D3boards.com

General => General Division III issues => Topic started by: Ron Boerger on January 11, 2022, 08:26:45 AM

Title: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 11, 2022, 08:26:45 AM
There are 9 proposals to be considered by the D3 membership at this week's NCAA convention (source (https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/general-diii-convention-preview-members-to-look-at-9-proposals)):

Playing and practice seasons in football - addresses concerns regarding head impact exposure by reducing contact overall in the preseason and traditional season while increasing opportunities to teach appropriate blocking and tackling techniques during the spring

International student-athlete amateurism certification - requires the NCAA Eligibility Center to certify the amateurism of all international student-athletes enrolling on or after Aug. 1, 2023.

Expanded ability to practice without using a season of competition - allow student-athletes to participate in a full season of practice without using a season of competition if the athlete does not compete in any games.

Permit the Division III Presidents Council to sponsor and adopt emergency legislation under defined circumstances.

Establish equestrian as an emerging sport for women.

Reduce the minimum number of multisport conference members required for automatic qualification for Division III championships from seven to six.

Reduce the minimum number of member schools required to form a single-sport conference from seven to six.

Eliminate the option for a student-athlete to sign a waiver declining the sickle cell solubility test.

Permit Division III member schools with Division I sports to apply all Division I legislation, including Bylaw 15 (financial aid), to the Division I sports. In 2020, NCAA legislation was updated permitting Division III schools sponsoring Division I sports to apply all Division I rules to those programs except for principles of financial aid.

Some really bad ideas here IMO.  Reducing AQ conferences from 7 to 6 schools has the potential to increase the number of auto bids, making Pool C's even harder to come by.  Allowing SAs to practice for a year without losing eligibility if they don't play will basically enable the practice of red-shirting in D3 again.  And it would be nice to know what the "defined circumstances" are for "emergency legislation" by the President's Council - likely a COVID-related measure but still.   

I found the actual proposals from the NCAA at this site (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90015) but it's too much legalese for me to dive into this morning. 
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 11, 2022, 11:52:57 AM

Yeah, redshirting really isn't in the spirit of Division III.  The current 4 in 5 rule seems to be a good fit.  The only exception I could think of is maybe if an athlete is going abroad for a semester or something, and they want to practice during the other semester without using eligibility?  I could understand that, maybe, but it seems such a rarity to warrant a rule change like this.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 11, 2022, 02:24:08 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 11, 2022, 11:52:57 AM

Yeah, redshirting really isn't in the spirit of Division III.  The current 4 in 5 rule seems to be a good fit.  The only exception I could think of is maybe if an athlete is going abroad for a semester or something, and they want to practice during the other semester without using eligibility?  I could understand that, maybe, but it seems such a rarity to warrant a rule change like this.

And really what you are talking about in this scenario would only affect winter sports (ice hockey, basketball) because vast majority of all other sports are one-semester sports. In your scenario with those other sports, they would be missing the out-of-season practices and that is kind of the norm - teams don't tend to have everyone available for, say, spring practice for soccer. Athletes are doing something else.

So for winter sports, they wouldn't use the entire season at practice and likely don't qualify to lose the year of eligibility since they didn't practice all year.

That all said ... I always forget where the "line" is to use that eligibility.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: TheChucker on January 15, 2022, 02:36:04 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 11, 2022, 08:26:45 AM
There are 9 proposals to be considered by the D3 membership at this week's NCAA convention (source (https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/general-diii-convention-preview-members-to-look-at-9-proposals)):

Playing and practice seasons in football - addresses concerns regarding head impact exposure by reducing contact overall in the preseason and traditional season while increasing opportunities to teach appropriate blocking and tackling techniques during the spring

International student-athlete amateurism certification - requires the NCAA Eligibility Center to certify the amateurism of all international student-athletes enrolling on or after Aug. 1, 2023.

Expanded ability to practice without using a season of competition - allow student-athletes to participate in a full season of practice without using a season of competition if the athlete does not compete in any games.

Permit the Division III Presidents Council to sponsor and adopt emergency legislation under defined circumstances.

Establish equestrian as an emerging sport for women.

Reduce the minimum number of multisport conference members required for automatic qualification for Division III championships from seven to six.

Reduce the minimum number of member schools required to form a single-sport conference from seven to six.

Eliminate the option for a student-athlete to sign a waiver declining the sickle cell solubility test.

Permit Division III member schools with Division I sports to apply all Division I legislation, including Bylaw 15 (financial aid), to the Division I sports. In 2020, NCAA legislation was updated permitting Division III schools sponsoring Division I sports to apply all Division I rules to those programs except for principles of financial aid.

Some really bad ideas here IMO.  Reducing AQ conferences from 7 to 6 schools has the potential to increase the number of auto bids, making Pool C's even harder to come by.  Allowing SAs to practice for a year without losing eligibility if they don't play will basically enable the practice of red-shirting in D3 again.  And it would be nice to know what the "defined circumstances" are for "emergency legislation" by the President's Council - likely a COVID-related measure but still.   

I found the actual proposals from the NCAA at this site (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90015) but it's too much legalese for me to dive into this morning.

I'm wondering if a move to 6-team conferences could actually incent some schools in large conferences to reorganize into smaller conferences to open up AQ possibilities. As an example (maybe a bad one) a school like Hardin Simmons, that exists in UMHB's shadow for football, might rather be in a smaller conference of primarily TX schools.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 15, 2022, 02:49:16 PM

The six teams is just to help larger conferences where not all the members play every sport.  It's not primarily a basketball move, although it might be what the USA South needs to split.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Caz Bombers on January 15, 2022, 03:34:45 PM
I know we don't love it, and wish it would go the other way (up to at least 8) but dropping the minimum to 6 at least makes it consistent with the rules in Division I.

