Is the DII-to-FCS transition period too long?

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

Can't remember if this was discussed before, but I'll bring it up again if it has.

Does anyone else think the long transition period might be scaring off some programs from jumping from DII to FCS? It's kind of surprising that we've seen just as many (or more) recent start-ups than we've seen teams jumping up from DII. No offense to (some) of these start-ups, but I think there are DII programs that could add more to FCS than some of these start-ups.

NDSU fans that know more about their program than I do might correct me here, but I can't help but wonder if maybe the long transition didn't hurt their recruiting and contribute to the slump that NDSU had in 2008 and 2009. At first I thought that was just the boom and bust nature a lot of pro-style teams have combined with moving from the Great West to the MVFC, but the last 7 seasons have blown that out of the water.

IMO, FCS and top DII programs would both benefit by making the move, and I wonder if maybe it was time to lessen the long amount of time you need to wait before you are eligible for the playoffs.

[PAllen]

No. Not everyone is NDSU

[Bisonator]

Can't remember if this was discussed before, but I'll bring it up again if it has.

Does anyone else think the long transition period might be scaring off some programs from jumping from DII to FCS? It's kind of surprising that we've seen just as many (or more) recent start-ups than we've seen teams jumping up from DII. No offense to (some) of these start-ups, but I think there are DII programs that could add more to FCS than some of these start-ups.

NDSU fans that know more about their program than I do might correct me here, but I can't help but wonder if maybe the long transition didn't hurt their recruiting and contribute to the slump that NDSU had in 2008 and 2009. At first I thought that was just the boom and bust nature a lot of pro-style teams have combined with moving from the Great West to the MVFC, but the last 7 seasons have blown that out of the water.

IMO, FCS and top DII programs would both benefit by making the move, and I wonder if maybe it was time to lessen the long amount of time you need to wait before you are eligible for the playoffs.
I don't think the transition had much to do with it as just a couple bad recruiting classes. Those teams had some bad apples that spoiled a few more and killed our depth. That and Bohl realized they were going to have to up their game when we started MVFC play, especially in the trenches.

[Wildcat1997]

I personally believe it is. ACU just finished the transition this past season and I think it's too long. It handicaps teams too much since recruits know they won't get to go to the postseason until their Junior or Senior seasons. I understand that there are reasons for it but I believe it's too long.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The transition time between D-II and FCS (and for that matter D-III and D-II) is collateral damage from the Power 5's efforts to prevent schools from going from FCS and FBS. The transition period is said to be there to "give schools a chance to get into increased academic compliance" and stuff like that but in reality it makes a huge recruiting challenge for the schools moving to the new subdivision, because with a six year transition you can't recruit with the idea you'll be competing for a championship.

If you think D-II's have it bad, D-III's are even worse. They are not allowed to transition from D-III to D-I: they need to go through D-II first, then go to D-I, a 12 (!) year transition period where they're not competing for championships. No wonder no D-III schools bother. (This deeply affects conferences like the Patriot League, who can't seriously consider good D-III academic matches like Johns Hopkins or RPI.)

I've had on the back burner a thought of writing an article about the reform of the whole system. It's not straightforward.

[clenz]

No. Because you aren't just transitions like you are FCS to FBS. Your entire athletic department is changing divisions. There are significant differences in how D1 and D2 operate. Budgetary differences. Regulations to how money can be spent. Academic standards. The list goes on.

[BEAR]

Yes it is too long.

5 years if I remember correctly.

Recruits see that the team is just in limbo, no chance at a title. We'll never know how many decided on another school during that transition. The teams that do actually play up to championship caliber have to watch as the second place team takes the title. UCA felt it in 2008 and ACU Women's basketball has suffered for years not getting to go to the post season. I really should be half that time. I mean how long does it take to get volleyball, softball, track, and the other minor sports up to speed. It's not like they offer many schollys anyway. Plus baseball gets what a 1 or 2 scholly bump? Ooooh. But for football, if a school can go from the max D2 level of schollys to the max FCS level right away, then so be it. Make 'em eligible right away. IF not, then why are they moving up? I mean they do a two year study to see if they can...xlolx

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

The transition time between D-II and FCS (and for that matter D-III and D-II) is collateral damage from the Power 5's efforts to prevent schools from going from FCS and FBS. The transition period is said to be there to "give schools a chance to get into increased academic compliance" and stuff like that but in reality it makes a huge recruiting challenge for the schools moving to the new subdivision, because with a six year transition you can't recruit with the idea you'll be competing for a championship.

