North Florida move to DI

[UND Fan]

There was an interesting article in yesterday's Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville) about the University of North Florida's likely move to DI. Unfortunately, I do not know how to create a link to it, so anyone interested would need to go to: www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/. In "Archives" for May 9th, you will see an article titled: The Next Big step for UNF.

Their situation is much different than NDSU's, SDSU's or potentially UND's. Right now, they do not field a football team, they have conferences "waiting in line" for them to join, there are all sorts of DI teams to play within driving distance, they get a much larger share of their budget from student fees, their fundraising efforts fall far behind NDSU of UND, etc.

Again, not a lot of similarities but interesting...

[The Sicatoka]

"It's one thing to make the transition [to Division I]; it's another thing to know that once you've made the transition, you have a home to go to," Gropper said. "Otherwise, you're sitting out there as an independent, and it's very difficult to compete as an independent."

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

[UND Fan]

Thanks, Sicakota! One of these days I will earn how to do that!

You are correct, that was one of the interesting quotes. And, it is from a school that has 20+ DI schools within 300 miles!

[Cratter]

With no football, why not.

[star2city]

If Division I conference memberships were offered, the University of West Florida (in Pensacola) and Florida Gulf Coast University (in Ft. Myers, but are still transitioning to Div II), would also probably move up. Without football, the financial burden is not as severe.

Thanks to a posting by Somebison, a viewpoint on the NCAA site by NCC commissioner Mike Marcil had some key proposals for Division II reform , two of which are listed below:

Establish some type of national television coverage plan for Division II. Although Division II institutions do focus their educational and athletics efforts primarily at the local, state and regional level, the quality and quantity of the students attending those institutions clearly has a profound positive impact at the national level. Occasional national telecasts of Division II games of the week or even the scrolling of Division II scores during televised Division I contests would greatly enhance Division II membership.

Move toward football alliances. Using a "current athletics grant maximums plus one" concept, there could be five alliances for NCAA football.

Division I-A -- maximum of 85 athletics grants.

"Freedom" Alliance -- maximum of 63 athletics grants.

"Independence" Alliance -- maximum of 36 athletics grants.

"Liberty" Alliance -- 0 athletics grants.

Division III -- 0 athletics grants.

Provide outstanding postseason championships for all of the alliances. Permit Divisions I and II institutions to choose competition in either the Freedom, Independence or Liberty alliances without having to reclassify their entire athletics program to another division.

With an asset like the Ralph and it being showcased on CBS next spring, I believe Marcil, Roger Thomas, and other NCC AD's see a golden opportunity for a Div-II game of the week to be realized in some form on national cable.

The football proposal should be enacted, but it's probably too rational.

[Hansel]

-star2city, to be fair I actually got the link from The Sicatoka, in a hockey thread no less.

as far as the football alliances go, allowing a school to compete in a different division for football does make some sense (the economics of football are so much different than other sports), however how many DII teams would be able to "upgrade" their Football to the "freedom level"? adding 27 scholies for football would make it quite difficult for a DII school to stay compliant with title IX (unless they droppped some men's programs) as they are subject to DII scholarship limits for women's sports.

[star2city]

-star2city, to be fair I actually got the link from The Sicatoka, in a hockey thread no less.  

My apologies to The Sicatoka

however how many DII teams would be able to "upgrade" their Football to the "freedom level"?

It shouldn't be a problem if they just added women's equestrian.

But seriously, football schools like TAMUK or Valdosta State would probably want a higher level football but stay DivII in other sports. The entire Div I Ohio Valley Conference, which is really a basketball league, would probably all drop to 36 scholarships (and East Tenn. State wouldn't have dropped football). The Southland Conference, which is a football league with almost no basketball tradition, would offer "I-AA" football and be Div II in other sports. Div I schools like Valpo and Drake that offer non-scholarship football would now have a true championship to play for and numerous other Div I schools that don't offer football (Seton Hall, Marquette, etc.) would probably offer it. DivII schools that want to reduce scholarships would have the no-scholarship option. Everyone wins, especially the athletes and the fans.

As far as the names, just name them something else, like AAA, AAAA, and AAAAA.

[The Sicatoka]

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).

[UND92,96]

I can't help but wonder whether a Title IX complaint may be down the road for schools which add "sports" like equestrian in a blatant attempt to meet the proportionality requirement while expending as little money as possible, aside from the cost of the scholarship. I think we can safely assume that the school will not be purchasing a bunch of horses. If they were going to expend that kind of money, they may as well have added a sport like gymnastics, which is an NCAA sport and which is fairly popular (in terms of participation) as a high school sport in this area.