Not sure what the rules are in Division II but they have only a little more than half as many conferences as there are in D3 and tend to be larger circuits anyway. Plus D2 football doesn't technically have AQs but "earned access" instead which might be an idea for D3 football to consider. Basically if your league sucks for a while you don't get to have an AQ again until you stop sucking so much.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Inkblot on January 15, 2022, 05:05:38 PM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on January 15, 2022, 03:34:45 PM
I know we don't love it, and wish it would go the other way (up to at least 8) but dropping the minimum to 6 at least makes it consistent with the rules in Division I.

Not sure what the rules are in Division II but they have only a little more than half as many conferences as there are in D3 and tend to be larger circuits anyway. Plus D2 football doesn't technically have AQs but "earned access" instead which might be an idea for D3 football to consider. Basically if your league sucks for a while you don't get to have an AQ again until you stop sucking so much.

That's not quite what earned access is; it's more like an AQ that's conditional on being in the top 9 of the regional ranking – but it goes to the highest-ranked team in the conference, not necessarily the champion.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 16, 2022, 12:07:19 AM
BTW "this week" is actually the upcoming week, as the convention is scheduled for 19-22 Jan.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 16, 2022, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 15, 2022, 02:49:16 PM

The six teams is just to help larger conferences where not all the members play every sport.  It's not primarily a basketball move, although it might be what the USA South needs to split.
I hope that the move to 6 for an AQ fails. What we have seen is that the depth of Pool C schools in all sports is incredible. It was a circulating story that 2018 National Baseball Champion UT-Tyler was the last Pool C team picked. That Pool C bid goes away unless that number of playoff slots is increased.  In baseball, we have seen the 7-team-bid-for-AQ prompt conferences to encourage members to add the sport. We have seen conferences that need AQ access to take affiliation agreements with other conferences to gain AQ access. In some cases that was done by adding teams into post-season "inter-conference" tourney formats. I also imagine that the 7-team bid has brought schools back to their conference table to iron out differences that would have ordinarily split conferences wide open, for minor reasons that were not worth the loss of the AQ access.

The disparity in strengths of teams across the division and "worthiness" of a playoff bid is handled  quite nicely by the current arrangement.  A Pool B team worthy of a playoff bid an get a playoff bid, if Pool B/C is of adequate size.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 17, 2022, 04:25:31 PM
Stay tuned for tomorrow morning (Tuesday). We have a special Hoopsville with a roundtable of Athletics Directors and a Commissioner who have very interesting insights into a lot of what you all discuss.

We will post an update in the morning. Video and podcast available.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 18, 2022, 10:17:35 AM
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=5w1vg/ix2avwecb0ua1b5f.jpg)

The annual NCAA Convention is this week and it is one of the most important gatherings of Association membership in the modern history of the NCAA. While a lot of eyes will be on Division I, all three Divisions must vote on a new NCAA Constitution. Division III has played an important role in crafting the new constitution as those in the division try and position DIII for the future.

And while the new NCAA Constitution will garner much of the attention this week in Indianapolis, it isn't the only piece of business that Division III needs to consider. There are a number of pieces of legislation DIII presidents, commissioners, and athletics directors will debate and likely vote on as well. Some of those items could have huge impacts on Division III including the sport of basketball.

In this special edition of Hoopsville, Dave McHugh gathers three ADs and a commissioner to have a round table discussion, and get insight, on the Constitution, DIII's role, and the legislation that will be considered. Plus, we react to what is ahead for DIII and the impact some of the legislation could have on DIII and it's student-athletes.

You can watch the show On Demand here: https://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2021-22/ncaa_convention

Guests include:
- Dr. Angel Mason, Director of Athletics for Berry College
- Jason Fein, Director of Athletics for Bates College
- Stefanie 'Stevie' Baker-Watson, Associate Vice President for Wellness and Director of Athletics at DePauw University
- Brad Bankston, Commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference, former DIII Management Council and Championships Committee member
- Pat Coleman, Editor-in-Chief for D3sports.com

Hoopsville is hosted by Dave McHugh from the the NABC Studio. It is presented by D3hoops.com and thanks to our partner WBCA. All guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

If you have questions, ideas, or want to interact with the show, feel free to send them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options available.

If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


 
   
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Video Portal (and archives): www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3sports.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 18, 2022, 04:51:01 PM
Really good Hoopsville, Dave.  Great comments from your guests and they were quite forthcoming.  Highly recommended to anyone who wants great insight into the Division!
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 18, 2022, 05:28:13 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 18, 2022, 04:51:01 PM
Really good Hoopsville, Dave.  Great comments from your guests and they were quite forthcoming.  Highly recommended to anyone who wants great insight into the Division!

Thank you, Ron. I thought it was certainly one of the more forthright and interesting conversations I've had other than Dan Dutcher, though we know how limited he has/had to be on things.

Certainly encouraging to try and have more convos like that ... in a new format ... my brain is always spinning.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: WUPHF on January 18, 2022, 06:54:12 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 11, 2022, 08:26:45 AM
Reduce the minimum number of multisport conference members required for automatic qualification for Division III championships from seven to six.

I am not sure how much this will change the sports landscape, but I like it.  But I also like the potential for the expansion of sports in Division III.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 19, 2022, 12:32:48 AM
Quote from: WUPHF on January 18, 2022, 06:54:12 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 11, 2022, 08:26:45 AM
Reduce the minimum number of multisport conference members required for automatic qualification for Division III championships from seven to six.

I am not sure how much this will change the sports landscape, but I like it.  But I also like the potential for the expansion of sports in Division III.

I think the larger picture needs to be examined. It can be detrimental in sports like football - making AQs a bit too easy to come by.

While it might help some smaller sports, I don't see it as an expansion of sports necessarily.

