PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Nooz of the Day



joecct
06-24-2010, 03:48 PM
From 6/24/10 NCAA News

DIII championships panel floats change to 'core' definition

Jun 24, 2010 9:11:06 AM

By Gary Brown
The NCAA News

The Division III Championships Committee is advancing a concept to the Management Council that could eventually require an institution to be a core member of only one conference.

The idea is not yet a proposal, but the Championships Committee wants feedback from the Council and others before deciding whether to formalize it as a legislative recommendation. The concept would change the current definition of “core” to preclude the formation of “umbrella” conferences (an overarching conference with two sub-conferences in which schools are core in both the umbrella conference and the sub-conference). In such arrangements, the umbrella conference is eligible to gain two automatic-qualification spots.

An effective date has not been discussed, nor has the specific effect on the one existing umbrella conference in Division III (the 16-member Middle Atlantic Conference and the related Freedom and Commonwealth Conferences), although the committee is aware of the historical relationship of these conference members and would seek to minimize any negative impact on the existing group if changes are eventually proposed.

The action taken at the Championships Committee’s meeting Monday and Tuesday in Indianapolis is the result of the committee’s ongoing discussion about requirements for automatic qualification to Division III championships. The Championships Committee is trying to determine whether legislative changes are necessary to protect the integrity of automatic qualification and what the resulting implications would be on conference membership.

The review has been spurred by several informal inquiries regarding the potential establishment of additional umbrella conferences. Currently, a conference must have seven members competing in a sport, including four core members, to earn automatic qualification to a team championship. A school must participate in more than one sport in that league to be considered a core member.

Championships Committee members considered three models that addressed the core requirement, including one that would retain the status quo (and thus allow more umbrella conferences to form). But that and another model that would retain the definition of “core” and allow conferences with at least 14 members to receive an additional AQ were not supported.

While either of those options could re-emerge as the discussion progresses through the structure, the Championships Committee believes requiring schools to be core in a single league is the most reasonable approach.

Because the core designation could be used to assign accountability for other conference requirements and benefits (for example, grant money, voting rights and conference self-study guides), the committee believes the concept would help stabilize conference membership and require schools to think more strategically about alignments.

“By tying grant money, voting rights and other items to a single conference, there is an opportunity to provide stronger and more sustained leadership, commitment to philosophy and values, and a cohesion and purpose that endures over time – both at the conference and institutional level,” said committee chair Ira Zeff, the athletics director at Nebraska Wesleyan.

While the committee has not discussed details about how this would affect the MAC, Zeff acknowledged that a grandfather clause could be considered.

The committee also discussed the minimum number of institutions required for a conference to be AQ-eligible (currently seven) and the minimum number required to meet parameters for being considered an active conference (currently six) and asked the Division III Membership Committee to consider whether both standards should be seven.

Regional alignments and rankings

The Championships Committee continued its review of the division’s regional structure for evaluating teams for championships, including examining current sport region alignments and regional ranking processes.

The review of the regional structure was touched off by a variety of sport-specific recommendations requesting actions ranging from moving conference members in multistate leagues into the same region as other league members, to setting the number of teams that should be included in publicly released rankings.

Championships Committee members are interested in achieving more standardization in regionalization, ranging from assignment of schools to regions across sports to the number of teams publicly ranked – and even to the naming of regions, which varies from sport to sport.

At the June meeting, members were intrigued by a regionalization model based on conference groupings that produced eight regions (tentatively labeled as New England, East, Mid-Atlantic, South, Great Lakes, Midwest, Central and West) with a relatively balanced distribution of schools. Committee members charged staff with applying the same conference-based approach to sports that have fewer than eight regions.

The committee will continue to review this model and others before its next meeting in September and solicit feedback from sport committees, commissioners and other membership bodies. Changes would not be effective earlier than the 2012-13 academic year.

Committee members also charged staff with developing ranking models in the proposed regions based on a method the men’s basketball committee uses (number of sponsoring institutions in each region divided by the bracket ratio). The committee will review those ranking models at its September meeting.