Somehow, I doubt that the equestrian team will be transported to the east or west coast for competitions very often, and the opportunities for competition locally would seem to be quite limited, although I must admit that the UMC-SDSU equestrian competitions are an exciting proposition.

What's next, rounding up 27 women on academic or some other form of scholarship and claiming that they are actually a part of some fictional team like croquet or kickball?

[Hansel]

Max out scholarships in all your womens sports (including the full 18 for an unnamed womens team sport involving sticks and ice).

Is UND women's hockey not fully funded? If not I could see a Martha-Burke type raising a stink about that alone

If UND were to fully fund FB at 63 scholie level, the max amount of Men's Scholarships (with the rest of sports at DII) would be 124.3

At the DII level the max amount of women's scholarships would be 85.2

scholarship levels

-both totals include DI hockey

that's a ratio of 59.3% male, 40.7 Female-probably not going to cut it when

UND is 51.5% male, 48.5% female

So, unless UND decides to drop or underfund some Men's sports (swimming, golf, baseball, track), they would have difficulty staying title IX compliant under Marcil's proposal

[tony]

Huh. I wonder why Michael Marcil's view makes sense to anybody.

I read the article and couldn't help wondering what "bell-shaped" curve he was talking about... either he wants DII to have the bulk of membership or he was just too caught up in his "NCAA as a barbell" metaphor to waste time explaining why a bell curve represents a desirable distribution of NCAA membership.

The big problem he mentions is that DII's membership numbers are declining. Really? If he's going to make a statement like that, he shouldn't leave it unsupported. At the very least, we need to be able to judge just how serious a problem it really is. Personally, I doubt DII membership numbers are declining at all. For every departing school like UC Davis, DII adds two or three schools like North Greenville.

Second problem. He argues that the lure of DI basketball is the primary reason for the decline in membership numbers. If so, why does his solution revolve around football? Apparently he is only concerned about the number of schools in DII's football division? Interesting. More on that later.

Third problem. Whenever you say something like, "DII membership numbers are declining," you are obligated to put forth some argument showing how this is harmful. He does this by saying that "Division II's model of geographic regionalization is being threatened." Boo-frigging-hoo. Any system that places geographic location over excellence on the field is patently unfair and has no place in the NCAA. Regionalization deserves to die an unmourned death. Why should the NCAA rally to save something that is not worth saving in the first place?

Fourth problem. Division II is not willing to do a darn thing to help themselves. "You force the networks to show our games. You get the networks to run our scores. You force DI-AA football schools to play DII football. We'll pitch in by coming up with dumbass names for three new football divisions."

Fifth problem. This idea doesn't even save regionalization - it makes the situation worse! If you take all the teams from DI-AA and combine them with all the teams from DII and divide them into three classifications, you end up with three subdivisions smaller than what DII currently is. What's worse is that the non-scholarship teams would have a geographic center someplace in the Northeast. Maybe that wouldn't matter if all three classifications shared the same playoff and regionalization structure, but I can't believe he's proposing something that inane.

Sixth problem. What's in it for DI-AA teams? They are not going to be beating down the door to DII crying, "Hey guys! DII's dumbass system of regionalization is in trouble! Let's subject ourselves to DII's enlightened governance and help! All we have to lose is our academic standards!"

Ninth graders could rip this proposal to shreds.

[The Sicatoka]

Is UND women's hockey not fully funded?

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.

[The Sicatoka]

I read the article and couldn't help wondering what "bell-shaped" curve he was talking about...

On one end of the range of the educational missions are the outstanding large national universities with many thousands of undergraduate students and extensive doctoral and research programs. On the other end of the "mission range" are the outstanding smaller liberal arts colleges.

But the largest part of the mission range, the center of the bell-shaped curve, includes the country's outstanding comprehensive colleges and universities. Every day, these colleges and universities provide excellent undergraduate programs and a significant number of master's, doctoral and research programs for millions of students at the local, state and regional levels.

[The Sicatoka]

He argues that the lure of DI basketball is the primary reason for the decline in membership numbers. If so, why does his solution revolve around football?

Historically, an overwhelming incentive for institutions seeking membership in Division I has been the quest to qualify for the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship and the related television exposure and financial returns. However, the Division I Men's Basketball Championship has been a tremendous benefit for the entire Association and I will just leave that elephant alone.

[The Sicatoka]

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.

[tony]

The Sicatoka, are you trying to convey an idea of some sort?

Here's all I can gather...

You posted two quotes. Mine on top. His on bottom. I'll assume you posted his quotes as a rebuttal?