The convo I had with the round table and the other with Pat are pretty detailed in all of this. I agree with the idea that each sport should reexamine it's AQ situation and reduce or go higher if necessary. While AQs are an understood, we shouldn't make them too easy that it becomes the only avenue into a tournament.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Inkblot on January 19, 2022, 02:17:09 AM
Ideally, the minimum should never go below the number of eligible D3 teams divided by the bracket size... otherwise, you run into problems if every conference goes to the minimum. Football is already cutting it close; there were 229 non-NESCAC teams this season, which is just two short of the number needed to make 33 seven-team conferences. If you reduce the minimum to 6, there would be enough teams to form 38 conferences. Obviously not every conference is at the minimum, but enough are to have caused a game of musical chairs in the northeast; the CCC, ECFC, Empire 8, Liberty, MIAA, NEWMAC, NJAC, ODAC, SCIAC, and UMAC (10 conferences out of 27) were at the minimum this season. (Dropping the minimum to 6 could also theoretically allow the MAC to do a Commonwealth/Freedom split in football, if that's allowable.)
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 19, 2022, 08:02:51 AM
One of the things one of the panelists touched on was it might make sense to have the flexibility to have different numbers for different sports, e.g. 7 for football, maybe 5 for some emerging sports where participation numbers are lower.  Which would require another vote down the line.

It was also good to hear that (if the new constitution is approved?) D3 will be somewhat more autonomous and not have to have routine decisions impacting only its membership blessed by D1/D2. 
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 19, 2022, 10:50:41 AM
Liked the autonomy issue.

Am hesitant about changing/lowering the AQ. Seven for a conference, and especially for football seems to be the happy medium. Yes the Region 1 & 2 schools have managed to keep the AQ's with 7 teams by what legal means are possible. But, 5 football Pool C bids are not enough. Hardin-Simmons was left at home and UMHB dominated every other team in the playoffs not from Texas.

Great discussion about non-traditional seasons, especially with all of the issues that Spring Football causes.

Wished that we could have gotten more money than what we got, e.g., Dave's 3.75%

(I like the fact that you can listen at 1.5x speed!)
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 19, 2022, 11:50:38 AM
Hey, the AA said they'd pick up $1.5M in overhead costs the division pays now.  Not as good as any of us hoped for but better than what it could have been. 

I did appreciate all the panelists (and Dave) saying "the NCAA holds up Division III as an example of true student athletes but won't fund it as such."   D2 are the pigs at the trough getting twice the money for half the schools and if D3 was smart at some point they'll broker a deal with D1 that says if you want D3's votes on something you'll fix that.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: TheChucker on January 19, 2022, 04:00:47 PM
When's the last time D3 allowed Spring practice in football, if ever? All I know is we didn't have it in the 80s but would have welcomed it as a player.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 19, 2022, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 19, 2022, 11:50:38 AM
Hey, the AA said they'd pick up $1.5M in overhead costs the division pays now.  Not as good as any of us hoped for but better than what it could have been. 

I did appreciate all the panelists (and Dave) saying "the NCAA holds up Division III as an example of true student athletes but won't fund it as such."   D2 are the pigs at the trough getting twice the money for half the schools and if D3 was smart at some point they'll broker a deal with D1 that says if you want D3's votes on something you'll fix that.

Many in D1 don't want to let go of their money ... so I highly doubt they would ever broker a deal with DIII for anything.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 19, 2022, 04:13:36 PM
Quote from: TheChucker on January 19, 2022, 04:00:47 PM
When's the last time D3 allowed Spring practice in football, if ever? All I know is we didn't have it in the 80s but would have welcomed it as a player.

How do you mean? Because there is spring practice in football. Do you mean in full pads and helmets with full hitting?
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: TheChucker on January 19, 2022, 04:58:55 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 19, 2022, 04:13:36 PM
Quote from: TheChucker on January 19, 2022, 04:00:47 PM
When's the last time D3 allowed Spring practice in football, if ever? All I know is we didn't have it in the 80s but would have welcomed it as a player.

How do you mean? Because there is spring practice in football. Do you mean in full pads and helmets with full hitting?

Yes, full contact. I'm a bit out of the loop and thought only strength and conditioning based "practice" was allowed.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 19, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
A ball is also permitted but no contact, no.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention send
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 19, 2022, 06:56:40 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 19, 2022, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 19, 2022, 11:50:38 AM
Hey, the AA said they'd pick up $1.5M in overhead costs the division pays now.  Not as good as any of us hoped for but better than what it could have been. 

I did appreciate all the panelists (and Dave) saying "the NCAA holds up Division III as an example of true student athletes but won't fund it as such."   D2 are the pigs at the trough getting twice the money for half the schools and if D3 was smart at some point they'll broker a deal with D1 that says if you want D3's votes on something you'll fix that.

Many in D1 don't want to let go of their money ... so I highly doubt they would ever broker a deal with DIII for anything.

Of course.  What I meant was take some of D2's excess and reallocate to D3.  But that won't happen either.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 20, 2022, 09:02:46 AM
A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/01/closing-arguments.html) and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 20, 2022, 09:02:46 AM
A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/01/closing-arguments.html) and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

This is a great read. Never heard of d3playbook but I fully intend to support the efforts. Interesting perspectives and it's easy to agree with both. I think what the "vote no" perspective is missing is the very really threat D1, or at least the P5 portion, take their sports, and their money, and go. Yeah, D3 is being screwed over by D2. But forcing a schism across the membership that results in an impasse by voting no just increases the odds that there will be no money for anyone. In this case, D3 might have the power of the votes at 40% of the membership but, as is so often the case, money is louder than procedure.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 20, 2022, 01:33:39 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 20, 2022, 09:02:46 AM
A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/01/closing-arguments.html) and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

This is a great read. Never heard of d3playbook but I fully intend to support the efforts. Interesting perspectives and it's easy to agree with both. I think what the "vote no" perspective is missing is the very really threat D1, or at least the P5 portion, take their sports, and their money, and go. Yeah, D3 is being screwed over by D2. But forcing a schism across the membership that results in an impasse by voting no just increases the odds that there will be no money for anyone. In this case, D3 might have the power of the votes at 40% of the membership but, as is so often the case, money is louder than procedure.
+1!
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2022, 02:06:33 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 20, 2022, 09:02:46 AM
A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/01/closing-arguments.html) and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

This is a great read. Never heard of d3playbook but I fully intend to support the efforts. Interesting perspectives and it's easy to agree with both. I think what the "vote no" perspective is missing is the very really threat D1, or at least the P5 portion, take their sports, and their money, and go. Yeah, D3 is being screwed over by D2. But forcing a schism across the membership that results in an impasse by voting no just increases the odds that there will be no money for anyone. In this case, D3 might have the power of the votes at 40% of the membership but, as is so often the case, money is louder than procedure.

