D3boards.com

Posting Up (Division III basketball) => Men's Basketball => Multi-Regional Topics => Topic started by: hopefan on June 24, 2015, 09:48:06 am

Title: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on June 24, 2015, 09:48:06 am
I just learned that exhibition games, previously limited to preseason dates only, are now permitted during the in season schedule.   There is no date limitation.   In prior years, exhibition games were easy to identify because they occurred before the permissable season opening date.  Now these in season games will be difficult to identify, leading to potential errors in stating team win-loss records and statistics.  In scheduling for 2015-16 posted on some sites, I've already found 2 examples of exhibition games within the season, unidentified as such on team schedules.  I wonder if there is a requirement that these games are formally I.D.'d to the NCAA, and obviously D3hoops.com needs to be careful in their reporting with accuracy....
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 30, 2015, 05:31:34 pm
This seems to continue what has already been in place for a long time, BUT is a confusing point of reference for Division III and other divisions. I read through what was presented at the NCAA Convention and actually found nothing different than what was already in place except two things: elimination of the Basketball Hall of Fame reference (it doesn't pertain to DIII) and the ability for teams to classify a scrimmage, exhibition, or practice with any other team as simply one of the two dates they can do such a thing before the season begins (it used to be spelled out you could have two of these, or one of these, or... etc. - rather confusing).

I do read it say the following "contests (games, scrimmages, and exhibitions) are permitted before the first contest dates:
(a) Exhibitions, Scrimmages, and Joint Practices. A maximum of two exhibitions, scrimmages, or joint practices (may include competition) against any outside team may be conducted between the first permissible date for on-court preseason practice and the conclusion of the basketball season."


That rewarding actually eliminates the October 31 start date that existed in the past.

Also, here is what was also part of that rule as of last year's Division III Manual:
"(d) NCAA Division I or II Institution. An institution may play one exhibition or scrimmage (which shall not count toward the institutionís win-loss record) against a Division I or II institution on or after October 31 and before the first permissible contest date;"

What I can't figure out (because the recent Manual is not available for downloading or viewing, as of yet, is whether that is still a restriction. In the Convention Handbook it doesn't mention this "rule" ... but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I also missed any discussion of this at the Convention when I was there.

But note the "first permissible contest date" ... that is what has gotten schools in trouble in the past. It happened last year with a team that played a DI program in late November or early December under the guise it was an exhibition... however, the DI program rightly declared the game a real contest and the DIII program had to scramble and cancel a non-conference game at the very last minute or they would have been over the limit of contest dates.

I will reach out to a number of contacts that could better answer this - or at least get my hands on the new manual - and let you know what I find out. I will say, that we at D3hoops have the ability to note exhibition games at any point in the season and SIDs have done so on our schedules as well. The trick is whether those games are truly exhibitions or not and if there has been a drastic change in that rule, I will find out.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on July 01, 2015, 10:01:06 pm
Dave... for instance... Concordia-Chicago schedule is up on its site... 26 games... one of which is with Valparaiso, one with Chicago State... neither is designated on the schedule as an exhibition game, both are in-season.. likely, one or the other is an exhibition, but which one?

NOTE : prior to the 2014-15 change, 17.3.3.1 (d) said "An institution may play one exhibition or scrimmage (which shall not count toward the institution's w-l record) against a Division I or II institution on or after October 31 and before the first permissible contest date...

I didn't realize the exhibition game could be played in-season last year... it just came to my attention while I was reviewing 2015-16 schedules
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 02, 2015, 01:57:35 pm
The thing is... an exhibition game against a D1 or D2 school could NOT be played in-season last year and prior. There was confusion as some teams did schedule these games as exhibitions and as at least one discovered due to my inquiry last season... they were in violation and could have had 26 contest-dates causing problems. In fact, I think there was a women's program who played one-too many games and has sanctions coming if memory serves.

Now, I am in an ongoing conversation with those at the NCAA. It does appear the restriction of having those exhibitions take place prior to Nov. 15 (or Nov. 13 this season) may actually have been dropped from the regulations - but again, there is confusion in everything I am reading. I actually have a phone-call slated for later today to get more clarification.

