PDA

View Full Version : Death Knell for the Play-ups?????



Pages : [1] 2

joecct
10-08-2009, 01:43 PM
From today's NCAA news... The camel's nose is now under the tent flap...


Council proposes membership standards

Oct 8, 2009 9:46:08 AM
By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
The NCAA News

Prospective Division I members would be required to spend at least five years as active members of Division II before beginning the five-year reclassification process under a set of recommendations being considered by the Division I Leadership Council The Council also is considering an application fee model, though the exact amount, parameters and eventual uses for the fee have yet to be determined.

The recommendations discussed at the Council’s October 6 meeting in Indianapolis are expected to be part of a full report sent to the Division I Board of Directors after the Council’s January meeting and distributed to the membership for feedback. The proposals are the result of the Council’s year-long study of membership standards. The Board, which declared a membership moratorium in August 2007, directed the Leadership Council to develop standards that will balance the desire to allow access to the division with a need to provide full services and consistent competitive opportunities to its members.

The recommendation that schools spend five years as active Division II members before beginning the reclassification process arose out of comments from Division II, though preliminary recommendations from the Council also would have required that institutions be a member of Division II before applying for Division I membership. No time limits were suggested, though, in the original proposal.

Division II leaders worried that permitting institutions outside the Association to go through Division II’s three-year entry process and then immediately apply for Division I and enter the proposed, five-year Division I process could be disruptive to Division II and may not provide an adequate Division II experience. By requiring institutions to be active Division II members for five years, the Leadership Council believes that schools will be better prepared to select an affiliation that best suits the institution.

Another key concern Council members had with institutions immediately pursuing Division I membership upon entrance in Division II is student-athlete eligibility for championships. Without the five-year “waiting period” to apply for Division I membership, an institution could go potentially eight years (three years in the process for Division II, followed immediately by five years in the process for Division I) without teams being eligible for NCAA championships. Institutions are not eligible for Division II championships until they earn active membership, and once a school begins the process to reclassify to Division I, it is no longer eligible for Division II championships.

By recommending that institutions be active members of Division II for five years, the Leadership Council advocated for a 13-year process for institutions outside the Association that want to enter Division I. However, most institutions come through Division II and reclassify to Division I. Since April 2002, 23 institutions have entered Division I, and 21 of them were Division II members before reclassification.

Consideration of entrance fee

Council members also discussed how to best calculate an appropriate and meaningful application fee for reclassification to Division I. Members indicated a desire to tie the fee to the estimated benefits received from becoming a Division I member. Some advocated an equity buy-in model that would require institutions to advance a multiple of the estimated annual benefit of being a Division I member, while others supported a smaller figure more in line with the higher education/nonprofit philosophy.

The NCAA staff will assemble models for the application fee structure for the Council to consider at its January meeting at the NCAA Convention in Atlanta. The staff will also work to determine a total financial benefit – including the brand value – of being a Division I member.

Financial aid component

The Leadership Council also discussed increasing the financial aid requirements for sponsored sports from 50 percent of grant-in-aid maximums to a larger, undetermined percentage. Raising the bar could ensure that Division I members are offering scholarships more broadly across sports.

Currently, most institutions have three ways to meet the minimum financial aid requirements:

Provide 50 percent of the maximum allowable grants in 14 sports, at least seven of which are women’s sports (with further requirements for institutions that sponsor track and field and cross country)
Provide a minimum aggregate expenditure amount (varies by year due to inflation and average tuition costs) exclusive of football and men’s and women’s basketball, provided the aggregate grant value is not less than the equivalent of 38 full grants (at least 19 for women).
The equivalent of 50 full grants (25 for women), exclusive of football and men’s and women’s basketball (35 full grants for institutions that don’t provide men’s or women’s basketball for the gender without the basketball program).
Data show that most institutions meet and exceed the 50 percent grant-in-aid maximum, though the Council requested more information about how they meet the requirement.

Some members expressed concern about increasing the minimum grant-in-aid requirements during challenging economic times, and backed a phased-in plan for current members that might be operating at the minimum level.

