|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 3, 2023 14:53:06 GMT -5
Here's the full text of the 48-page report released today: ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d1/transform/Jan2023D1TC_FinalReport.pdfI haven't read it yet, but here are what news outlets are highlighting: "The most front-facing change comes in championship participation. The 25% recommendation for all sports sponsored by at least 200 schools opens the door for possible expansion of the March Madness basketball tournaments from 68 to as many as 90 teams each."That would mean the women's volleyball tournament goes to 80-84 teams. "• Require schools to create a "direct pathway for full-time clinical services of a licensed mental health professional exclusively dedicated to serving student-athletes."
• Schools and conference should create Student-Athlete Advisory Committees, similar to those used by the NCAA to allow athletes to be more involved in decisions.
• Require more accountability, training and certification for coaches.
The committee has also recommended expanding permissible benefits to athletes to include more pay for travel, elite training away from the school, educational incidentals and more money toward housing and meals.
The committee also recommended a review of membership requirements to the top tier of Division I football, known as the Bowl Subdivision. Those requirements are now mostly tied to attendance minimums.
Under governance, the committee recommended the creating of sport-by-sport oversight committees similar to those currently used in basketball and football. A movement to decentralize the governance of college athletics was spurred by the Supreme Court's unanimous decision against the NCAA in June 2021 in an antitrust case."www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35372595/ncaa-recommendations-call-bigger-championship-events |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 3, 2023 15:08:00 GMT -5
Skimming through it now:
• Eliminate the volunteer coach designation, increase the number of countable coaches permitted in
applicable sports and eliminate the recruiting coordination functions legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 3, 2023 15:17:08 GMT -5
A little wonky, but some recommendations about championship travel:
Championships — Elevated Championships Travel Experience
The Transformation Committee recommends that travel policies for Division I
and National Collegiate championships be reviewed to identify ways to elevate
the travel experience for participants while maintaining operational controls,
which allow for consistent implementation across sports and genders, within
budget parameters.
The Transformation Committee identified the following areas for potential
immediate action by the Board of Directors:
• Increase all Division I and National Collegiate per diem rates to be equal with Division I basketball preliminary rounds.
• Reimburse for local ground transportation when a team travels by air.
• Standardize the process and fee structure for upgrading to charter air travel.
• Guarantee outbound charter air travel for teams advancing to the finals round, for teams that otherwise qualify for air travel. (Note: This would not apply to sports that conduct the entirety of the championship at one site or bring more than eight teams to the final site.)
• For outbound travel to competition site, do not split NCAA-financed travel party. Additional variations could be set for outbound flights vs. return flights.
• Modify travel policies for team sports to only apply the hub rule on departure or arrival but not both. Once a reimagined decision-making structure is operational, the Board of Directors or the appropriate entity should review and consider the following:
• Guaranteeing charter air travel for teams traveling over 2,000 miles and no direct flight options.
• Reducing hub mileage to 150 (or some other mile radius and consider time in transit).
• Redefining reasonable flight options in conjunction with hub rule to only allow an early departure (6 a.m.) or late arrival from a local/regional airport. Further, establish a new time parameter for acceptable departure for a hub airport.
• In conjunction with the review of championship postseason travel policies, the benefits, risks, and challenges of using logistics services (i.e., current partners: Short’s Travel, Anthony Travel, STM Driven, On Location) organized by the NCAA for the championship postseason should be reviewed.
Any changes should account for risk mitigation and limited availability of commercial and charter flights given quick turnaround between selections and travel. The review should also consider the benefits and challenges of using logistics services (i.e., Short’s Travel, Anthony Travel, STM Driven, On Location) organized by the NCAA.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 3, 2023 16:47:34 GMT -5
Here's what an 84-team bracket (with half of the field seeded) might have looked like in 2022 trojansc who did I snub?  |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jan 3, 2023 17:35:37 GMT -5
25% of sponsorship in the tournament would expand...
D1 (345 teams) to 87 teams, with at least 50% of the teams seeded, so 44 teams seeded.
D2 (289 teams) to 74 teams
D3 (428 teams) to 107 teams
Except of course requiring a trainer at every practice, requiring a mental health professional, 10 years for scholarhip athletes to graduate and other new standards on what it means to be D1, I imagine we'll see some flexibility in these numbers for the first few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 3, 2023 17:43:48 GMT -5
25% of sponsorship in the tournament would expand... D1 (345 teams) to 87 teams, with at least 50% of the teams seeded, so 44 teams seeded. D2 (289 teams) to 74 teams D3 (428 teams) to 107 teams Except of course requiring a trainer at every practice, requiring a mental health professional, 10 years for scholarhip athletes to graduate and other new standards on what it means to be D1, I imagine we'll see some flexibility in these numbers for the first few years. It's the "NCAA Division I Transformation Committee", so I assume it only applies to Division I championships. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jan 3, 2023 17:49:56 GMT -5
That's what I thought at first but if you look at page 12 where one bullet refers to all D1 schools, and the next bullet refers to all schools and it seems like the intention is for some of this to go further, or am I reading too much into that?