IF indeed the regulation has been changed - and I am of the opinion it has been - then the schools have to designate which games are exhibition (joint practice, scrimmage) and make sure their opponent is of the same mind-set. Once they do that, when the games are put in the schedules... they have to be designated as such. Usually we (D3hoops staff) will notice irregularities like these and check the schedules on those program websites. If it is still unclear, I at least in the past have reached out to the SID and/or coach for further clarification so that our schedule reflects the correct games as being real contests. Obviously, with a change in the regulation... that due diligence will be a bit more important - but we can also adjust those items after the fact if necessary. What it certainly will mean to SIDs and others is that they reflect the appropriate information when reporting games, schedules, etc. to the NCAA.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 02, 2015, 02:52:29 pm
OK... got it all clarified thanks to a phone call with those at the NCAA.

The rules have been adjusted to hopefully clear up confusion with the original rules... but they may cause some other questions. I hope I did a good enough job being a Devil's Advocate to answer those questions as well.

First off... the permissible date to play exhibitions against pretty much ANYONE has been changed from anytime from Oct. 15 to the championship game in Division III. That means a DIII team who wants to play at DI or DII team can do so anytime in that time frame. Originally, those exhibitions had to be played after Oct. 31 and prior to Nov. 15 or the first permissible date of the season for DIII .

They key is that DIII institutions are only allowed TWO exhibitions, joint practices, or scrimmage games between Oct. 15 and the end of the season. So yes... Concordia-Chicago can have their games against Valparaiso and Chicago State either both as exhibitions or any combination no matter when they get played. However, if they have one or two other scrimmage/exhibition/joint practice games ... they have to plan accordingly (alumni games are exempt from all regulations in these cases).

Now the rub... DI and DII programs can count the games as real contests while DIII does not have to if they are declaring them exhibitions. We have seen this before when DI or DII seasons have started and DIII has not (i.e. Transylvania at Kentucky). In those scenarios, the DI or DII program has the game count as a win or loss along with the stats, while the game does not count in any form and no stats are official for the DIII program. This continues now for any game that the DIII program decides is an exhibition (of their two permitted) at any time in the season.

THIS could cause a lot of confusion and if coaches are not communicating with SIDs, in particular, and a player plays in that game who later the thought was his eligibility hadn't been used... there are going to be issues. The SIDs need to know the official games and the like when reporting everything to the NCAA (or compliance people). It is hard to solve an eligibility problem three years later than it is to not have the problem in the first place. Per my phone call today, I do think this may be looked at in the near future and seeing if both parties have to count the game as an exhibition may be added to the wording - but that will be up for a vote at a future Convention if it gets that far.

Of course as I mentioned in a previous post... as far as D3hoops and others knowing on our schedules what are exhibition games and which aren't... that first resides with the person putting in the schedule and then with us double-checking with the schools. However, I can tell you now knowing the staffing we have and the amount of hours it takes for Pat, Gordon, and myself to double-(triple)check schedules in October and November (and beyond), items like this are going to slip through and occasionally we will have to adjust them after the fact. Not the end of the world, to be sure... but as I mentioned in the previous paragraph - you hope a school doesn't get counted for an extra contest or two in the eyes of the NCAA because the program and department didn't do a good enough job communicating what games are real contests and what aren't.

Finally I will say... this could all be for not in a year or two. There is a complex and thorough review of all playing and practice seasons underway in Division III. This stemmed from the attempt at the last Convention to decrease the number of games in nearly all sports in Division III by 10%. That was going to be soundly defeated in January, but there is a consensus that some seasons are out of whack and I know the basketball four-week preseason is something many, including coaches, think has gotten a little ridiculous. After the review and once it passes through different committees (Management and Presidents Councils), it will be up for a vote at the NCAA Convention. That could change even this idea of playing DI and DII teams in exhibitions any time of the season - you just never know.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Greek Tragedy on July 03, 2015, 12:12:20 pm
Yeah, I thought it was weird when I saw UW-Superior with two in-season exhibition games.Sioux Falls and UWGB.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: magicman on July 06, 2015, 05:53:50 am
In 2011-12 Buffalo State played an in-season exhibition game against DI University of Buffalo on January 4th 2012. Buff State thought it was an exhibition game but the NCAA called it a regular season game and D3hoops counted it in their record. They ended up with 26 games in the regular season and the talk in the conference was that they would be prohibited from playing in the SUNYAC Tournament and NCAA Tournament. They finished the regular season with an 18-8 record.The NCAA however allowed them to play in the SUNYAC Tournament and their season ended when they lost to Brockport State in the 1st round. Here's the link showing Buffalo State's D3hoops season record:

http://d3hoops.com/teams/Buffalo_State/men/2011-12/index
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: magicman on July 06, 2015, 05:57:47 am
By the way good job clarifying everything, Dave. Plus K
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: amh63 on July 06, 2015, 10:00:53 am
Wow....got around to reading some posts here.  Seems the NCAA rules people have been taking some lessons from those people writing our health and tax codes!  Oh well, idle minds can generate mischief :).
Magicman....glad to hear from you.  A little concern about the activities in your "neck of the woods".
Keep well and busy, my friend!
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 06, 2015, 02:37:17 pm
Just and FYI... this was something the NCAA wanted to clear up and worked with the men's and women's basketball committees (and coaching associations) to work on... it was something that slipped past me in January when at the NCAA Convention. I will have better eyes on these kinds of things down the road.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 11, 2015, 04:37:32 pm
Due to all the changes in basketball this year, I put a special Hoopsville show together. It isn't anything incredible visually, but I talk to members of the rules committees and an AD about the changes: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/rules-special (http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/rules-special)
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: 7express on November 11, 2015, 11:52:21 pm
I really hate the 4 quarters in the women's game and 1,000% agree with Dave in that blog he put together in May that I just found today.  I'd actually like it if the men went to it too (hey the NBA, Europe and every other international/high school competition is 4 quarters as well...) but hate it with just the women using is.  Dave mentioned something like this in the blog: assume you're a freshmen at college this year, and want to get into basketball.  Since most games in D-3 are double headers, you go to the women's game first and see they play four 10 minute quarters, and then the men's game starts and to your utter surprise you see them play two 20 minute halves, and you're wondering to yourself "with a few slight changes [now mainly the size of the ball the biggest difference]) both men & women play the same game with the same rules, how can the game length be completely different between the gender leagues??"  Incredibly stupid!

This is mainly for division 1 only, and for division 3 only a select few teams, but the 30 second shot clock gives a huge advantage to the power teams, with athletes that can run up and down the court.  The Western Connecticut team from 4 years ago with DaQuan Brooks I think could've done pretty well in this new format, but can't see many d-3 teams, maybe Amherst, and some Midwest/West teams; For division 1 see Duke, Kentucky, etc), but overall I like it.

I said this on another board but adding an extra foul would be another moronic move by Indianapolis and I'm really hoping this doesn't go through next year.  Like the 30 second shot clock that gives another huge advantage to top tier teams with a lot of depth at forward & center and it still doesn't solve the problem by playing defense without fouling which most of these 4 & 5 guys in college can't do, so your going to reward them by giving them an EXTRA foul now??  If anything they should REDUCE the number of fouls from 5 to 4, actually make these guys play defense. 
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 12, 2015, 01:09:42 pm
Just and FYI - the extra foul or any rule change won't go into affect for two years as the rules cycle through in two year segments. That doesn't mean some changes can't wait that long, but something like that won't happen next year. Furthermore, I have not seen a lot of momentum behind it outside of some D1s and ultimately, they can get out voted potentially.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 12, 2015, 01:22:23 pm
I really hate the 4 quarters in the women's game and 1,000% agree with Dave in that blog he put together in May that I just found today.  I'd actually like it if the men went to it too (hey the NBA, Europe and every other international/high school competition is 4 quarters as well...) but hate it with just the women using is.  Dave mentioned something like this in the blog: assume you're a freshmen at college this year, and want to get into basketball.  Since most games in D-3 are double headers, you go to the women's game first and see they play four 10 minute quarters, and then the men's game starts and to your utter surprise you see them play two 20 minute halves, and you're wondering to yourself "with a few slight changes [now mainly the size of the ball the biggest difference]) both men & women play the same game with the same rules, how can the game length be completely different between the gender leagues??"  Incredibly stupid!