If you think D-II's have it bad, D-III's are even worse. They are not allowed to transition from D-III to D-I: they need to go through D-II first, then go to D-I, a 12 (!) year transition period where they're not competing for championships. No wonder no D-III schools bother. (This deeply affects conferences like the Patriot League, who can't seriously consider good D-III academic matches like Johns Hopkins or RPI.)

I've had on the back burner a thought of writing an article about the reform of the whole system. It's not straightforward.

I agree with what you're saying. IMO, the NCAA should institute a more rigorous and thorough application process and peer into the financials of school when they want to make a transition and stand by those standards rather than making schools go through an excruciatingly long transition to try and weed them out. I would argue athletic programs that have more to lose will be more timid about moving up.

[Bisonator]

No. Because you aren't just transitions like you are FCS to FBS. Your entire athletic department is changing divisions. There are significant differences in how D1 and D2 operate. Budgetary differences. Regulations to how money can be spent. Academic standards. The list goes on.
This but I think they could reduce it to 3 years and still get most of those into compliance by then. IMO 3-4 years would be better.

[Professor Chaos]

No. Because you aren't just transitions like you are FCS to FBS. Your entire athletic department is changing divisions. There are significant differences in how D1 and D2 operate. Budgetary differences. Regulations to how money can be spent. Academic standards. The list goes on.
That's the big one. D2 academic standards are not D1 academic standards and therefore a reclassifying school could take advantage of that during their last couple D2 recruiting classes taking kids that didn't have the grades to go D1 with the promise that they'll be D1 after their freshman or redshirt year. As I understand it that's the main reason for the 5 year transition period. To allow for players recruited under D2 standards to cycle all the way through the program.

They could probably reduce it to 4 years but I doubt it'll ever be reduced further than that for academic reasons.

[Hammersmith]

The transition time between D-II and FCS (and for that matter D-III and D-II) is collateral damage from the Power 5's efforts to prevent schools from going from FCS and FBS. The transition period is said to be there to "give schools a chance to get into increased academic compliance" and stuff like that but in reality it makes a huge recruiting challenge for the schools moving to the new subdivision, because with a six year transition you can't recruit with the idea you'll be competing for a championship.

If you think D-II's have it bad, D-III's are even worse. They are not allowed to transition from D-III to D-I: they need to go through D-II first, then go to D-I, a 12 (!) year transition period where they're not competing for championships. No wonder no D-III schools bother. (This deeply affects conferences like the Patriot League, who can't seriously consider good D-III academic matches like Johns Hopkins or RPI.)

I've had on the back burner a thought of writing an article about the reform of the whole system. It's not straightforward.

Wrong. It has very little to do with FBS/FCS. It's almost completely about MBB money. The DII->DI transition used to be only two years until the first NCAA/CBS billion dollar deal for the MBB tournament back around 2000. The DI schools were worried about a wave of DII schools and entire conferences moving up to get a piece of the money pie. They initially placed a 3-year moratorium on any schools moving up, and used that time to craft rules to make it very hard for schools to move up and nearly impossible for conferences to do it. Those initial rules were 8 years to become MBB eligible and 13 years for a new conference to become eligible for an autobid.

The rules were later relaxed to their current state, but it's always been MBB that's driven the bus. The issue for DI is that the rules need to be able to survive a legal challenge. I believe they were worried that the 8-year rule wouldn't survive if challenged because it was basically arbitrary. They needed the longest time span that had at least a little reason behind it. So they latched onto the academic eligibility differences and that it would take four years to work those students out of the system. Thus the initial 1+4 system and now the 4-year system.

- - - Updated - - -


That's the big one. D2 academic standards are not D1 academic standards and therefore a reclassifying school could take advantage of that during their last couple D2 recruiting classes taking kids that didn't have the grades to go D1 with the promise that they'll be D1 after their freshman or redshirt year. As I understand it that's the main reason for the 5 year transition period. To allow for players recruited under D2 standards to cycle all the way through the program.

They could probably reduce it to 4 years but I doubt it'll ever be reduced further than that for academic reasons.