Other highlights

In other action at the Championships Committee meeting, members:

Asked the Management Council to approve an administrative change to Bylaw 31.1.12.1.2 for all Division III championships (including combined events) held at a professional sports organization’s or team’s facility to allow the professional organization or team to promote the championship.

Asked the Management Council to approve noncontroversial legislation to delete the provision that would require institutions to follow the eligibility rules of the division that has two-thirds of its members in a given sport that holds a National Collegiate championship.

Asked the Management Council to sponsor legislation specifying that one of the two designated at-large positions on the NCAA Women’s Bowling Committee be a Division III representative.

Evaluated the 2009-10 score reporting pilot program designed to make more transparent the data the men’s and women’s soccer, men’s and women’s basketball, softball, and baseball committees use for selection purposes. The Championships Committee decided to extend the practice to the remaining team sports (field hockey, football, volleyball, men’s and women’s ice hockey, and men’s and women’s lacrosse) for 2010-11 and beyond

one_to7
06-25-2010, 10:08 PM
Anyone happen to have any information about this pilot program used last year that's going to be extended to hockey?

;)

norm1909
06-25-2010, 10:30 PM
Anyone happen to have any information about this pilot program used last year that's going to be extended to hockey?

;)

There is this (excerpt from page 12 of 14):


13. 2009 Proposal No. 8 – Selection Criteria – Availability of Data throughout the Season. The committee continued discussion about making data available to the membership throughout the sports seasons, per 2009 Proposal No. 8. In addition to the procedural and educational steps it listed in February for addressing concerns about the accuracy of the data and education about the selection process, the committee will experiment during 2009-10 with making selection data publicly available via the NCAA Web site.

It was VOTED

“That a pilot program be created to provide snapshots of information from the NCAA score-reporting system. The snapshots will be provided in a PDF format during the four ranking periods leading up to selections in the sports of men’s and women’s soccer, men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, and softball.”

The championships committee, the sport committees, and the national office championship staff will evaluate the one-year pilot program through feedback generated by surveying coaches and student-athletes and other interested parties in the selected sports.


Also, there is this (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/f0845e00402084059510d5be749a3a0e/Minutes-9-09-CHAIRS.FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=f0845e00402084059510d5be749a3a0e) (excerpt from PDF Page 4 of 6):


...the score reporting system which captures the weighted calculation of the OWP and OOWP in an additional column. He also highlighted the snapshot from the score reporting system that will be published as a part of the score reporting pilot program in the sports of men’s and women’s soccer, men’s and women’s basketball, softball, and baseball.

Also this (http://ncaa.info/wps/wcm/connect/3416460041f678fe8e699f16fcabc21f/Minutes-2-10-FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=3416460041f678fe8e699f16fcabc21f): (excerpt from PDF Page 5 of 9):


Championships Group Update. Mr. Williams provided a number of updates concerning fall championships, highlighting the inaugural Elite 88 Award recipients, championships reports provided by NCAA staff, and the score-reporting pilot program (soccer). The committee offered constructive feedback and suggestions including the following: a) Announce all student-athletes who are tied with the final Elite 88 Award recipient in regard to grade point average, pending student-athlete sign-off of the Buckley Amendment; b) Ensure that banquet videos are representative of all participating teams; c) The addition of volunteer apparel added to the overall look and feel of the championships; d) A Championships City experience, as with men’s and women’s soccer in San Antonio, Texas, can allow for special emphasis on the ancillary components of the championships (banquet,
fan experience, etc.); and e) A request to staff to accumulate feedback regarding the score-reporting pilot program, including an analysis of how many individuals visited the portion of the web site containing the reports.

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
06-26-2010, 08:07 AM
Although the score reporting system being extended to include Ice Hockey is interesting... reading this makes me wonder if, and how, the other 2 things mentioned here might affect hockey.

I can think of one multi-sport conference that could be classified as an "umbrella conference" as it pertains to hockey...