Last I read them, the access to championships formula was not division specific as far as I know. Has that changed? I supposed it could going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jan 4, 2023 7:25:03 GMT -5
Here’s another interesting piece…
“consideration of a model in which institutions are not permitted to count a sport toward meeting minimum sports-sponsorship requirements unless it demonstrates a certain level of financial commitment to student-athlete scholarships in that sport.”
So they recommend maintaining 16 sport minimum, but the sport doesn’t count without half or a quarter (whatever they decide) of available scholarships funded each year.
Combine this along with 4 year scholarships, the 10 years to graduate, and an athletic trainer in every practice - all which is standard at wealthier schools but I wonder what the NEC or MEAC and others do with an escalating bill to participate in D1. How many schools would be forced to leave D1 over money?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 4, 2023 11:35:16 GMT -5
Here's what an 84-team bracket (with half of the field seeded) might have looked like in 2022 trojansc who did I snub? You have way too much time on your hands! |
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jan 4, 2023 11:41:21 GMT -5
It's wonderful, of course, that more schools and more student athletes would be able to play in the tournament.
But if this happens to D1 VB in the near future, there will be some very unappealing first round matchups.
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Jan 4, 2023 11:46:47 GMT -5
It's wonderful, of course, that more schools and more student athletes would be able to play in the tournament. But if this happens to D1 VB in the near future, there will be some very unappealing first round matchups. I think we'd see at least one round where top seeded teams get byes. Sort of like a pretournament play-in round. I think that could reduce the level of mismatch at least. Not sure where the 25% number comes from though. Basically you'd just see an increase in teams from the P5 with a drizzling of others. |
|
|
|
Post by InfoBot on Jan 4, 2023 11:52:46 GMT -5
The committee has also recommended expanding permissible benefits to athletes to include more pay for travel, elite training away from the school, educational incidentals and more money toward housing and meals.
--
Under governance, the committee recommended the creating of sport-by-sport oversight committees similar to those currently used in basketball and football. A movement to decentralize the governance of college athletics was spurred by the Supreme Court's unanimous decision against the NCAA in June 2021 in an antitrust case." This will be good for student-athletes at wealthy schools, but not anybody else. Permissible doesn't mean guaranteed. There's already a large discrepancy in travel (charter vs commerical) and number and quality of meals for a lot of D1 teams. -- This would be helpful! I mentioned in another thread that the NCAA has volleyball lumped in with all other "Olympic Sports" even though the viewership and atendance numbers in a lot of places far surpass that of the other OSs. This should, in theory, give volleyball the opportunity to draft legislation and such that benefits them directly and doesn't have to make sense for softball, soccer, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Jan 4, 2023 13:13:15 GMT -5
It's wonderful, of course, that more schools and more student athletes would be able to play in the tournament. But if this happens to D1 VB in the near future, there will be some very unappealing first round matchups. We already have that. Expanding would be ridiculous, just getting closer and closer to everyone gets a trophy |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 4, 2023 13:50:38 GMT -5
It's wonderful, of course, that more schools and more student athletes would be able to play in the tournament. But if this happens to D1 VB in the near future, there will be some very unappealing first round matchups. I disagree. It would water down the level of accomplishment that is making the NCAA tournament, but the matchups become nothing but better. In the opening round, low level automatic qualifiers wouldn’t get obliterated by overall Top 10 teams (check the scores of Texas-Fairleigh Dickinson, Wisconsin-Quinnipiac, Nebraska-Delaware St, etc.). Instead, they’d either be playing each other or at large teams outside of the Top 44. Then the round of 64 would be closer to having the ACTUAL 64 best teams. In my bracket, that could be Texas v North Carolina, Wisconsin v Colorado State, and Nebraska v LMU instead of those absolute mismatches they actually had. |
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jan 4, 2023 14:59:26 GMT -5
It's wonderful, of course, that more schools and more student athletes would be able to play in the tournament. But if this happens to D1 VB in the near future, there will be some very unappealing first round matchups. I disagree. It would water down the level of accomplishment that is making the NCAA tournament, but the matchups become nothing but better. In the opening round, low level automatic qualifiers wouldn’t get obliterated by overall Top 10 teams (check the scores of Texas-Fairleigh Dickinson, Wisconsin-Quinnipiac, Nebraska-Delaware St, etc.). Instead, they’d either be playing each other or at large teams outside of the Top 44. Then the round of 64 would be closer to having the ACTUAL 64 best teams. In my bracket, that could be Texas v North Carolina, Wisconsin v Colorado State, and Nebraska v LMU instead of those absolute mismatches they actually had. Fair point. I can buy that - to a degree. |
|