That's the real issue.  What this constitution does, more than anything, is allow D1, when its ready, to just give the Power 5 their own division.  It's all about bending over backwards to keep those schools from killing the NCAA outright.  Everything is pointing to the development of four 16-team conferences, that just compete with themselves for everything.  The other 900+ schools, just want to make sure they can still ride the coattails a bit when it happens.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 20, 2022, 03:59:38 PM
And unsurprisingly the new constitution passes by a 4:1 margin.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 20, 2022, 05:09:49 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2022, 02:06:33 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 20, 2022, 09:02:46 AM
A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/01/closing-arguments.html) and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

This is a great read. Never heard of d3playbook but I fully intend to support the efforts. Interesting perspectives and it's easy to agree with both. I think what the "vote no" perspective is missing is the very really threat D1, or at least the P5 portion, take their sports, and their money, and go. Yeah, D3 is being screwed over by D2. But forcing a schism across the membership that results in an impasse by voting no just increases the odds that there will be no money for anyone. In this case, D3 might have the power of the votes at 40% of the membership but, as is so often the case, money is louder than procedure.

That's the real issue.  What this constitution does, more than anything, is allow D1, when its ready, to just give the Power 5 their own division.  It's all about bending over backwards to keep those schools from killing the NCAA outright.  Everything is pointing to the development of four 16-team conferences, that just compete with themselves for everything.  The other 900+ schools, just want to make sure they can still ride the coattails a bit when it happens.

One would argue the Power 5 already has it's own division ... that's the FBS.

But I am not sure DI will let the Power 5 have it's own division for other sports. The financial impact on everyone else is too great. And I've said for awhile... the Power 5 needs the rest of the NCAA especially DI as well to keep that money high. It is the upsets and the underdogs and all that make the tournaments great. Not the entirety of the Power 5 playing a super-conference tournament.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 09:48:01 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 20, 2022, 05:09:49 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2022, 02:06:33 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 20, 2022, 09:02:46 AM
A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/01/closing-arguments.html) and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

This is a great read. Never heard of d3playbook but I fully intend to support the efforts. Interesting perspectives and it's easy to agree with both. I think what the "vote no" perspective is missing is the very really threat D1, or at least the P5 portion, take their sports, and their money, and go. Yeah, D3 is being screwed over by D2. But forcing a schism across the membership that results in an impasse by voting no just increases the odds that there will be no money for anyone. In this case, D3 might have the power of the votes at 40% of the membership but, as is so often the case, money is louder than procedure.

That's the real issue.  What this constitution does, more than anything, is allow D1, when its ready, to just give the Power 5 their own division.  It's all about bending over backwards to keep those schools from killing the NCAA outright.  Everything is pointing to the development of four 16-team conferences, that just compete with themselves for everything.  The other 900+ schools, just want to make sure they can still ride the coattails a bit when it happens.

One would argue the Power 5 already has it's own division ... that's the FBS.

But I am not sure DI will let the Power 5 have it's own division for other sports. The financial impact on everyone else is too great. And I've said for awhile... the Power 5 needs the rest of the NCAA especially DI as well to keep that money high. It is the upsets and the underdogs and all that make the tournaments great. Not the entirety of the Power 5 playing a super-conference tournament.

I think a pure Power 5 basketball tournament would do just fine. Yes the upsets spice things up, and most people love a mid-major story, but TV would pay enormous amounts for a P5 tournament. Add in even kore enormous amounts from football and there is plenty of incentive for 4 16 team P5 conferences to completely breakaway. I think the main reason it hasn't happened yet is one of the 4 conference staffs would be eliminated and the University Presidents are still mildly wary of being thought of as too mercenary. But I still think it is inevitable.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on January 21, 2022, 12:30:45 AM
Quote from: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 09:48:01 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 20, 2022, 05:09:49 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2022, 02:06:33 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 20, 2022, 09:02:46 AM
A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/01/closing-arguments.html) and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

This is a great read. Never heard of d3playbook but I fully intend to support the efforts. Interesting perspectives and it's easy to agree with both. I think what the "vote no" perspective is missing is the very really threat D1, or at least the P5 portion, take their sports, and their money, and go. Yeah, D3 is being screwed over by D2. But forcing a schism across the membership that results in an impasse by voting no just increases the odds that there will be no money for anyone. In this case, D3 might have the power of the votes at 40% of the membership but, as is so often the case, money is louder than procedure.

That's the real issue.  What this constitution does, more than anything, is allow D1, when its ready, to just give the Power 5 their own division.  It's all about bending over backwards to keep those schools from killing the NCAA outright.  Everything is pointing to the development of four 16-team conferences, that just compete with themselves for everything.  The other 900+ schools, just want to make sure they can still ride the coattails a bit when it happens.

One would argue the Power 5 already has it's own division ... that's the FBS.

But I am not sure DI will let the Power 5 have it's own division for other sports. The financial impact on everyone else is too great. And I've said for awhile... the Power 5 needs the rest of the NCAA especially DI as well to keep that money high. It is the upsets and the underdogs and all that make the tournaments great. Not the entirety of the Power 5 playing a super-conference tournament.

