Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

Hansel

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    582

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Hansel

    Kupchella's modest proposal

    in Community

    Posted

    November 23, 2005

    Modest Proposal to the NCAA to Eliminate the Remaining Boundaries Between Divisions

    President Myles Brand has pointed out that the NCAA has a responsibility to monitor how division affiliation criteria affect the greater good of the Association. He has often said that institutions, not the NCAA, must determine through the most appropriate membership affiliation, how best to carry out and live by institutional values in the context of their academic mission. The following proposal takes the position that the NCAA's rules (governing division status) * themselves * frustrate the ability of institutions to meet that objective.

    In Gary Brown's article in the October 11, 2004, NCAA News, he points out that while institutions do pay a lot of attention to their own identities, there may need to be equal attention paid to how divisional decisions affect the NCAA family, and that the issue of divisional "boxes" may need broader attention. Carol Cartwright, speaking as NCAA Executive Committee Chair, said that such concerns have not been systematically addressed, but that the Executive Committee would be, in fact, the appropriate body for a review. Thus, this proposal is directed to the Executive Committee.

    The proposal, in summary, is to eliminate "Divisions" except on a sport-by-sport basis. The remainder of this proposal will elaborate on the logic of doing this.

    First of all, the NCAA has already started down this road and, in fact, is well down the road. So called Division I schools have at least four options for playing football, for example. The range of these options is such that it belies any explanation having to do with "philosophical coherence." Division IA has 85 scholarships; Division IAA can have up to 63, while some AA schools have no scholarships at all; and, of course, many Division I schools do not play football.

    Some Division III schools play hockey at Division I and, in fact, that Division recently rejected any purist notion of Division III by allowing its member schools to play Division I hockey, despite not otherwise having so-called athletic scholarships. At many Division II schools, hockey and several other sports are played at the Division I level.

    It seems there are only relatively weak arguments in support of having "divisions" as basically an all-or-none proposition. One of these is that it makes it easier to have conference affiliations. Yet, more than a few colleges and universities play hockey and/or other sports at one level, with other sports at a different level, and simply belong to more than one conference. This can be, and is being done in other words.

    Another reason cited in support of all-or-none Divisions is "philosophical coherence." But this, too, is less than compelling, as already suggested above. There is no coherence within current Divisions anyway. The largest Division II school has 22,000 students; the smallest has 300. They cover the entire spectrum of philosophical commitments and missions, and thus there isn't any philosophical or any other kind of coherence between and among Division II schools, other than that imposed by the athletic designation. The range of differences is, if anything, even greater in Division I.

    A more substantive reason for this structure, and the one that will keep this proposal from being seriously considered, some say, is that it serves as a way to limit the number of high-dollar shares of NCAA revenue, mainly from television. This has some credibility since there are also other ways in which it is made more difficult than necessary for schools to move from one classification to another, particularly to the classification that yields the largest shares of television money.

    The argument sometimes made for long periods of ineligibility * another barrier * imposed on schools seeking to move "up," is that it takes time to grow into Division I. Yet, two years ago, two schools from the North Central Conference, unranked in Division II in their last year of Division II football competition, were ranked in the top 25 their first year in Division IAA.

    I am not sure who he is talking about, but NDSU and UNC were ranked in their final year of Division II, and SDSU was not ranked in IAA in their first year

    The need to finance a wholesale move by 20 or more sports * all at the same time * is certainly a major barrier in any case. Could we not find another way to move more dollars to the high-cost programs?

    So, what about the reasons for decoupling sports from Division status, i.e., retain the division status but only on a sport-by-sport basis, rather than on a school-by-school basis?

    First and foremost, a loosening up of the status of an institution would take out the temptations of some schools to move all of their sports up, despite the difficulty of doing so financially. It would make it harder to identify a particular institution as a Division I school or a Division III school. It is an undeniable reality that as long as there are indicators or designations for three divisions * currently I, II, and III * there will be the impression that Division I is the "best."

