The Sicatoka

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.

I won't argue for Marcil. I'll try to stay "disinterested" and just point out that: - Marcil sees a bell-shaped distribution of size and mission of US colleges and universities by his description. You disagree. Who is correct is left to the ambitious to determine. - You said, "... why does his solution revolve around football?" Marcil stated clearly before that that he wasn't going to talk about basketball: " ... I will just leave that elephant alone." In each case, I was trying to point out that he had already addressed your concerns.

tony, I quoted Marcil's article in response to your posits. Apparently you and Mr. Marcil disagree. I don't complete agree with Mike either; however, making football a stand-alone, pick the level you want to play at, category not tied to overall division membership is a fair proposal. It would be interesting to see how many schools would reclassify their programs into his (and names are just names, don't get hung up on them) Freedom, Independence, or Liberty divisions. I suspect there'd be motion in both directions meaning some DIIs may choose to play 63 scholarship football and some DI-AAs may move to the no scholarships division. Suddenly, the 1/3 of DI-AAs that play "no scholarship" football would have a chance to play for a national title. Suddenly schools with Title IX or budget problems could move to no-scholarship football, save dollars, not end up dropping other mens programs, and still have a chance to play for a championship. Marcil's ideas aren't all great (television should be free market) but they all aren't worthy of being merely cast aside either.

UND is adding three scholarships per year until they hit the maximum of 18. As far as ratios, the NCC has a maximum of 15 mens scholarships outside of basketball and football. (Remember, hockey is a WCHA sport.) Put that into play and add a fully funded womens hockey into the mix and the ratios look much better.

Congratulations to the 2004 Glenn

I thought the rumor, talking about Sioux Falls Stampede players, was that Grafton's Drew Sando was walking on, not Grand Forks' Matt Moreland.

That article written by Marcil was in this month's Sioux Illustrated. Football is such a different creature that Marcil's concept makes sense. That's why it can't happen in the NCAA's world. I suspect there is another formula to add 27 football scholarships outside of the equestrian panacea: Max out scholarships in all your womens sports (including the full 18 for an unnamed womens team sport involving sticks and ice).

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stor..._15559760.shtml

This month's Sioux Illustrated included a reprint of this piece written for the NCAA News by NCC Commissioner Mike Marcil: http://www.ncaa.org/news/2004/20040315/edi...al/4106n04.html