And we all know the regionalization in hockey is totally ****ed up, even by NCAA standards.

NUProf
06-26-2010, 08:35 AM
I can think of one multi-sport conference that could be classified as an "umbrella conference" as it pertains to hockey...


The ECAC really doesn't fit the definition because it doesn't serve as the vehicle for AQs in any sport except hockey. The umbrella thing seems to be a little different, although I initially thought about that too. In every day parlance, the ECAC is huge umbrella - involved in many sports across all divisions, but it really is a different kind of bird - more like a regional version of the NCAA than anything else.

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
06-26-2010, 08:48 AM
The ECAC really doesn't fit the definition because it doesn't serve as the vehicle for AQs in any sport except hockey. The umbrella thing seems to be a little different, although I initially thought about that too. In every day parlance, the ECAC is huge umbrella - involved in many sports across all divisions, but it really is a different kind of bird - more like a regional version of the NCAA than anything else.

Ahh, okay. That makes sense.

But I'm still curious, and a little concerned, about how enforcing consistent regionalization across all sports would affect hockey. Based on the list of regions in one proposal, I could easily see the West (which is already small enough as it is) get separated into Mid-West and Great Lakes, and the east being separated between New England and the New York and Pennsylvania schools. Both of these would make things very, very interesting...

norm1909
06-26-2010, 09:41 AM
2010 NCAA Convention Division III Legislative Proposals
Question and Answer Guide
Second Edition
Approved December 15, 2009, by the NCAA Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/AMA/legislative_actions_issues/Division%20III/2010%20Convention/Q&A%20Document_2010%20NCAA%20Convention_final.pdf)

For your reading pleasure ;) Most take effect August 1, 2010. :cool:

NUProf
06-26-2010, 09:43 AM
Ahh, okay. That makes sense.

But I'm still curious, and a little concerned, about how enforcing consistent regionalization across all sports would affect hockey. Based on the list of regions in one proposal, I could easily see the West (which is already small enough as it is) get separated into Mid-West and Great Lakes, and the east being separated between New England and the New York and Pennsylvania schools. Both of these would make things very, very interesting...

I've also been trying to sort out what that would mean as well.


Regional alignments and rankings

The Championships Committee continued its review of the division’s regional structure for evaluating teams for championships, including examining current sport region alignments and regional ranking processes.

The review of the regional structure was touched off by a variety of sport-specific recommendations requesting actions ranging from moving conference members in multistate leagues into the same region as other league members, to setting the number of teams that should be included in publicly released rankings.

Championships Committee members are interested in achieving more standardization in regionalization, ranging from assignment of schools to regions across sports to the number of teams publicly ranked – and even to the naming of regions, which varies from sport to sport.

At the June meeting, members were intrigued by a regionalization model based on conference groupings that produced eight regions (tentatively labeled as New England, East, Mid-Atlantic, South, Great Lakes, Midwest, Central and West) with a relatively balanced distribution of schools. Committee members charged staff with applying the same conference-based approach to sports that have fewer than eight regions.

The committee will continue to review this model and others before its next meeting in September and solicit feedback from sport committees, commissioners and other membership bodies. Changes would not be effective earlier than the 2012-13 academic year.

Committee members also charged staff with developing ranking models in the proposed regions based on a method the men’s basketball committee uses (number of sponsoring institutions in each region divided by the bracket ratio). The committee will review those ranking models at its September meeting.

Highlights... Currently a school can be in a different region than its conference. This means that as I have advocated, Adrian could have been assigned to the East region, even though the MCHA is in the (mid)West region. That option would be out.

This would certainly splinter the Pool B(if it exists at the point this is adopted)/Pool C/ determination process, because of the rules discouraging out of regional play. Under the current rules a game is considered in region if it meets one of the following three considerations.

1. (Duh) Between teams in the same region.
2. A league game between teams in different regions but in the same league (not so for non-conference games between the same two teams)
3. Between two teams in different regions that are less than 200 miles apart.