This is mainly for division 1 only, and for division 3 only a select few teams, but the 30 second shot clock gives a huge advantage to the power teams, with athletes that can run up and down the court.  The Western Connecticut team from 4 years ago with DaQuan Brooks I think could've done pretty well in this new format, but can't see many d-3 teams, maybe Amherst, and some Midwest/West teams; For division 1 see Duke, Kentucky, etc), but overall I like it.

I said this on another board but adding an extra foul would be another moronic move by Indianapolis and I'm really hoping this doesn't go through next year.  Like the 30 second shot clock that gives another huge advantage to top tier teams with a lot of depth at forward & center and it still doesn't solve the problem by playing defense without fouling which most of these 4 & 5 guys in college can't do, so your going to reward them by giving them an EXTRA foul now??  If anything they should REDUCE the number of fouls from 5 to 4, actually make these guys play defense.

For the women, I don't think the time is as much a factor as the other changes that go along with it.  Shooting two FTs after the 4th foul each quarter is quick.  No 1 and 1 at all.  There are fewer timeouts as well.  I was talking with some women's players today who mentioned defensive discipline and FT shooting will be much more important this year than last.  It should be interesting.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 12, 2015, 01:23:41 pm
It will allow the game to move more quickly without the freight train to the free throw line as early as 12 minutes left in a half like we see across college basketball in the past.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: AppletonRocks on November 14, 2015, 05:46:57 pm
What is the rule if a coach yells an expletive?  Is it an automatic technical?  It should be.

Pat Miller from Whitewater let one fly last night, I heard it from 100 feet away but the refs must have missed it.  Despicable.  >:(
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: AppletonRocks on November 14, 2015, 05:47:43 pm
What is the rule if a coach yells an expletive?  Is it an automatic technical?  It should be.

Pat Miller from Whitewater let one fly last night, I heard it from 100 feet away but the refs must have missed it.  Despicable.  >:(
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 14, 2015, 08:32:38 pm
Refs discretion. If you think that was bad, you probably never attended an Indiana game during the Booby Knight hey-days. It happens. Refs can decide if it crosses the line.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2015, 09:35:19 pm
Refs discretion. If you think that was bad, you probably never attended an Indiana game during the Booby Knight hey-days. It happens. Refs can decide if it crosses the line.

Can't help wondering - was this deliberate or a typo? ;D

(Though in his 'elder-statesman' days, he insists on 'Robert'! ::))
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 14, 2015, 09:51:05 pm
LOL... new computer and not used to the keypad still. Oops. :)
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2015, 09:55:10 pm
As a Michigan man, I thought 'Booby' was highly appropriate! ;D
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: magicman on November 14, 2015, 10:07:38 pm
As a Michigan man, I thought 'Booby' was highly appropriate! ;D

plus k Chuck
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: magicman on November 14, 2015, 10:09:52 pm
LOL... new computer and not used to the keypad still. Oops. :)

And plus k for being so honest Dave. It was a perfect chance  to claim a good joke!  :D 8-)
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 14, 2015, 10:23:27 pm
Yeah... can't claim that one. I couldn't even think of that one... disappointing, I know. LOL
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2015, 11:55:43 am
It will allow the game to move more quickly without the freight train to the free throw line as early as 12 minutes left in a half like we see across college basketball in the past.