    Ummm yeah, Division I will always have the highest level of athletic competition and does have the highest academic standards for athletes

    No amount of talking about it or emphasizing "brand" at other division levels will change the fact that many believe the rank of I is something to which all institutions should, even if they don't, aspire. Second, it would allow schools that really do want to move all of their sports to the "highest" athletic level to do so following a business plan that would move one sport, or a few sports, up per year, rather than having to move them all at one time. Third, it would allow schools to have at least some sports where the focus could be on regional students. Schools would not have to recruit or play all of their sports on a national level.

    A recent summer conference of Division II presidents revealed several sets of conclusions that beg for a new solution to the relatively rigid current classification of NCAA schools. A study by the Orszag brothers reported at the meeting revealed there was no significant economic or other benefit of schools moving from Division II to Division I, other than the perceived "prestige" of doing so. It was suggested that many schools, in search for visibility and "status," may be diverting resources from faculty salaries, equipment, academic programs, and other such important things, to make the move to Division I, where there is a much more significant net loss in funding every year despite much larger sums of money being spent. Every school for which the Orszag brothers had data experienced a decline in net operating revenue excluding institutional support, state support, and student activity fees when moving from Division II to Division I. The median decline was almost $2 million.

    I won't develop the arguments here addressing the need to do more about the financial arms race in intercollegiate athletics, except to say that the sums of money now being spent could well be distorting even the fundamental paradigms of sport such as sportsmanship and competition. How can it be asserted, when there are hundreds of millions at stake, that it doesn't matter whether you win or lose but "how you play the game."

    A proposal to decouple football from a strict adherence to division status is, as I understand it, now under discussion. The proposal here would simply take that proposal further.

    http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/asso...ii/4221n18.html

    not for DII schools wanting to move up

    In touting the Division II sports festival, President Brand, in the April 28 edition of the NCAA News, is quoted as saying, "We do not always take the time that we should to recognize and celebrate innovation." He goes on to say, "It is human nature to execute the proven approach rather than finding new and better ways of doing things. It is the safer method, after all * certainly one that is less likely to be second guessed." He then goes on to say, "Of course it is also the route to organizational malaise. When we fail to innovate, we run an increasing risk of paying more attention to the process itself than to what the process is meant to accomplish." While these remarks were directed at the championship festival idea, they hold for the concept being proposed here as well. The NCAA's current division structure should be made less rigid.

    I think he beats the "hockey horse" a bit much, hockey is a unique sport in the college realm (# teams, history of teams playing at the highest level etc).

    Fact checking a little off, but all in all you can't blame a guy for trying I guess

    DI vs DII (Horizon League)

    in Community

    Posted

    Better link: http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/asso...ii/4221n18.html

    Sounds like all is not well in DI-AA-land (much less DII-land) when "90 percent" aren't playing for a playoff spot.

    There are schools that have a team and schools that fund a team. A cafeteria plan would allow them to sort themselves out without the extra baggage of some arbitrary "division" level for all sports to have to deal with (primarily fiscally).

    The NCAA should try and keep links under a 1000 characters ???:0

    Wingate is a DII school, I don't know how their president speaks for IAA interests, the only IAA complaining are the so-called "mid-majors" which offer either limited (NEC,MAAC) or no (Pioneer) scholarships.

    DI vs DII (Horizon League)

    in Community

    Posted

    Posted this earlier, but it is appropriate in this thread IMO

    BALTIMORE -- Division II's effort to change how the Association views football classification encountered strong tailwinds and heavy headwinds during the same September 27 meeting.

    The Division II Football Task Force meeting included several Division I-AA representatives who reacted positively to efforts to create postseason opportunities for Divisions I and II programs that offer few or no scholarships. However, Division I-AA's fully funded programs appeared less enthusiastic about a proposal that would decouple Divisions I and II football from the traditional NCAA membership classification system and enable football programs to choose competition levels based on how many grants-in-aid they provide.

    In a nutshell, UND will not be a DII school playing IAA football.

    [url=http://www2.ncaa.org/page_printer.php?url=http%3A//www2.ncaa.org/media_ahttp://www2.ncaa.org/page_printer.php?url=...caa.org/media_a nd_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2005/10_10_05/division_ii/4221n18.html&title=NCAA%20-%20I-AA%20interests%20balk%20at%20alternative%20classification%20proposal]

    New Ratings

    in Football

    Posted

    I have a lot more faith in Massey (last numeric column) than the BCS system.