This likely to mean that Adrian (which is the canonical counter example to everything) is going to really be isolated - depending on how the lines are dawn, it could be that the only games they can play that will count would be against MCHA teams.

In the East/New England area, games between SUNYAC and ECAC West teams against a number of the ECAC East/Nescac/ECAC NE/MASCAC school are likely to fall into the "don't count" category.

The Pool B(if it exists)/Pool C selection process will become even more contentious and opaque. Just what we need - more opportunity for conspiracy theories.

Once again the NCAA's "one size fits all" approach is likely to have many unintended consequences for hockey

norm1909
06-26-2010, 09:53 AM
NCAA.ORG: Dwindling at-large berths among DIII championships concerns (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/NCAANewsArchive/2009/Division+III/dwindling%2Bat%2Blarge%2Bberths%2Bamong%2Bdiii%2Bc hampionships%2Bconcerns_09_21_09_ncaa_news.html)

NCAA.ORG: DIII Membership Committee approves five new members (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/diii+membership+committee+approves+five+new+member s_06_25_10_ncaa_news)

The Division III Membership Committee is recommending active status for five institutions that successfully completed all four years of the Division III provisional membership process.

If approved by the Division III Management Council next month, the following schools will begin active status in Division III on September 1:

•Lancaster Bible College (Lancaster, Pennsylvania)
•Lyndon State College (Lyndonville, Vermont)
•North Central University (Minnesota) (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
•Penn State Harrisburg (Middletown, Pennsylvania)
•Saint Vincent College (Latrobe, Pennsylvania)
These additions, plus other anticipated movement before September 1, would bring total active Division III membership to 434 institutions.

Meeting June 22-23 in Indianapolis, the Division III Membership Committee also agreed to move the following four institutions to the final year of provisional membership:

•Franciscan University Steubenville (Steubenville, Ohio)
•Geneva College (Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania)
•St. Joseph’s College (Brooklyn, New York)
•Birmingham-Southern College (Birmingham, Alabama)
If those institutions successfully complete year four of the provisional/reclassifying process, they could be accepted as active Division III members for the 2011-12 academic year.

The Membership Committee also approved other advancement in the provisional/reclassifying track.

From Year 2 to Year 3 (on track to achieve active membership in 2012-13)

•Spalding University (Louisville, Kentucky)
•State University of New York at Cobleskill (Cobleskill, New York)
From Year 1 to Year 2 (on track to achieve active membership in 2013-14)

•Berry College (Mount Berry, Georgia)
•Covenant College (Lookout Mountain, Georgia)
•Penn State Abington (Abington, Pennsylvania)
The committee also considered applications from several schools asking to begin the Division III membership process and made recommendations that the Management Council will consider at its July 19-20 meeting.


More summertime reading ;)

NUProf
06-26-2010, 10:17 AM
You missed highlighting one.


If approved by the Division III Management Council next month, the following schools will begin active status in Division III on September 1:

•Lancaster Bible College (Lancaster, Pennsylvania)
•Lyndon State College (Lyndonville, Vermont)
•North Central University (Minnesota) (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
•Penn State Harrisburg (Middletown, Pennsylvania)
•Saint Vincent College (Latrobe, Pennsylvania)
These additions, plus other anticipated movement before September 1, would bring total active Division III membership to 434 institutions.

This school is part of the Vermont State College system (same as Castleton)

Here's a list of their sports programs



Men's and Women's
NCAA/Division III
Intercollegiate Sports

Cross Country
Soccer
Tennis
Basketball
Volleyball
Softball
Baseball
Lacrosse

Club Sports

Hockey
Rugby
Ultimate Frisbee
Dance Team

Anybody know anything about what is going on up there?

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
06-26-2010, 10:34 AM
You missed highlighting one.



This school is part of the Vermont State College system (same as Castleton)

Here's a list of their sports programs



Anybody know anything about what is going on up there?

They're an M2 team... and a fairly bad one at that ;)

They were 5-10-1 last season, lost in the quarterfinals of NECHA Colonial Conference Playoffs (same conference as Norwich's club team).