I think a pure Power 5 basketball tournament would do just fine. Yes the upsets spice things up, and most people love a mid-major story, but TV would pay enormous amounts for a P5 tournament. Add in even kore enormous amounts from football and there is plenty of incentive for 4 16 team P5 conferences to completely breakaway. I think the main reason it hasn't happened yet is one of the 4 conference staffs would be eliminated and the University Presidents are still mildly wary of being thought of as too mercenary. But I still think it is inevitable.
Could there be any hesitation of the P5 because of the failed Super League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Super_League) in Europe last year where a bunch of top soccer teams were going to form their own league and there was such an uproar over it from fans to other clubs to FIFA that they backed out.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 21, 2022, 07:27:41 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on January 21, 2022, 12:30:45 AMCould there be any hesitation of the P5 because of the failed Super League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Super_League) in Europe last year where a bunch of top soccer teams were going to form their own league and there was such an uproar over it from fans to other clubs to FIFA that they backed out.

I can't see the average D1 fan giving enough of a damn to make a difference.   If they get to see more Alabama and less Cincinnati on TV, more Duke and less UTSA they'll be fine with it. 
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 21, 2022, 09:06:25 AM

The rest of the teams would still have a tournament, and people would still watch it. It's just less money. Even if it ends up as two divisions, the NCAA is working hard to keep them both in house.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: jknezek on January 21, 2022, 09:15:51 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on January 21, 2022, 12:30:45 AM
Quote from: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 09:48:01 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 20, 2022, 05:09:49 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2022, 02:06:33 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 20, 2022, 09:02:46 AM
A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/01/closing-arguments.html) and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

This is a great read. Never heard of d3playbook but I fully intend to support the efforts. Interesting perspectives and it's easy to agree with both. I think what the "vote no" perspective is missing is the very really threat D1, or at least the P5 portion, take their sports, and their money, and go. Yeah, D3 is being screwed over by D2. But forcing a schism across the membership that results in an impasse by voting no just increases the odds that there will be no money for anyone. In this case, D3 might have the power of the votes at 40% of the membership but, as is so often the case, money is louder than procedure.

That's the real issue.  What this constitution does, more than anything, is allow D1, when its ready, to just give the Power 5 their own division.  It's all about bending over backwards to keep those schools from killing the NCAA outright.  Everything is pointing to the development of four 16-team conferences, that just compete with themselves for everything.  The other 900+ schools, just want to make sure they can still ride the coattails a bit when it happens.

One would argue the Power 5 already has it's own division ... that's the FBS.

But I am not sure DI will let the Power 5 have it's own division for other sports. The financial impact on everyone else is too great. And I've said for awhile... the Power 5 needs the rest of the NCAA especially DI as well to keep that money high. It is the upsets and the underdogs and all that make the tournaments great. Not the entirety of the Power 5 playing a super-conference tournament.

I think a pure Power 5 basketball tournament would do just fine. Yes the upsets spice things up, and most people love a mid-major story, but TV would pay enormous amounts for a P5 tournament. Add in even kore enormous amounts from football and there is plenty of incentive for 4 16 team P5 conferences to completely breakaway. I think the main reason it hasn't happened yet is one of the 4 conference staffs would be eliminated and the University Presidents are still mildly wary of being thought of as too mercenary. But I still think it is inevitable.
Could there be any hesitation of the P5 because of the failed Super League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Super_League) in Europe last year where a bunch of top soccer teams were going to form their own league and there was such an uproar over it from fans to other clubs to FIFA that they backed out.

No. Americans don't have the same attitude toward billionaire "owners", or University Presidents, as Europeans do. In Europe, soccer teams are very much thought of as community property, property of the fans, regardless of who owns them. And in many cases they actually are property of the fans, like Barcelona. In the U.S. there is a bit of that, but we are way more accepting than Europeans of sports being a business, college or pro, and primarily for making money.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 21, 2022, 10:46:22 AM
SI story on this situation:  https://www.si.com/college/2022/01/20/ncaa-future-power-5-football-basketball-money with just a few quotes from a pretty meaty article:

[...]

In a study conducted by the NCAA, two-thirds of Power 5 executives believe a governance change is needed and suggestions include a Power 5 breakaway from D-I or an FBS breakaway from NCAA oversight. In fact, one anonymous SEC president wrote in the survey that the Power 5 "should be an organization unto itself" and leave the NCAA to manage everyone else.

"I think that would not be an ideal outcome," says Jere Morehead, Georgia's president, who sits on the transformation committee. "It's possible we have a new subdivision," he continues. "I will tell you that I don't think it works well to have one D-I school with a budget of $10 million and another with a budget of $150 million and expect we can resolve those differences with some of the issues we have discussed."

[...]

In the SEC, many administrators believe the conference can afford and should provide every athlete with a full scholarship, eliminating the partial scholarships that exist in many Olympic sports. Not all schools or leagues—even those in the Power 5—can afford to offer full aid to their more than 300 athletes. The SEC distributed an extra $23 million to its members last year after borrowing the money against a new television deal the conference signed with ESPN, rumored to be worth nearly a half-billion dollars.

[...]

"If Alabama makes an extra $5 million and they can afford to bring on three more sports psychologists, they should be able to," says Kendall Spencer, an NCAA athlete turned attorney who sits on the transformation committee. "Division I has gotten very big. It's only a problem if you have a one-size-fits-all model."

[...]

Another issue is what's not in the rewritten constitution: There is no guarantee of automatic qualifiers for NCAA championships and no revenue-sharing model, two of the most significant items for the lower subsections of Division I.

"It's not as if those things are going away, but they are on the table to be discussed," Horizon League commissioner Julie Roe Lach says. "Those are pretty darn important to everyone in the division."