It's already 4 years. The cut the exploratory season a few years ago.

[walliver]

My gut feeling is that D-I schools don't want to split the March Madness Money among even more schools.

Academic issues would be present at some schools, but many have higher standards than the NCAA. Players not meeting the NCAA's D-I standards could transfer penalty free to any other D-2 school. Schools don't just move up on a whim one day and have several years to prepare and make sure they recruit at D-1 standards. And let's be realistic, a lot of D-I schools take JUCO transfers. Is a D2 athlete who brings his academics up to D-I standards somehow lesser academically than a JUCO transfer who may not have even met D2 standards out of high school.

A 2 year transition would be adequate. FCS to FBS can do it in 2 years, and in that case bowl participation in the FBS transitional year is actually possible although unlikely.

I can understand limiting March Madness Money as a deterrent (or buy-in), but for other sports, the transition is too long.

On a tangent, I believe that start-up football programs aiming for FBS should be allowed to go directly to FBS and not have to start in FCS. It is a pain for the schools, and reinforces the false perception of FCS as a minor league operation.

[DFW HOYA]

No offense to (some) of these start-ups, but I think there are DII programs that could add more to FCS than some of these start-ups.

That depends on how you define Division I. Should it be just the 300 or so largest budgets, or the 300 or so largest enrollments, or the 300 schools which actually have the most participants in sports. Harvard has 43 sports, ND State just 14. Is that a fair comparison? NYU has 50,000 students, Davidson less than 2,000. Which is "Division I"?

I am less interested in the perpetual gutting of Division II and more about what I call the "start-overs" - schools with legitimate D-I programs that once sponsored football. To that end, discussion for 10 schools that could fit in with the current I-AA/FCS structure by resuming (not merely adding) football:

1. Boston University. Enrollment 31,100, already has a 20,000 seat stadium on campus, dropped I-AA football 1997 thanks to John Silber. Optimum fit for the Patriot League.

2. Texas-Arlington: Enrollment 39,000, still has the 12,000 seat stadium it built in 1985 before dropping SLC football the next year, and a much larger one Jerry Jones built down the street. Return the Mavs to the Southland for football-only.

3. Detroit: Enrollment 5,000, dropped major college football 1964. Pioneer League, but needs a stadium.

4. Hofstra: Enrollment 11,000, still has a 15,000 seat stadium from A-10 football dropped in 2009: If the CAA does not fit, place them in the NEC.

5. Nebraska-Omaha: Enrollment 15,000, dropped D-II football early 2010's before upgrading to D-I. MVFC

6. Xavier: Enrollment 5,000, dropped I-A football 1973: Pioneer League rivalries with Dayton and Detroit soon follow.

7. Maryland-Eastern Shore: Enrollment 4,000, dropped football 1974. Add to MEAC.

8. Santa Clara: Enrollment 8,000, has a 10,000 seat stadium, dropped D-II football 1992. West Coast travel partner with San Diego for the Pioneer.

9. VCU: Enrollment 32,000, dropped club football early 1970's. Recently purchased the 12,000 seat Diamond just north of campus--good fit for CAA, especially after Old Dominion left.

10. Pacific: Enrollment 7,000 Dropped I-A football in 1995, still has its 30,000 seat stadium: Big Sky.

[walliver]

Wrong. It has very little to do with FBS/FCS. It's almost completely about MBB money. The DII->DI transition used to be only two years until the first NCAA/CBS billion dollar deal for the MBB tournament back around 2000. The DI schools were worried about a wave of DII schools and entire conferences moving up to get a piece of the money pie. They initially placed a 3-year moratorium on any schools moving up, and used that time to craft rules to make it very hard for schools to move up and nearly impossible for conferences to do it. Those initial rules were 8 years to become MBB eligible and 13 years for a new conference to become eligible for an autobid.

The rules were later relaxed to their current state, but it's always been MBB that's driven the bus. The issue for DI is that the rules need to be able to survive a legal challenge. I believe they were worried that the 8-year rule wouldn't survive if challenged because it was basically arbitrary. They needed the longest time span that had at least a little reason behind it. So they latched onto the academic eligibility differences and that it would take four years to work those students out of the system. Thus the initial 1+4 system and now the 4-year system.