Other standards the Council will recommend include:

New members may not be elected to membership while subject to any historically based penalties as a result of the Academic Performance Program.
New members will undergo preliminary certification in the second year of certification with final certification in the last year before active membership.
Multisport conferences will receive voting privileges through legislation (voting ratios will not change).
Divisions II and III members will not be allowed to “play up” in a single sport, though current Divisions II and III members with a sport playing in Division I will be allowed to continue.
All multisport voting conferences will be eligible for consideration for automatic qualification to NCAA championships.


Will it be a matter of time where the part after the comma is deleted???

dggoddard
10-08-2009, 01:51 PM
Guessing the "grandfather clause" will always apply. Its one thing to not allow new members to play-up. The NCAA would be risking lawsuits by kicking schools out of D-I.

Lets face it, there has been and will continue to be a tremendous population shift from the North to the Sunbelt and West. This is going to create the need for more colleges in the South and West and naturally some will want to go D-I.

Alton
10-08-2009, 01:56 PM
Will it be a matter of time where the part after the comma is deleted???

No: they don't have any motivation to do that. Things like Johns Hopkins lacrosse winning D-I championships are good for the organization--the college presidents like it, so they are going to keep it that way. What they don't like is teams moving up that don't have any business playing at the D-I level, and that is what this legislation is all about.

The status quo is fine with "the NCAA," but the constant pressure of more teams trying to get in to Division I is not. That is why they instituted the moratorium on moving up to D-I 3 or 4 years ago, and this legislation is what they came up with to stop the flow after the moratorium expires. They don't want to kick anybody out, and as dggodard says, they probably wouldn't win any ensuing court cases.

ChiefWahoo
10-08-2009, 02:05 PM
Will it be a matter of time where the part after the comma is deleted???

How many D2 institutions are "playing up" in Football or Basketball?

Alton
10-08-2009, 02:11 PM
How many D2 institutions are "playing up" in Football or Basketball?

None; it is not permitted to play up in Football, Men's Basketball or Women's Basketball.

blockski
10-08-2009, 02:50 PM
Wouldn't it be possible for hockey to end the concept of 'playing up,' since there's no real choice for D-2 members? The 4 existing D-3 teams that play up continue to be grandfathered in.

That's essentially what happens now, anyway.

RITProf
10-08-2009, 03:00 PM
Hmmm ... RIT has publicly announced the intention to move the women's ice hockey team up to div. I as soon as the moratorium is over. It appears this could spell some trouble with that and leave RIT with only the men's team at DI (unless we undergo the proposed arduous process of moving everything up ... but I can't imagine that would happen if there is a required step through DII first).

I wonder if moving up the women's team might be able to fall under some sort of "exception" as well????

Ralph Baer
10-08-2009, 03:25 PM
Hmmm ... RIT has publicly announced the intention to move the women's ice hockey team up to div. I as soon as the moratorium is over. It appears this could spell some trouble with that and leave RIT with only the men's team at DI (unless we undergo the proposed arduous process of moving everything up ... but I can't imagine that would happen if there is a required step through DII first).

I wonder if moving up the women's team might be able to fall under some sort of "exception" as well????

I would think that the NCAA would not want to be in a postion to force RIT to not be in Title IX compliance. It seems somewhat similar to RPI being able to award scholarships to its women's team even though, as you well know, new D-III programs that play up to D-I are prohibited from awarding scholarships.

joecct
10-08-2009, 04:11 PM
Wouldn't it be possible for hockey to end the concept of 'playing up,' since there's no real choice for D-2 members? The 4 existing D-3 teams that play up continue to be grandfathered in.

That's essentially what happens now, anyway.Look at the # of D-II members playing D-1 or D-III hockey. IIRC, you can get 10 eastern teams and 11+ in the West. That's enough for a championship.

They've booted non D-1's out of participating in the D-1 championships before (IIRC Immaculata). Nothing is impossible for the NCAA.

And Ralph, outside of JHU, are there any D-III schools that are truly national contenders at D-I? We're not.

Jon
10-08-2009, 04:11 PM
5 years later, we're still worried about this. Unfortunate.

LtPowers
10-08-2009, 04:35 PM
And Ralph, outside of JHU, are there any D-III schools that are truly national contenders at D-I? We're not.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_III#Division_III_schools_with_Division_I_ programs) is the full list, to the best of my knowledge. In hockey, none that one would consider top-echelon, but they've won championships and make plenty of noise nationally. I suspect it's similar for the other sports.