Games against the club teams of NCAA Hockey-sponsoring schools:
Tufts, L 7-8 OT
Castleton 5-7
@Norwich, L 1-5
@Tufts, W 2-1
Norwich, L 1-7
@Tufts, L 2-3 (NECHA Colonial Quarterfinals)

Somehow I don't think they're going to be too quick to "make the jump" in hockey.

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
06-26-2010, 10:43 AM
Meeting June 22-23 in Indianapolis, the Division III Membership Committee also agreed to move the following four institutions to the final year of provisional membership:

•Franciscan University Steubenville (Steubenville, Ohio)
•Geneva College (Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania)
•St. Joseph’s College (Brooklyn, New York)
•Birmingham-Southern College (Birmingham, Alabama)
If those institutions successfully complete year four of the provisional/reclassifying process, they could be accepted as active Division III members for the 2011-12 academic year.

Oh dear... they actually play sports there? That school is in a town with air quality that makes a lot of major cities seem like fresh air. 2 miles away from a salt mine. Some 75% of 4-year students leave with a permanent lung condition that they did not have before. Last time I checked, athletes need to be able to breathe :p

NUProf
06-26-2010, 10:53 AM
They're an M2 team... and a fairly bad one at that ;)

They were 5-10-1 last season, lost in the quarterfinals of NECHA Colonial Conference Playoffs (same conference as Norwich's club team).

Games against the club teams of NCAA Hockey-sponsoring schools:
Tufts, L 7-8 OT
Castleton 5-7
@Norwich, L 1-5
@Tufts, W 2-1
Norwich, L 1-7
@Tufts, L 2-3 (NECHA Colonial Quarterfinals)

Somehow I don't think they're going to be too quick to "make the jump" in hockey.

IIRC that's a profile similar to that of Castleton when they "made the jump." I think that two players from the Castleton club team went from the club program to the varsity program (the one that went 0 for two seasons). Not saying it's likely that Lyndon will do anything, but it adds another program to speculate about FWIW.

cooperalls
07-11-2010, 12:23 PM
Question is there are or at least used to be three schools in the Northeast that used to heavily fund their club hockey programs as a varsity sport. Those programs were MIT,Bates, Daniel Webster College,Scranton and Alvernia College that the ECAC or AD's and Presidents from various leagues should talk to about completing the vasrsity process and joining either the NESCAC, ECAC East, Northeast, or West. In the West teams like Hope College MI, Dordt College IA, College of the Holy Cross South Bend, IN, and Calvin College MI, Davenport College, Univ. of Michigan Dearborn, Robet Morris College Il., are also very well supported or considered varsity sports at their schools. Whoops just created a 7 team NCAA Conference in the West.

The NCAA or college hockey needs someone in a position to help promote sports that need expansion like ice hockey.




NCAA.ORG: Dwindling at-large berths among DIII championships concerns (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/NCAANewsArchive/2009/Division+III/dwindling%2Bat%2Blarge%2Bberths%2Bamong%2Bdiii%2Bc hampionships%2Bconcerns_09_21_09_ncaa_news.html)

NCAA.ORG: DIII Membership Committee approves five new members (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/diii+membership+committee+approves+five+new+member s_06_25_10_ncaa_news)


More summertime reading ;)

joecct
07-11-2010, 12:45 PM
...The NCAA or college hockey needs someone in a position to help promote sports that need expansion like ice hockey.There is Paul Kelley and College Hockey, Inc. But, IMO, that organization is only interested in Division I, or, more aptly, where the money is.

cooperalls
07-11-2010, 12:58 PM
So guess he has solved the issues with the D2's heard from the tooth fairy last night and told me that he worked out a deal for the D2's to move up to D1 in near future. Good Luck with that one the money will continue to go up in his pocket and just wait the numbers will decline. Keep him away from DIII the D1's can have him.



There is Paul Kelley and College Hockey, Inc. But, IMO, that organization is only interested in Division I, or, more aptly, where the money is.