- - - Updated - - -



It's already 4 years. The cut the exploratory season a few years ago.

Actually, many of the rules go back much earlier. In the mid-1970's, the Big South and one other conference (I think it was the Sun Belt) were formed by non-D1 non-football schools (most Big South schools were NAIA) and given immediate admission as well as auto-bids to March Madness. The NCAA at that time made transition difficult with a long transition time.

When Wofford transitioned from D-2 in the mid-1990's, there was a long basketball transition. Fortunately for us, when the NCAA started the moratorium, they discontinued the previous transition rules and we did not have to sit out the entire transition and were allowed to participate in the SoCon tourney.

[Hammersmith]

Actually, many of the rules go back much earlier. In the mid-1970's, the Big South and one other conference (I think it was the Sun Belt) were formed by non-D1 non-football schools (most Big South schools were NAIA) and given immediate admission as well as auto-bids to March Madness. The NCAA at that time made transition difficult with a long transition time.

When Wofford transitioned from D-2 in the mid-1990's, there was a long basketball transition. Fortunately for us, when the NCAA started the moratorium, they discontinued the previous transition rules and we did not have to sit out the entire transition and were allowed to participate in the SoCon tourney.

So the 8-year rule pre-dated the moratorium? Maybe I'm mis-remembering then. I thought it was added during the moratorium, but I could be wrong. I started following the topic a couple years after the moratorium expired. UNC decided to move up during the moratorium and had their paperwork ready to go as soon as it expired. NDSU decided right after but waited one year to file the paperwork(while trying to get other schools on board). I remember it being 8 years when NDSU made the decision, but it was 1+4 for most of our transition.

[clenz]

Stop comparing the FCS to FBS transition. That's a false equivalent and a horrid one at that.

In that case you're already D1. Your entire athletic department has been operating at a D1 level. You're already structured on D1. You're already following, and trained, D1 regulations. The only difference is which conference you're playing football in, and how many scholarships you are giving.

In the other case you are moving your ENTIRE university divisions. Sure, divisions are "athletic" but they involve the whole university.

It's really not the same, at all

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Stop comparing the FCS to FBS transition. That's a false equivalent and a horrid one at that.

The NCAA puts hurdles for FCS teams to become FBS because they don't want to dilute the product, which is exactly the justification as to why D-I puts hurdles for D-II teams to just jump up to D-I. And there's plenty of evidence that the NCAA considers them the same sort of thing: the "moratorium" they imposed on basketball to prevent non-football D-II schools to jump to DI also applied for FCS to FBS transitions.

[PAllen]

This but I think they could reduce it to 3 years and still get most of those into compliance by then. IMO 3-4 years would be better.

five years also has the bonus of eliminating any issues with players or recruits. Anyone in their senior year of high school will be gone by the time the transition is finished, so you don't have to worry about recruit X not meeting any possible new standards.

[mvemjsunpx]

Does anyone else think the long transition period might be scaring off some programs from jumping from DII to FCS?

I'm pretty sure that's the point.

[Bisonoline]

Wrong. It has very little to do with FBS/FCS. It's almost completely about MBB money. The DII->DI transition used to be only two years until the first NCAA/CBS billion dollar deal for the MBB tournament back around 2000. The DI schools were worried about a wave of DII schools and entire conferences moving up to get a piece of the money pie. They initially placed a 3-year moratorium on any schools moving up, and used that time to craft rules to make it very hard for schools to move up and nearly impossible for conferences to do it. Those initial rules were 8 years to become MBB eligible and 13 years for a new conference to become eligible for an autobid.

The rules were later relaxed to their current state, but it's always been MBB that's driven the bus. The issue for DI is that the rules need to be able to survive a legal challenge. I believe they were worried that the 8-year rule wouldn't survive if challenged because it was basically arbitrary. They needed the longest time span that had at least a little reason behind it. So they latched onto the academic eligibility differences and that it would take four years to work those students out of the system. Thus the initial 1+4 system and now the 4-year system.

- - - Updated - - -



It's already 4 years. The cut the exploratory season a few years ago.

Its always about the money. The bigs dont want to give any piece of the pie away if they dont have to.

Youre spot on!

