The Sicatoka

Now let's have a reading from the Book of CSL (to NDSU):

"Could"? "Could" is strong wording? Then the wording of this must be on stone tables:

Which budget are you looking at? How about UND's FY04 Athletics Budget: $48,352.00 in the black.

Most put a clause in saying, if they're in the NCAAs, they'll play whomever the NCAA bracket puts them against. You have to have principles: NCAA money first.

UND's Liz Kaler moved up again today at the NCAAs. However, we have to tell her that only "Goon" is supposed to have to play shots like this.

Marcil's was a proposal. Propose first; argue later; vote after that. A cafeteria plan would do a better job than a three-division NCAA at stopping schools from spending more than they make by... allowing schools to only sponsor the number and types of sports that make sense (educationally and fiscally) for them and the demographics they serve. Did I just possibly say cut programs? Quite possibly, yes. (More on that to follow.) A cafereria plan would provide more or better educational opportunities than the status quo because... schools would no longer be forced to create and maintain athletic programs to meet an arbitrary minimum number of programs setpoint. At (sadly, far too) many schools this would allow reallocation of general institutional revenues and significant student fees back from athletics and into educational and research facilities and activities thereby creating better educational opportunities. The governing athletics doctrine would become Title IX ("no discrimination") and not some arbitrary "minimum of 14 sports" criteria. A cafeteria plan would provide more competitive athletic opportunities AND minimize the number of sports added just to satisfy the rules than the status quo because... (aren't these goals mutually exclusive?) Guess what. You're probably right here. Those two are most likely mutually exclusive. But programs are being cut already*, athletic opportunities are disappearing, due to budgetary issues. (Title IX is a great scapegoat for many.) Let's stop avoiding the unsavory subject of having to subsidize collegiate athletic budgets from the general institutional budgets and student fees and deal with it head on. * Put "athletic department program cuts" into your favorite search engine and see what all comes back.

Why should Marcil have talked for why DIs would go for his proposal? It was just a proposal in the NCAA News. The arguing comes after the proposal. (Gee, that sounds almost like marriage.) But onto other things. Yes, DIs want to play basketball. It's about the TV money. Next, the conversation about football: I believe is best had not from a "Dx" perspective but from a number of scholarships perspective. As you say, "DI-AA schools already feel stigmatized as not really being DI." Eliminate the "Dx" labels. Let the schools pick the level they want to play and lose the stigma of an arbitrary Roman numeral. (See Marcil's commentary on "II" and my "cafeteria" plan proposal.) As far as exclusivity, hasn't DI already lost its exclusivity? When schools like Rider and Elon and even smaller schools are "DI", where's the exclusivity? (It's the same dilemma faced by DII when the "UM-Morris"-types showed up.) Here's what I would hope all NCAA members want: - to provide, at worst, a net of no effect on the overall institutional budget (no institutional general revenues to underwrite athletic programs; these are extra-curricular, or at most co-curricular, programs) - to provide high-quality educational opportunities - to provide competitive athletic opportunities (and not just have the sport to meet an NCAA or Title IX requirement) If NCAA member schools all held to those simple core values I believe a cafeteria-type plan would work. Sadly, I suspect my hopes are far from reality. (See the post by "RD17" above, especially the first sentence.)

I'll fill in some gaps with what I know. A school can only talk (via press release) about recruits who have signed a national letter of intent. A student-athlete can "verbal" at any time. A school can not talk about a student-athlete who has made a verbal commitment (meaning hasn't signed an LOI); however, the media can talk about the verbal being given if they find out about it. The media seems to find out through the student-athlete, their parents, friends, or the student-athlete's HS coach. If the media asks a coach about a recruit, the wise coach says something to the effect that they can't talk about possible recruits who haven't signed an LOI.

Nobody will be watching JJ pitch today. Postponed due to rain.

You keep threatening, but then reappearing.

I didn't think anyone cared about college hockey. There are only seven (?), BC, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Notre Dame, BCS schools playing college hockey, or just over 10% of college hockey. How do we know they wouldn't come "down" to play?: There are lots of "logistics" issues relating to specific sports and teams that participate in a "full DI-AA" approach. That's why I stated I've started to wonder if a "cafeteria" plan isn't better. OK, you hinted: What is it, in your opinion, that "non-BCS DI schools want"?

Wouldn't it be smart to get all the details Joe and Gene didn't read in their report, but that others did, in place first?

Cute, BisonMav, very cute. There are "Ivy League hockey" standings and those Ivies that play hockey all play in the ECAC. PS - Think NDSU will win their all-sports conference cup next year?

Then there's this minor detail that Sydney Crosby is currently playing major junior in Canada and the NCAA considers that "professional".

Not everyone has wrestling; not everyone has swimming; not everyone has hockey. Why not include mens and womens hockey (and because of logistics use the RPI/PWR ratings used to seed the NCAA hockey tournaments for standings)?