    <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    You think UND is the 46th best team in ALL of college football? UND is real good this year... but not that good :D

    IMHO computers do a decent/good job of comparing teams within divisions, but not across them due the limited amount of interplay between teams across divisions.

    DII has an additional "problem" in these ratings as you have 13 team leagues such as the GLIAC which have played a total of 4 non conference games and the 10 team NE-10 has played 6 total non-conf games. Pretty difficult to get a read on relative conference strength where you have conferences in which less than half the teams have played non-conference games.

    2005 Schedule

    in Football

    Posted

    What about Crookston?  Maybe you guys should call Mary or Mayville State.  Oh wait a minute I forgot that DI-AA football and the Great West were a joke.  My bad... ;)

    <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    This isn't a smack board, please don't treat it as such :glare::ohmy:

    NASA and UND

    in Community

    Posted

    Sadly, searching the 30-day archive at in-forum.com for "NASA" I can't find any mention of this story.

    Considering the positive this is for the RRV Research Corridor (and GF AFB and recognition of UND, all of which is good for all of ND) I'd expected the Forum would have picked it up.

    <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    This one?

    Buning is new AD

    in Community

    Posted

    Q and A with Buning

    some of the questions

    What are your first priorities in your new position?

    The first thing to do is to get established there at my desk and build a solid administrative team. We have some great, dedicated folks who have been pulling double duty for a significant amount of time. The reason for that is there are some vacancies. I think it will be key to fill those with the right folks who fit the team and support the vision and goals we have for the department.

    Some troubles have existed between the athletic department and Ralph Engelstad Arena officials since the new building that houses UND hockey opened in 2001. Some critics believe the athletic department should be getting more money from arena proceeds to keep Sioux hockey as one of the country's top programs and help other Sioux programs. How will you go about improving relations?

    The wonderful opportunity that's at play here now is the fact that the REA has begun a process of finding a new general manager. I think that's an absolutely critical position. The nice thing is the two of us will be new at the same time, and we can build relationships - not only with our respective organizations, but with each other. It's a good time to solidify the ... mission statements that really drive two organizations to work together. And if done right, no one needs to be asking or worrying about the relationship between us, because it really does have to be mutual and symbiotic.

    The athletic department will have a deficit of more than $200,000 this fiscal year. Would you consider cutting some nonrevenue sports?

    That's a very draconian measure ... As an athletic director, I feel compelled that the mission is to make sure you maintain, as a minimum, the status quo, because that's your job to support them. I'm not afraid to go out and do the work it takes to keep our sports, and not only that, but keep them funded to the point where they have the opportunity to be successful.

    UND has fairly new buildings for football (Alerus Center), hockey (Ralph Engelstad Arena) and volleyball and basketball (Betty Engelstad Sioux Center). What other facilities would you like to upgrade? Memorial Stadium and the running track need work. How about the soccer, baseball and softball facilities?

    I do know very intimately the importance of facilities and their relationship to the success of the program. They absolutely help an athletic department recruit a coach, help a coach recruit athletes and, once those athletes are here, develop them and create a great environment to compete in at the highest level ... . These are some absolutely first-rate facilities ... . Clearly there are some significant deficiencies in those sports you mentioned that would come down to a matter of priority and how I can do the most good with the limited resources available. From what I understand, these would have to be gift-funded projects. It's going to take time. It's going to take some major capital campaigns to do it. Clearly an indoor practice facility is one that jumps out as being very critical. I can't say for certain that that would be the No. 1 priority, but I know that, based on the climate and if built right, it can really facilitate improvement of a lot of sports.

    BRAC recommendations

    in Community

    Posted

    I see Conrad says he is going to fight to keep the tankers in GF. Although keeping the tankers would keep a lot of jobs at the base (temporarily), you would think there is a good shot GFAFB would lose them eventually anyway due to the "low ranking" by the military for that service. If you had a choice (thinking longterm) between the UAV's and the tankers what would you choose? Personally I would go with the UAV's as GF is in a perfect region for their use (meaning what jobs come would stay) and it opens up possible research ventures to the RRV "research corridor".