[...]

"I think the concept of every conference having AQs into every championship, I think it bears scrutiny," Bowlsby [commissioner of the Big 12] says. "I'm not suggesting it's going to change in every situation, but there are an awful lot of conferences chasing the holy grail of access and money. If automatic qualification into the basketball tournament is your most important [issue], that's fine, but you'd have to cede control in other areas."

[...]

Some, like McMillen, believe now is the time to change the AQ structure. Given the large number of D-I conferences, he says stripping AQ bids would allow leagues to consolidate, a move that would save money and create more regional rivalries. Currently, leagues are hesitant to consolidate, for fear of losing their AQ bid.

"Is there some magic to having 32 conferences? No," McMillen [president of Lead1, an association representing the FBS athletic directors] says. "The whole AQ thing breeds inefficiency."
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 21, 2022, 10:57:34 AM

That's the thing, with so many NCAA sports, there is some real value to remaining part of the NCAA, so they don't have to worry about administering all the smaller championships.  They'd also win a lot of support if they did, in fact, offer full scholarships to all athletes - which can absolutely be afforded, especially given the extra money involved with creating separate football and basketball tournaments.

This has all been in the works for two decades now, but the revolving door of Presidents and no clear dominant voice, it takes a lot of time for them to work it all out.  Certainly this new Constitution is a big step, though.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 22, 2022, 02:36:40 PM
Here's the results of today's vote from the NCAA (https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/1/22/media-center-division-iii-passes-legislation-to-improve-football-safety.aspx).  Except where noted, changes are effective immediately: 

Football practice changes:  Adopted (295-68-87).

Preseason changes:Regular season:Spring:
International student-athlete amateurism certification:  Adopted (452-1-1).

Presidents Council authority to adopt emergency legislation:  Adopted (452-1-1).

Applying Division I legislation to grandfathered D1 sports only:  Adopted (388-18-39).

Championships automatic qualification from seven to six schools per sport/conference needed: Adopted (281-167-2); effective 2022-23 season.

Single-sport conference minimum requirement from seven to six schools:  Adopted (327-123-3); effective 2022-23 season.

Sickle cell solubility test (eliminating student waiver to avoid testing):  Adopted (253-185-11); effective 2022-23 season.

Expanded ability to practice without using a season of competition (e.g. redshirting):  Referred to committee for further review, (233-216-4).

Equestrian as an emerging sport for women:  Defeated (154-195-101).
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 22, 2022, 03:34:32 PM
How many Pool A football conferences will we have by fall 2026?

Let the speculation begin.

Ron Boerger mentioned that the SCAC can move to a football conference if Centenary comes on board in Fall 2024.
Trinity, AC, Southwestern, TLU gives 4.

Add St Thomas as a 6th, and the conference has an AQ.

I have heard nothing out of Schreiner.
UDallas failed to add football about 2004.
Colorado College may not resume football, ever.

If/when the SCAC affiliates leave the ASC, the ASC has 6 schools: ETBU, UMHB, HSU, HPU, McM and SRSU.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on January 22, 2022, 07:00:55 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 22, 2022, 03:34:32 PM
How many Pool A football conferences will we have by fall 2026?

Let the speculation begin.

Ron Boerger mentioned that the SCAC can move to a football conference is Centenary comes on board in Fall 2024.
Trinity, AC, Southwestern, TLU gives 4.

Add St Thomas as a 6th, and the conference has an AQ.

I have heard nothing out of Schreiner.
UDallas failed to add football about 2004.
Colorado College may not resume football, ever.

If/when the SCAC affiliates leave the ASC, the ASC has 6 schools: ETBU, UMHB, HSU, HPU, McM and SRSU.
Will the MAC stay as one or will they finally officially split into two separate conferences. They have that weird 2 separate conferences but still 1 big conference deal that the NCAA doesn't like in basketball. Could they finally break into two proper conferences now? They had 11 football teams this year, add one team and they've got enough for 2 groups of 6.

The USAC with as massive as it is only had 9 football teams this year.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on January 23, 2022, 10:32:32 AM
UAA brings back Johns Hopkins and pulls everyone together for an AQ in football with Chicago, WashU, Carnegie Mellon, Case Western Reserve, Rochester, and JHU.



Extremely unlikely.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2022, 10:21:06 PM
From the SAA Board...

Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2022, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 23, 2022, 08:13:44 PM
I'm going to predict that there will be ZERO at large bids within 5-7 years.

That was an absolutely STUPID vote by the reps.  The minimum size for an AQ should have gone UP to 8, not down to 6.  Did someone spike their morning coffee? ::)

I will take this quote as a mind game.

SCAC - the 3 affiliates in the ASC  (AC, SW, TLU) and Trinity in the SAA plus Centenary in 2024 convince St Thomas (Houston) to add football in 2024. One bid; 4 Pool C remain.
MAC - splits into Freedom and Commonwealth; one new bid; 3 Pool C remain.

Now is when it gets tougher.

NESCAC?

USA South -In the present "East"/ "West" configuration these teams play football, if the conference splits in two.

East - Averett - going to the ODAC; Greensboro; Methodist; NC Wesleyan; Southern Virginia. The East would need two from Pfeffer, Mary Baldwin, William Peace
West - Belhaven - coming from the ASC; Brevard; Huntingdon, LaGrange; Maryville. The West would need one from Berea, Covenant, Piedmont.

With 3 new schools coming through provisional, Asbury, Bob Jones and Warren Wilson, whom do they join and do they add football?

Which conferences add football as a new sport?  I could only speculate.
The access ratio gives us 36 bids.
What if the "D-IV" conferences wanted to go to a 14 week season, instead of a 16 week season.

8 bids times 6.5, the access ratio, is 52 schools.  (Or, 58 schools divide by 6.5 = 8.92 bids, truncated to 8 bids.)