[cx500d]

Wrong. It has very little to do with FBS/FCS. It's almost completely about MBB money. The DII->DI transition used to be only two years until the first NCAA/CBS billion dollar deal for the MBB tournament back around 2000. The DI schools were worried about a wave of DII schools and entire conferences moving up to get a piece of the money pie. They initially placed a 3-year moratorium on any schools moving up, and used that time to craft rules to make it very hard for schools to move up and nearly impossible for conferences to do it. Those initial rules were 8 years to become MBB eligible and 13 years for a new conference to become eligible for an autobid.

The rules were later relaxed to their current state, but it's always been MBB that's driven the bus. The issue for DI is that the rules need to be able to survive a legal challenge. I believe they were worried that the 8-year rule wouldn't survive if challenged because it was basically arbitrary. They needed the longest time span that had at least a little reason behind it. So they latched onto the academic eligibility differences and that it would take four years to work those students out of the system. Thus the initial 1+4 system and now the 4-year system.

- - - Updated - - -



It's already 4 years. The cut the exploratory season a few years ago.


Academics seems kind of BS for a lot of DivIII since there are so many elitist liberal arts colleges there.

[ST_Lawson]

5. Nebraska-Omaha: Enrollment 15,000, dropped D-II football early 2010's before upgrading to D-I. MVFC

They still have their football stadium, although it'd need some seating upgrades to be DI-worthy. Only seats about 3k right now, but the field itself is nice, the scoreboard is great, and it's right next to a parking structure: https://goo.gl/maps/bTktPgqwW782

Not saying that their big brother UNL would even allow them to have a DI football team though.

Although, that would give the Dakota #summitleaguefootball proponents some additional ammunition.

[clenz]

UNO isn't happening. Do I need to copy and paste again?

[Laker]

Not saying that their big brother UNL would even allow them to have a DI football team though.

This. Red Maverick football is not returning. UNO was given their D1 status and allowed to keep their hockey team.

[bonarae]

Meanwhile...

Has greed uprooted football traditions at many schools? That is the question we need to answer... xchinscratchx

[PAllen]

Meanwhile...

Has greed uprooted football traditions at many schools? That is the question we need to answer... xchinscratchx

You mean like having players live as students and actually attend class with other students? Folks like Oregon have definitely gotten away from that.

[lucchesicourt]

Academic standards are those an individual school requires to get into the University as well as performance to stay there. That can be EASILY complied with in a year or 2. Hell, most FCS football players could not have gotten into a D2 UCD.

[Go...gate]

The transition time between D-II and FCS (and for that matter D-III and D-II) is collateral damage from the Power 5's efforts to prevent schools from going from FCS and FBS. The transition period is said to be there to "give schools a chance to get into increased academic compliance" and stuff like that but in reality it makes a huge recruiting challenge for the schools moving to the new subdivision, because with a six year transition you can't recruit with the idea you'll be competing for a championship.

If you think D-II's have it bad, D-III's are even worse. They are not allowed to transition from D-III to D-I: they need to go through D-II first, then go to D-I, a 12 (!) year transition period where they're not competing for championships. No wonder no D-III schools bother. (This deeply affects conferences like the Patriot League, who can't seriously consider good D-III academic matches like Johns Hopkins or RPI.)

I've had on the back burner a thought of writing an article about the reform of the whole system. It's not straightforward.

Agree. The transition period should be 3-4 years, tops.

[DFW HOYA]

I've had on the back burner a thought of writing an article about the reform of the whole system. It's not straightforward.

As stated earlier, my question: how does one define Division I? If you leave it to ESPN, most schools in this subdivision wouldn't make the cut.

[Model Citizen]

None of them would make the cut in football. Big East and maybe A10 would make their basketball list.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

As stated earlier, my question: how does one define Division I? If you leave it to ESPN, most schools in this subdivision wouldn't make the cut.


None of them would make the cut in football. Big East and maybe A10 would make their basketball list.

Divison I should probably mean "Division I, but"

Gonzaga is D-I, "but they don't host a football team"
UL-Lafayette is D-I, "but they only sponsor 16 varsity teams vs. Harvard's 42 varsity teams"
Columbia is D-I, "but their football team doesn't engage with either FBS or 90% of FCS"
Dayton is D-I, "but their football team doesn't allow conventional scholarships"
CCSU is D-I, "but their football team allows half the institutional aid that Alabama allows"
Delaware is D-I, "but they don't supplement their scholarships with full cost of attendance allowances"
North Carolina is D-I, "but you can take sham classes there and get a degree you didn't earn"

[Model Citizen]

I believe the subdivision he mentioned is FCS.

