I believe that standard has been around a while. I don't know, it's possible some of the documentation contains an error, but I'm fairly certain they were statistically counted toward Division I-A in 2001.

If you're interested, here is the NCAA's policy from its statistics policies guide (page 26). Unfortunately it's not real clear about FBS to FCS reclassifying.

A reclassifying school cannot be considered for statistical records (game, season or career) in a division until it is a full-fledged member of that division. Although reclassifying schools do not qualify for statistical records in their old or new divisions, they can qualify for “Collegiate Records” since they still are active NCAA members. Individuals or schools that qualify in this situation will be indicated as reclassifying in the records. For individual career records, only the years in which a school is a full-fledged member of a division will count toward career records of that division.

 

[upstater]

Not a matter of believing you or not. Sure appears to be a contradiction @ the NCAA (imagine that) as the info is coming from the same database in theory?

From another wiki source: >>UConn football finally reached Division 1-A status in 2000, was included in official Division 1-A statistics for the first time in 2002, and became a full Big East member in 2004. UConn has been recognized as having the fastest progression out of I-AA in NCAA history, as it was invited into a BCS conference only two years after becoming a full I-A member, was bowl-eligible in its first season in I-A, and was invited to a bowl game in its first season as a conference member. <<

I'm done... Too much time spent on it in the first place. It is what it is.

Before the Penn State scandal, and before Paterno had his wins wiped away, and before Bobby Bowden also had his wins wiped away, there used to be a controversy involving the 2 as to which one had the most wins. Bowden had them against U. of Mexico (not New Mexico, but Mexico), and Tennessee Tech "B" Team, and some other crazy schools that were the equivalent of the Baltimore Ballers, and all these wins counted as D1 wins. So people wondered then why Eddie Robinson wasn't the winningest coach in D1, but the NCAA just said Bowden was.

 

[sportsart]

A reclassifying school cannot be considered for statistical records (game, season or career) in a division until it is a full-fledged member of that division. Although reclassifying schools do not qualify for statistical records in their old or new divisions, they can qualify for “Collegiate Records” since they still are active NCAA members. Individuals or schools that qualify in this situation will be indicated as reclassifying in the records. For individual career records, only the years in which a school is a full-fledged member of a division will count toward career records of that division.

Here Billy, Billy, Billy...c'mon "Bud"dy boy.

 

[upstater]

That board almost universally despises UConn. It's an utter wasteland of bias and ACC homerisms. I enjoy it.

The moderators are Syracuse fans.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I get your point in this paragraph and agree, but of course, of all the schools listed in New England and New York, Buffalo is the only one in the AAU. It doesn't mean it is a destination for NYC (although I promise you that it has a rep upstate, especially certain colleges inside it) like UConn is for Connecticut residents. I think this has something to do with sports.

I didn't mean purely academic chops, but more...."when I grow up I want to go to Buffalo" from every kid in elementary school. I can only explain it by saying that many flagship state universities are a core part of the psyche of the whole state, or a good portion of it. Those in New England, New York and NJ simply don't command that kind of attention, except UConn. UConn likely has more state-wide mindshare than many P5 public schools, but that doesn't mean that most people in those places are aware that UConn is different in that way.

Illinois and California seem like outliers. But both states are so big that even if the state schools don't command a wide following, it's still plenty big.

 

[upstater]

I didn't mean purely academic chops, but more...."when I grow up I want to go to Buffalo" from every kid in elementary school. I can only explain it by saying that many flagship state universities are a core part of the psyche of the whole state, or a good portion of it. Those in New England, New York and NJ simply don't command that kind of attention, except UConn. UConn likely has more state-wide mindshare than many P5 public schools, but that doesn't mean that most people in those places are aware that UConn is different in that way.

Illinois and California seem like outliers. But both states are so big that even if the state schools don't command a wide following, it's still plenty big.

I know what you meant, but I think it's about sports mostly.

 

[kyleslamb]

A reclassifying school cannot be considered for statistical records (game, season or career) in a division until it is a full-fledged member of that division. Although reclassifying schools do not qualify for statistical records in their old or new divisions, they can qualify for “Collegiate Records” since they still are active NCAA members. Individuals or schools that qualify in this situation will be indicated as reclassifying in the records. For individual career records, only the years in which a school is a full-fledged member of a division will count toward career records of that division.

That applies to actual records, not statistics themselves. In other words, they can qualify among statistical leaders for team and individuals and count toward scheduling, but don't qualify for being recognized as setting records.

I realize that distinction sounds silly, and I would agree if you think that, but I have had countless conversations about this with Gary Johnson, the former men's basketball statistician of the NCAA. My confidence level on this subject is very high. I've spent the last 5 years compiling membership lists for the NCAA, NAIA, etc., so I've had to get clarification on many situations and schools. It's a very confusing rule, but basically while schools are in transition, they count toward scheduling and weekly stats/summaries but don't count toward records and don't have voting privileges. Perhaps the most pertinent factor is that during this period, any school would count toward RPI or any other postseason metric, which means they're still considered a countable opponent for that level.

To be clear, I don't agree with Billy Bud's points. My argument here is strictly coming from a technical standpoint because I've spent so much time on this issue with the NCAA. I suppose it's semantics, but just adding input because I've had so many phone calls with the NCAA about these situations.