Imagine 5 or 6 conferences moving the 'Short Season" Division. Would that bring back the NESCAC?

Who would join the Short Season Division?
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 03, 2022, 05:17:52 PM
From today's D3playbook (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/02/ncaa-earns-115-billion.html) email, a breakdown of how conferences voted on the 6 school for AQ issue.  Some surprises here IMO.   If you go to the link you can see how the individual schools in each conference voted.

Allegheny Mountain: 9-0
American Rivers 0-8 (1 did not vote)
American Southwest 8-4 (1 DNV)
Atlantic East 7-0

CCIW 0-10
Centennial 1-9 (1 DNV)
City University of New York 8-0 (1 DNV)
Coast-to-Coast 8-0
Colonial States 9-0 (1 DNV)
Commonwealth Coast 11-0

Empire 8 11-0
Great Northeast 12-2
Heartland 11-0
Independent 2-0 - 97

Landmark 7-1 (1 DNV)
Liberty 7-4
Little East 9-1

Massachusetts 8-0
Michigan 2-8
Middle Atlantic 16-3
Midwest 8-2
Minnesota 5-9

New England Collegiate 6-0
New England Small 1-9 (1 DNV)
New England Women's and Men's 1-10 (1 DNV)
New Jersey 2-8 (1 DNV)
North Atlantic 7-6
Northern Athletics 7-8
North Coast 11-0
Northwest 0-10

Ohio 1-7 (1 DNV)
Old Dominion 1-14
Presidents 8-2 (1 DNV)

St. Louis 8-0 (1 DNV)
Skyline 11-1
Southern Athletic 0-9
Southern Collegiate 8-0
Southern California 0-10
State University of New York 5-5-1

United East 9-0 (1 DNV)
University Athletic 4-4-1
Upper Midwest 9-0
USA South 17-1

Wisconsin 7-1 (1 DNV)
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 03, 2022, 06:43:47 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 03, 2022, 05:17:52 PM
From today's D3playbook (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/02/ncaa-earns-115-billion.html) email, a breakdown of how conferences voted on the 6 school for AQ issue.  Some surprises here IMO.   If you go to the link you can see how the individual schools in each conference voted.

Allegheny Mountain: 9-0
American Rivers 0-8 (1 did not vote)
American Southwest 8-4 (1 DNV)
Atlantic East 7-0

CCIW 0-10

Forgive me for my ignorance of NCAA convention voting procedures ... but there are only nine members of the CCIW, so is the tenth vote cast by the senior league official or is a cumulative league vote added to the majority?
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 03, 2022, 06:49:28 PM
Each school votes... as does each conference.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 03, 2022, 11:35:41 PM
That doesn't answer my question, Dave. Is the tenth vote cast by the league office independently, or does the majority (5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0) get an extra vote added onto their side as the league's vote?
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 03, 2022, 11:50:49 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 03, 2022, 11:35:41 PM
That doesn't answer my question, Dave. Is the tenth vote cast by the league office independently, or does the majority (5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0) get an extra vote added onto their side as the league's vote?
In the NAC the conference went 7-5 yes from schools but the conference voted no and SUNYAC was 5-4-1 yes from schools but conference voted no.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: jknezek on February 03, 2022, 11:55:55 PM
NACC was also odd and the 4-4 UAA had the conference abstain...
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Inkblot on February 04, 2022, 03:04:27 AM
I noticed a few errors in the D3Playbook breakdown; some schools were assigned to the wrong conference and some were missing.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 04, 2022, 07:04:53 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 03, 2022, 11:35:41 PM
That doesn't answer my question, Dave. Is the tenth vote cast by the league office independently, or does the majority (5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0) get an extra vote added onto their side as the league's vote?

I think it depends on the conference.  The conference is given an independent vote, but, of course, the conference is made up on member schools.  I don't think there is a standard formula by which the conference vote is determined.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 04, 2022, 09:50:52 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 04, 2022, 07:04:53 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 03, 2022, 11:35:41 PM
That doesn't answer my question, Dave. Is the tenth vote cast by the league office independently, or does the majority (5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0) get an extra vote added onto their side as the league's vote?

I think it depends on the conference.  The conference is given an independent vote, but, of course, the conference is made up on member schools.  I don't think there is a standard formula by which the conference vote is determined.

Thanks. This helps. It means that I can redirect the question to the North Park AD to get a league-specific answer.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2022, 12:44:42 AM
As Ryan indicated ... each school gets a vote and each conference gets a vote. How a conference votes ... is up to the conference. The Commissioner (or the person they designate) votes for the conference.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Caz Bombers on February 08, 2022, 01:58:24 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 03, 2022, 06:43:47 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 03, 2022, 05:17:52 PM
From today's D3playbook (https://www.d3playbook.com/2022/02/ncaa-earns-115-billion.html) email, a breakdown of how conferences voted on the 6 school for AQ issue.  Some surprises here IMO.   If you go to the link you can see how the individual schools in each conference voted.

Allegheny Mountain: 9-0
American Rivers 0-8 (1 did not vote)
American Southwest 8-4 (1 DNV)
Atlantic East 7-0

CCIW 0-10

Forgive me for my ignorance of NCAA convention voting procedures ... but there are only nine members of the CCIW, so is the tenth vote cast by the senior league official or is a cumulative league vote added to the majority?

I believe the conference itself casts a vote, same as a school does.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2022, 12:17:46 AM
Thanks, everybody, but you're not really answering my question. I was already well aware of the fact that the extra vote was the conference's. What I asked was who casts the conference's vote. Does the league office cast it, or is the conference's vote awarded to whichever position won the majority of the conference's member institutions' votes?