[Yote 53]

That depends on how you define Division I. Should it be just the 300 or so largest budgets, or the 300 or so largest enrollments, or the 300 schools which actually have the most participants in sports. Harvard has 43 sports, ND State just 14. Is that a fair comparison? NYU has 50,000 students, Davidson less than 2,000. Which is "Division I"?

I am less interested in the perpetual gutting of Division II and more about what I call the "start-overs" - schools with legitimate D-I programs that once sponsored football. To that end, discussion for 10 schools that could fit in with the current I-AA/FCS structure by resuming (not merely adding) football:

1. Boston University. Enrollment 31,100, already has a 20,000 seat stadium on campus, dropped I-AA football 1997 thanks to John Silber. Optimum fit for the Patriot League.

2. Texas-Arlington: Enrollment 39,000, still has the 12,000 seat stadium it built in 1985 before dropping SLC football the next year, and a much larger one Jerry Jones built down the street. Return the Mavs to the Southland for football-only.

3. Detroit: Enrollment 5,000, dropped major college football 1964. Pioneer League, but needs a stadium.

4. Hofstra: Enrollment 11,000, still has a 15,000 seat stadium from A-10 football dropped in 2009: If the CAA does not fit, place them in the NEC.

5. Nebraska-Omaha: Enrollment 15,000, dropped D-II football early 2010's before upgrading to D-I. MVFC

6. Xavier: Enrollment 5,000, dropped I-A football 1973: Pioneer League rivalries with Dayton and Detroit soon follow.

7. Maryland-Eastern Shore: Enrollment 4,000, dropped football 1974. Add to MEAC.

8. Santa Clara: Enrollment 8,000, has a 10,000 seat stadium, dropped D-II football 1992. West Coast travel partner with San Diego for the Pioneer.

9. VCU: Enrollment 32,000, dropped club football early 1970's. Recently purchased the 12,000 seat Diamond just north of campus--good fit for CAA, especially after Old Dominion left.

10. Pacific: Enrollment 7,000 Dropped I-A football in 1995, still has its 30,000 seat stadium: Big Sky.

These schools that have these stadiums sitting on campus, some of them huge, what have they been doing with them? Have they been sitting there falling apart? Can't imagine what the maintenance costs are on a stadium you don't even use.

[Model Citizen]

Detroit Mercy - Here's a task for the curious. Google "17065 Fairfield Street, Detroit, MI". Then click on the street view (picture). From there, you can take a virtual walk down Fairfield St, next to the "stadium" they built several years ago. There are yard markers on the turf.

But it's wholly unsuitable for a football stadium. No parking, for starters. And those are privately owned houses across the street on Fairfield.

Best option would be to play at U of D Jesuit, about two miles away. There is some alumni support for football. I think the administration is keeping an eye on the PFL, unsure whether to take it seriously.


Santa Clara - I don't see it. Right now, the best hope for a football "start over" in California is probably Saint Mary's. The Gaels have some alumni agitators wanting to bring the sport back. The new athletic director spent 13 years as the Senior Associate AD at San Diego.

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=25551&stc=1
All long shots, but we can dream...

[Model Citizen]

If the PFL transitioned from non-scholarship (D-III funding model) to need-based football scholarships...like what San Diego got caught offering a few years ago...would it scare off a Detroit or a St. Mary's? I actually think it would encourage them to restart football. Cost containment is great. However, non-scholarship football seems like a dead end in D-I.

[WileECoyote06]

I'm pretty sure that's the point.

Yep. And with the notable exception of UNA; I'm not sure any more D2 schools want to move up. All of those schools could very well have begun their transition when the last large group (NCCU, Bryant, Presbyterian, Central Arkansas, North and South Dakota, UNO, Abilene Christian, etc) decided to move up. The schools considering a move in the mid-2000s knew what was coming (million dollar fee and conference invitation) and took the leap.

[bonarae]

You mean like having players live as students and actually attend class with other students? Folks like Oregon have definitely gotten away from that.

Not only that, but also the never-ending question of "Why did School U drop football?"