Powers &8^]

blockski
10-08-2009, 04:38 PM
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_III#Division_III_schools_with_Division_I_ programs) is the full list, to the best of my knowledge. In hockey, none that one would consider top-echelon, but they've won championships and make plenty of noise nationally. I suspect it's similar for the other sports.


Powers &8^]

Colorado College would be 'top echelon' in my mind. They're certainly the most likely team of the hockey D3 schools.

Alton
10-08-2009, 04:45 PM
They've booted non D-1's out of participating in the D-1 championships before (IIRC Immaculata).

Immaculata, I believe, never participated in the NCAA at the D-I level; they did win 3 AIAW D-I championships, though. I don't think you can find an example of a school that played at the D-I level that were kicked out of D-I against their will by the NCAA--not counting temporary probation, of course.


Nothing is impossible for the NCAA.

This is the organization's evil genius. They know their limits, and they keep bumping up against those limits without going over.

Seriously--there is no desire within the NCAA membership to get rid of the current play-ups. There are a lot of documents on the Association's website where committees are discussing what to do about the steady flow of teams from Division II to Division I. Never was it suggested that current teams in Division I should (or could) be forced to leave.

RaceBoarder
10-08-2009, 04:48 PM
What is the big push to be D-I vs D-II? Does it stem from being able to collect checks for being cupcakes in Football and Basketball?

Jim
10-08-2009, 04:48 PM
I don't know who plays up in other sports, but I don't believe that that is a complete list. I know for example that Colby College competes in mens and womens D1 skiing, and if I recall, Williams competes in womens golf at the D1 level, or at least did at one time. I think a couple of other NESCAC schools, Middlebury and Williams perhaps at least have D-1 ski teams.

Alton
10-08-2009, 04:52 PM
Skiing is different--there is one national championship for schools in all divisions. That doesn't count as a "play-up" in the NCAA's system.

MikeAnderson
10-08-2009, 05:23 PM
Wouldn't it be possible for hockey to end the concept of 'playing up,' since there's no real choice for D-2 members? The 4 existing D-3 teams that play up continue to be grandfathered in.

That's essentially what happens now, anyway.

If the option of playing-up is removed, then the Division I men's ice hockey championship is kaput. There are only 36 full Division I schools playing the sport, with 40 being the magic number to sponsor a divisional championship (Bylaw 18.2.3).

The options for the ice hockey community would be slim, either establish a "national collegiate championship" which would combine all three divisions (see women's bowling, men's volleyball) or simply end the NCAA championship altogether and allow it to be administered as squash, rodeo and sailing are.

TimU
10-08-2009, 05:42 PM
Skiing is different--there is one national championship for schools in all divisions. That doesn't count as a "play-up" in the NCAA's system.

. . . which is the reason that the ******* president of Middlebury College could rail against the participation of D3 schools in D1 sports, without worrying that his school would have to stop competing against Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Denver, Dartmouth, and UVM for the national championship in skiing. If skiing did follow the divisional format, he wouldn't have dared say anything about the hockey play-ups.

blockski
10-08-2009, 11:36 PM
If the option of playing-up is removed, then the Division I men's ice hockey championship is kaput. There are only 36 full Division I schools playing the sport, with 40 being the magic number to sponsor a divisional championship (Bylaw 18.2.3).

The options for the ice hockey community would be slim, either establish a "national collegiate championship" which would combine all three divisions (see women's bowling, men's volleyball) or simply end the NCAA championship altogether and allow it to be administered as squash, rodeo and sailing are.

I don't think I was quite clear - by ending the concept of 'playing up,' I mean interpreting D1 hockey more like the NCAA skiing example mentioned above. Since there isn't a real D2 option, D2 schools playing D1 hockey shouldn't count as playing up.

kingdobbs
10-09-2009, 12:09 AM
What is the big push to be D-I vs D-II? Does it stem from being able to collect checks for being cupcakes in Football and Basketball?

Got it in one.

The allure is mostly basketball, but if you play football, I suppose you could get some extra dollars by being someone's speedbump.

Basketball is ridiculously cheap to put on, and the teams can easily score a few big payout games (as well as their cut of the NCAA tourney revenue, if they get themselves into a conference), which can easily make basketball break-even, if not fund a few extra sports.