Here's my counter

On one end of the range of the educational missions are the outstanding large national universities blah, blah, blah, blah... et... blah, blah blah

What does this have to do with his argument? He is saying colleges are organized in a bell curve with the center formed by predominantly large national universities. Not only is this irrelevant, it isn't even true.

Historically, an overwhelming incentive for institutions seeking membership in Division I has been the quest to qualify for the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship and the related television exposure and financial returns. However, the Division I Men's Basketball Championship has been a tremendous benefit for the entire Association and I will just leave that elephant alone.

Cripes, The Sicatoka. I asked how a solution that ignores the central problem can be viable and you respond by quoting the same passage? That's not a rebuttal; that's a surrender.

If you want to argue for change, here's what you do:

1. State the problem.

2. Show that without action the problem will remain or get worse.

3. Propose a solution.

4. Show how the solution is viable and how it will address the problem

You haven't done anything but #3. Marcil tried to do 1 & 2 but he failed. So yeah, his proposal does deserve to be cast aside.

[The Sicatoka]

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.

[The Sicatoka]

If you want to argue for change, here's what you do:

1.  State the problem.

2.  Show that without action the problem will remain or get worse.

3.  Propose a solution.

4.  Show how the solution is viable and how it will address the problem

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.

[DamStrait]

If you want to argue for change, here's what you do:

1. State the problem.

2. Show that without action the problem will remain or get worse.

3. Propose a solution.

4. Show how the solution is viable and how it will address the problem

You haven't done anything but #3. Marcil tried to do 1 & 2 but he failed. So yeah, his proposal does deserve to be cast aside.

So, tony, do YOU think that the NCAA needs some fundamental changes, or is everything just A-okay hunky-dorey in your stream yellow world the way it is now? Man have you got a piss-poor attitude (agree with me or you are a $%%^&& idiot). I see you do a lot of tearing apart of other's ideas without putting forth your own constructive proposals. Is that because you can't? Is it because you are nothing more than a UND-hating troll? Don't bother answering, we already know.

[tony]

Of course he didn't - he didn't construct anything resembling an argument.

1. Tell me what the problem is. Don't babble about "mission ranges" and bell curves and the beauty of "geographic regionalization." How fast is DII's membership decreasing? What are the ramifications? Should we even care? Is DII's membership really decreasing?

2. If there are 20 schools leaving DII this year, why are they leaving? Will his solution address the problem? Probably not, since he himself says DI BB is the culprit. What time frame is he talking about, did DII lose twenty members in one year or five years? Who are these twenty members anyway? How many members has DII added in the meantime?

3. His solution is to creating three new football classifications; a smaller version of DI-AA, a smaller version of DII, and a totally new classification composed of roughly 1/3 of the current DII and DI-AA football teams. This doesn't even address his stated problem! These DI-AA schools are still going to be DI schools in all other sports, so DII's membership shrinks further. It also hurts regionalization for DII football because presumably you'd end up with three playoff structures and regionalization would end up sucking worse than it does now. I'd love to see the Strength of Schedule Index that the wizards running DII would come up with to encompass three subdivisions.

4. Of course the solution isn't going to work because it doesn't address the stated problem. It also ignores the wishes of the DI-AA schools.

It's not my framework, btw. I think some Greeks came up with it because they got tired of debating issues with sloppy thinkers (how old is UND anyway? )

[tony]

DamStrait, you tell me what the problem is with the NCAA. Then we'll see if we can come up with a solution together.

[Hansel]

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.

even if the NCC has a max of 15 scholies in non FB/BB sports (i will reluctantly take your word, I would like to see a link though), UND's male scholie max would be 106, while Women's Sports could only have 85.2- if UND wanted to match their scholarships to enrollment (i know there is a little "wiggle room"), UND could have up to 90.5 scholarships for men IF they fully funded all of their women's sports, hockey included. So of those 90.5 scholarships for men you know UND will not cut funding for Hockey (18), Basketball (10), and if they were to fully fund 63 for football (you know how Roger doesn't want to compete with teams with more scholarships ) that equals 91. (91>90.5). So essentially all but three men's sports would be non-scholarship, unless UND added another women's sport.

[The Sicatoka]

What Marcil posits is this:

On one end of the range of the educational missions are the outstanding large national universities with many thousands of undergraduate students and extensive doctoral and research programs. On the other end of the "mission range" are the outstanding smaller liberal arts colleges.

But the largest part of the mission range, the center of the bell-shaped curve, includes the country's outstanding comprehensive colleges and universities. ...

.... However, at present, NCAA Division III includes 425 member institutions, Division I includes 326 member institutions and Division II includes only 281 member institutions.

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.

[The Sicatoka]

(i will reluctantly take your word, I would like to see a link though)

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.

[The Sicatoka]

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?