    Thoughts?

    Buning is new AD

    in Community

    Posted

    Herald article on Buning

    "I literally can't wait to get started," said Buning, who has spent the past four years as an associate athletic director at NCAA Division I Army.

    Buning will face the challenge of leading an athletic department that has enjoyed success on two levels of competition. UND is a power in NCAA Division I hockey, and the school's Division II programs in women's basketball and football are perennial contenders for national titles as well.

    But he also takes over a department that faces a number of challenges, ranging from budget constraints to rising costs to the sometimes tenuous partnership between Ralph Engelstad Arena and UND athletics.

    However, there was no news on the Division I front during Buning's introductory media conference.

    "We're going to continue to do what we said we're going to do," Kupchella said.That means UND will continue to monitor intercollegiate athletics. And if a move upward is warranted and feasible, the school will act accordingly, Kupchella indicated.

    In looking at the UND position, Buning said he called North Dakota State athletic director Gene Taylor, who took over the Bison program after spending time as a Navy associate athletic director.

    He liked what he heard from Taylor.

    "Gene had nothing but the best to say about this particular job," Buning said. "He thought this is a tremendous place. The conversation was extremely upbeat and positive."

    BRAC recommendations

    in Community

    Posted

    Last year, Conrad added into the Intelligence Reform Bill passed in December the "Smart Border" project, which would base a new program of UAV research and development in Grand Forks to provide a new kind of border surveillance.

    It's all part of the stepped-up stateside security needed since 9-11, he said.

    The idea behind the project is to use sensors, cameras and unmanned aircraft to keep a closer eye on the border.

    The Smart Border project would involve UND, North Dakota State University, Hewlett-Packard and Computer Sciences Corp.

    Herald Global Hawk article

    Buning is new AD

    in Community

    Posted

    Okay I realize you're slow, but do try to keep up. 

    McFool said 

    I said

    Kupchella said

    <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    So... paying attention means to an issue means making a move even though it does not make sense to do so?

    The outline for the UND Strategic Plan from his office says

    For Chaps' lapdog to write that crap goes against what was quoted here, and elsewhere. Kupchella may not have drunk the "D1 Kool-Aid" yet, but it's disengenuous to presume he has no interest in the move. Then again, considering the source, I can't say I'm surprised.

    <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    McFeely is admittedly just stirring the pot- but to call him a lapdog would be a stretch as he has written numerous against the move and critical of NDSU.

    Moreover, with regard to the "deep end" comment, it is readily apparent that 'SU disregarded the Carr Report it commissioned, as it flounders for conference affiliations, scheduling, etc. but I'm sure the UND Admins appreciate the free roadmap. BTW:  Nothing like some dumb comments from the Stream Yellow crowd to stop Sioux fans' infighting.  ;)

    <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    mr.jpg

    It's not your fault, It's not your fault, It's not your fault.....

    Buning is new AD

    in Community

    Posted

    As well, Kupchella seems to paying attention to the D1 issue, more than Chaps ever did before he dove into the deep end.

    <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    "I recognize that we may have to make this move even though, ultimately, it may make no otherwise logical or financial sense to do so."

    -Charles Kupchella,UND president

    OK... ;)

    And the home gates must have been spectacular for 2004-05,

    <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    Jeno asked if there were particular areas where revenue fell short. Roger Thomas replied that ticket sales for basketball and men

    Fire up those resumes!

    in Community

    Posted

    This isn't smack - but doesn't anyone (sue fans) wonder about the quality of people that applied for & are being interviewed for the AD job at UND.  One diii and one dii guy and no DI assistant AD's.  Is the word out that Bollinger has the job or what?  Something doesn't smell right.  You would think that there would be a great list of applicants.

    <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    that's not a good way to sound non-smackish

    the next logical step up for most DI assistant ADs, is being the AD at a DI school, even with UNDs success at the DII level and their hockey program, I would have been quite surprised to see many DI assistant ADs apply for the job

×
×
  • Create New...