As Ryan said, that decision can vary from conference to conference, so the only way that I'm going to get my answer is to ask one of the CCIW athletic directors, since that's the conference whose voting is of interest to me.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Caz Bombers on February 09, 2022, 09:44:02 AM
The league office must cast its own vote because the North Atlantic Conference had 7 yes and 6 no and the NAC vote was among the 6 for no. The SUNYAC had a 5-5-1 split with the league voting no and Plattsburgh abstaining.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 09, 2022, 11:32:09 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2022, 12:17:46 AM
Thanks, everybody, but you're not really answering my question. I was already well aware of the fact that the extra vote was the conference's. What I asked was who casts the conference's vote. Does the league office cast it, or is the conference's vote awarded to whichever position won the majority of the conference's member institutions' votes?

As Ryan said, that decision can vary from conference to conference, so the only way that I'm going to get my answer is to ask one of the CCIW athletic directors, since that's the conference whose voting is of interest to me.

So we did answer the question ... LOL

Both Ryan and I stated we weren't sure how each conference votes. That they have a vote and whether the commissioner votes on their own or they do the bidding of those in their conference. I can see arguments to both.

Just FYI, the CCIW will give you one answer ... there are 41 other answers HAHA
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2022, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 09, 2022, 11:32:09 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2022, 12:17:46 AM
Thanks, everybody, but you're not really answering my question. I was already well aware of the fact that the extra vote was the conference's. What I asked was who casts the conference's vote. Does the league office cast it, or is the conference's vote awarded to whichever position won the majority of the conference's member institutions' votes?

As Ryan said, that decision can vary from conference to conference, so the only way that I'm going to get my answer is to ask one of the CCIW athletic directors, since that's the conference whose voting is of interest to me.

So we did answer the question ... LOL

Yes, I suppose that "I'm not sure" is an answer, so ... touché.  ;)

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 09, 2022, 11:32:09 AMJust FYI, the CCIW will give you one answer ... there are 41 other answers HAHA

Yes, well, that's implicit in the idea that every conference has independence of method when it comes to casting the conference's vote.

Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 09, 2022, 09:44:02 AM
The league office must cast its own vote because the North Atlantic Conference had 7 yes and 6 no and the NAC vote was among the 6 for no. The SUNYAC had a 5-5-1 split with the league voting no and Plattsburgh abstaining.

No, Dave and Ryan are clearly right. There's no "must" involved here; there are 42 different D3 leagues that arrive at 42 particular methods of casting the vote. (No doubt a lot of them use the same methods, but that's not the point.) The league office doesn't have to cast the vote at all; the conference's membership can agree to cast the vote by majority, or some other method may be used.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2022, 07:48:35 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2022, 10:21:06 PM
From the SAA Board...

Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2022, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 23, 2022, 08:13:44 PM
I'm going to predict that there will be ZERO at large bids within 5-7 years.

That was an absolutely STUPID vote by the reps.  The minimum size for an AQ should have gone UP to 8, not down to 6.  Did someone spike their morning coffee? ::)

I will take this quote as a mind game.

SCAC - the 3 affiliates in the ASC  (AC, SW, TLU) and Trinity in the SAA plus Centenary in 2024 convince St Thomas (Houston) to add football in 2024. One bid; 4 Pool C remain.
MAC - splits into Freedom and Commonwealth; one new bid; 3 Pool C remain.

Now is when it gets tougher.

NESCAC?

USA South -In the present "East"/ "West" configuration these teams play football, if the conference splits in two.

East - Averett - going to the ODAC; Greensboro; Methodist; NC Wesleyan; Southern Virginia. The East would need two from Pfeffer, Mary Baldwin, William Peace
West - Belhaven - coming from the ASC; Brevard; Huntingdon, LaGrange; Maryville. The West would need one from Berea, Covenant, Piedmont.

With 3 new schools coming through provisional, Asbury, Bob Jones and Warren Wilson, whom do they join and do they add football?

Which conferences add football as a new sport?  I could only speculate.
The access ratio gives us 36 bids.
What if the "D-IV" conferences wanted to go to a 14 week season, instead of a 16 week season.

8 bids times 6.5, the access ratio, is 52 schools.  (Or, 58 schools divide by 6.5 = 8.92 bids, truncated to 8 bids.)

Imagine 5 or 6 conferences moving the 'Short Season" Division. Would that bring back the NESCAC?

Who would join the Short Season Division?

It is not Freedom and Commonwealth, but MAC and Landmark.

https://www.d3football.com/notables/2022/02/landmark-to-add-two-take-football-automatic-bid
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: seanoc29 on November 23, 2022, 06:38:30 PM
Anyone know if this going to be picked up in the 2023 Convention

Expanded ability to practice without using a season of competition - allow student-athletes to participate in a full season of practice without using a season of competition if the athlete does not compete in any games.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 23, 2022, 06:58:32 PM
Quote from: seanoc29 on November 23, 2022, 06:38:30 PM
Anyone know if this going to be picked up in the 2023 Convention

Expanded ability to practice without using a season of competition - allow student-athletes to participate in a full season of practice without using a season of competition if the athlete does not compete in any games.


I doubt this is going anywhere. Lots of schools are glad to be rid of redshirting and not excited about going back to it.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 30, 2022, 02:16:26 PM
Every time the redshirting rule comes up it fails overwhelmingly. It keeps coming up now because of COVID impacts AND schools trying to retain students. I still don't think it will go anywhere.

The legislation for 2023 Convention is set. There is one twist with changing the number of weeks teams can practice to days - something COVID brought as a temporary change and everyone loves (something we talked about YEARS ago, but didn't think quite this far). There are TWO versions, so there is going to be a funky way of voting for the proposal - to assure the old version is ousted and one of the two is adopted. Basically, it's going to be like double-elimination.

Here is some about that voting method: https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/10/26/media-center-diii-presidents-council-backs-alternative-voting-method-order-for-convention-proposals.aspx

I need to find the link with all the legislative items, but other than the "days" thing, there isn't anything of major significance as I remember it.