I consciously chose 15 for "equality"; Title IX and all you know. I also shuffled the football numbers (current: 85, 63, 36, 0). Honestly, in my opinion, RD17 brings up the best point so far: "I don't believe there is any way to reform college athletics and have it work because it is impossible to save schools from their own stupidity. IMO, 30-50% of the schools in every division are playing at a level above what they can support financially."

I didn't say size was my knock on him. Look at the NHL prospects lists: The first NA skater under 5'11" is at #41. The pros seem to like to see the small guys prove themselves (free agents in major junior or beyond) rather than spend the draft pick.

I believe not. And I believe he's over the age limit for this year's draft plus the NHL knock on him is "too small".

The current DI womens basketball maximum is 15.

From the beginning of this saga (the departure of three NCC members over the last three years), I have both preached that there is a "missing level" in the NCAA because it hasn't kept up with the changing times in collegiate athletics since the formation of divisions in 1973. I believe it's that "tweener" level: Bigger than MSU-Moorhead, smaller than the biggest 100-or-so NCAA schools (the schools with the $15 MM+ budgets). I called it "all sports I-AA" at one time. Now I'm not so sure. Title IX set requirements that in some ways are more difficult to meet than the NCAAs. Title IX is Federal law. Almost every NCAA member takes Federal dollars so they are subject to it. Why have two sets of bureaucracy? Since we're tossing out proposals, I propose an NCAA system that eliminates "divisions" and is more of a "cafeteria" type of plan: - 5 levels of football (no more than 80, 60, 40, 20, 0 scholarships, and stepped student-athlete eligibility requirements) - 3 levels of basketball (no more than 15, 10, 0, and stepped student-athlete eligibility requirements) - 2 levels in about everything else ("about" because there may be exceptions I am unfamiliar with; scholarships levels set by sport, and stepped student-athlete eligibility requirements) I'd set student-athlete eligibility standards based on "level of play" with the catch that your whole athletic department, all sports, must meet the eligibility requirements of the most stringent level you are playing at. Plus, I'd like to see that a school's student-athletes have similar academic entrance profiles to the schools general student population. Under my proposal, a school can fit their programs to their unique situation. However, they still must be compliant to Title IX: You want that 80 scholarship football program? You have to have 80 womens scholarships in other sports and all the student-athletes have to meet the "80 scholarship football" eligibility requirements. Want to play 20 scholarship football but 15 scholarship mens basketball? Welcome to 35 womens scholarships and (I'd suspect) the the "15 scholarship basketball" eligibility requirements for all.

Don't get Sioux ROY, do get WCHA ROY: I think Brady will take that trade. PS - Rodrigo Ferreira broke at least one NCAA swimming mark (100 backstroke) this year. I can understand that. I don't know much about the other two.

somebison: From the OPD.ED.GOV site I believe it was you that clued us all into: NDSU (M/W/%men) Enrollment: 6313/4833/56.6% Athletes: 277/121/69.6% UND Enrollment: 6373/6050/51.3% Athletes: 272/198/57.9% Forgive me if I'd rather stand in front of the Title IX mongers with UND's numbers. They'll latch onto the disparity between 56.6% and 69.6% in NDSU's. As far as Athletically Related Financial Aid: NDSU: 65% men/35% women UND: 61% men/39% women Based on your numbers (your previous post), don't UND's male/female Athletically Related Financial Aid numbers get better? The 106 versus 85.2 you come up with is a 55/45 split. Based on all of the above, doesn't NDSU have the same issues and slightly worse (numbers) at that?

It came right from an article written by Jared Bruggeman, UND's Athletic Director for Compliance, in a past issue of Sioux Illustrated. There is also an extra "rider" on the 15 limit (same source): No more than 5 of the 15 in any one sport.

What Marcil posits is this: The academic missions and the athletic missions of many NCAA members are not in alignment is his problem statement. I believe he and Dr. Brand, president of the NCAA, having read recent statements by Dr. Brand, share this point of view.

Didn't Marcil do most of that? Using your framework as a basis: 1. "NCAA Division II has a philosophy of geographic regionalization and limited athletics grant-in-aid maximums. This would seem to be a philosophical and financial match with the largest group of colleges and universities, those in the center of the mission range. However, at present, NCAA Division III includes 425 member institutions, Division I includes 326 member institutions and Division II includes only 281 member institutions." 2. "It is apparent that there are a growing number of philosophical and financial differences among institutions in Divisions I and III. At the same time, after a decade of growth, Division II membership is now on the decline. With as many as 20 Division II institutions either currently in the process of reclassifying to Division I or considering it, Division II's model of geographic regionalization is being threatened." 3. He proposed his solutions. 4. Here Marcil clearly could have made a better case. Marcil is very "regional" in his athletics mindset. I'm sure that comes with being a conference commissioner and knowing the costs of travel regionally versus nationally. You, tony, see things in a very anti-regionalization mindset from what I've read. I believe that is the basic source of difference between you two. I can look through the weaknesses in Marcil's article to the greater message he is trying to deliver: Times have changed since 1973 and the formation of three NCAA divisions; the NCAA really hasn't.