Our D2 Women's Team had a 51-49 win against Hawaii Pacific, and instead of the FT train at the end, since neither team fouled a lot in the 4th it was a let 'em play scenario. I kind of like it - though I'm really having issues with the four quarters. I have to balance minutes, print stats for coaches and media, set up the new quarter and get everyone on the floor in a rush and a push. Thankfully I have a good caller and am fast at the play editor....
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 16, 2015, 03:26:26 pm
Eh... I'd skip giving coaches stats until halftime. Just sayin.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hscathletics on November 16, 2015, 03:43:59 pm
And you can always balance the minutes for the first and third quarters at halftime and the end of the game. All you have to do is change periods when you go into balance minutes. Same with editing plays (unless it effects the score or foul totals). How many people are even going to notice minutes aren't balanced at the end of the first quarter?
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: smedindy on December 11, 2015, 07:27:17 pm
Eh... I'd skip giving coaches stats until halftime. Just sayin.

Conference rule to give stats to coaches and media at the media time outs and quarter breaks (and half). Yes, even in a small D2 conference we have mandatory media time outs. It screwed up Whitman's men at first.

I got my system down now. Just took a game or two.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 13, 2015, 11:56:21 am
Eh... I'd skip giving coaches stats until halftime. Just sayin.

Conference rule to give stats to coaches and media at the media time outs and quarter breaks (and half). Yes, even in a small D2 conference we have mandatory media time outs. It screwed up Whitman's men at first.

I got my system down now. Just took a game or two.

Sometimes it's all about working out the kinks. Good to hear for your sake.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: ronk on January 11, 2016, 07:28:48 pm
Dave McHugh,
   NCAA convention question:
    Did they send u a link for the agenda topics? As an unofficial scout for prospects, I'm particularly interested in the recruiting proposals. The change this year to being able to talk with prospects/parents after any day of a multi-day tourney instead of having to wait til the conclusion of the tourney was particularly beneficial to me(and the prospects ;D); talking with them after soph year vs junior year was less so.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 11, 2016, 09:11:46 pm
They have ronk. Despite the fact we can't get the final data or regional rankings, the NCAA is very much about transparency.

First off, here is a chat going on in the General Topics section you would be interested in: http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8431.0 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8431.0)

Here is my comment about the topics up for a vote: http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8431.msg1722749#msg1722749

The more specific links are:

AND if you are in for a long read, here is the final notice of what will be up for a vote (for the most part) at next week's convention (Division III only): http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016%20DIII%20Official%20Notice.pdf (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016%20DIII%20Official%20Notice.pdf). A lot of what is in the second half is talked about at the business meeting and voted through on the whole, as it was last year. It is the first half that features the votes and ALL the details there in. If you want the cribs note version, here you go: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016_DIII_Proposal_Chart.pdf (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016_DIII_Proposal_Chart.pdf).
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: ronk on January 12, 2016, 02:14:06 am
They have ronk. Despite the fact we can't get the final data or regional rankings, the NCAA is very much about transparency.

First off, here is a chat going on in the General Topics section you would be interested in: http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8431.0 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8431.0)

Here is my comment about the topics up for a vote: http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8431.msg1722749#msg1722749

The more specific links are:

AND if you are in for a long read, here is the final notice of what will be up for a vote (for the most part) at next week's convention (Division III only): http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016%20DIII%20Official%20Notice.pdf (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016%20DIII%20Official%20Notice.pdf). A lot of what is in the second half is talked about at the business meeting and voted through on the whole, as it was last year. It is the first half that features the votes and ALL the details there in. If you want the cribs note version, here you go: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016_DIII_Proposal_Chart.pdf (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016_DIII_Proposal_Chart.pdf).

  Thanks - have a good trip.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: y_jack_lok on February 04, 2016, 07:56:18 am
Does anyone know what the rules say about a coach being on the court during live action? I observed a coach occupying the corner of the court where the baseline and sideline meet. I mean he had the backs of his feet well onto the playing surface as there was clearly court space (up to a foot at least, at times) between his heels and the out-of-bounds lines. He only did this in the first half of the game when his team was on defense, so the opposition was trying to run its offense down there. Itcaused no obvious interference with the opposition's offense, but it struck me as as subtle way of influencing things on the court. As I said, he did not do this in the second half when his team was on offense at that end of the floor.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 04, 2016, 08:11:55 am
Does anyone know what the rules say about a coach being on the court during live action? I observed a coach occupying the corner of the court where the baseline and sideline meet. I mean he had the backs of his feet well onto the playing surface as there was clearly court space (up to a foot at least, at times) between his heels and the out-of-bounds lines. He only did this in the first half of the game when his team was on defense, so the opposition was trying to run its offense down there. Itcaused no obvious interference with the opposition's offense, but it struck me as as subtle way of influencing things on the court. As I said, he did not do this in the second half when his team was on offense at that end of the floor.

If they're on the playing floor and a player runs into them, I believe it's supposed to be a technical foul - great way to get a FT if you just bump them.  I've seen a number of NBA players do it (although they don't usually give the tech in the NBA).
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: y_jack_lok on February 04, 2016, 08:26:40 am
Does anyone know what the rules say about a coach being on the court during live action? I observed a coach occupying the corner of the court where the baseline and sideline meet. I mean he had the backs of his feet well onto the playing surface as there was clearly court space (up to a foot at least, at times) between his heels and the out-of-bounds lines. He only did this in the first half of the game when his team was on defense, so the opposition was trying to run its offense down there. Itcaused no obvious interference with the opposition's offense, but it struck me as as subtle way of influencing things on the court. As I said, he did not do this in the second half when his team was on offense at that end of the floor.

If they're on the playing floor and a player runs into them, I believe it's supposed to be a technical foul - great way to get a FT if you just bump them.  I've seen a number of NBA players do it (although they don't usually give the tech in the NBA).

Well, that's a possible outcome of something happening. I'm really asking if there is anything specific in the rules about whether or not the coach can be on the floor or not and if the officials can do anything about it before an incident happens. I know I wasn't that clear in my initial post. Sorry. Thanks for the response. Any further information would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 04, 2016, 09:16:44 am
Does anyone know what the rules say about a coach being on the court during live action? I observed a coach occupying the corner of the court where the baseline and sideline meet. I mean he had the backs of his feet well onto the playing surface as there was clearly court space (up to a foot at least, at times) between his heels and the out-of-bounds lines. He only did this in the first half of the game when his team was on defense, so the opposition was trying to run its offense down there. Itcaused no obvious interference with the opposition's offense, but it struck me as as subtle way of influencing things on the court. As I said, he did not do this in the second half when his team was on offense at that end of the floor.

If they're on the playing floor and a player runs into them, I believe it's supposed to be a technical foul - great way to get a FT if you just bump them.  I've seen a number of NBA players do it (although they don't usually give the tech in the NBA).

Well, that's a possible outcome of something happening. I'm really asking if there is anything specific in the rules about whether or not the coach can be on the floor or not and if the officials can do anything about it before an incident happens. I know I wasn't that clear in my initial post. Sorry. Thanks for the response. Any further information would be appreciated.

I suppose a ref could tell them to get off the floor and then call a foul if they don't?
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: y_jack_lok on February 04, 2016, 09:49:46 am
Does anyone know what the rules say about a coach being on the court during live action? I observed a coach occupying the corner of the court where the baseline and sideline meet. I mean he had the backs of his feet well onto the playing surface as there was clearly court space (up to a foot at least, at times) between his heels and the out-of-bounds lines. He only did this in the first half of the game when his team was on defense, so the opposition was trying to run its offense down there. Itcaused no obvious interference with the opposition's offense, but it struck me as as subtle way of influencing things on the court. As I said, he did not do this in the second half when his team was on offense at that end of the floor.

If they're on the playing floor and a player runs into them, I believe it's supposed to be a technical foul - great way to get a FT if you just bump them.  I've seen a number of NBA players do it (although they don't usually give the tech in the NBA).

Well, that's a possible outcome of something happening. I'm really asking if there is anything specific in the rules about whether or not the coach can be on the floor or not and if the officials can do anything about it before an incident happens. I know I wasn't that clear in my initial post. Sorry. Thanks for the response. Any further information would be appreciated.

I suppose a ref could tell them to get off the floor and then call a foul if they don't?

Thanks again. I really do appreciate you taking the time to read and reply. I'm not looking for speculation, though. I'd really like to know what the rules say and I'm sure there are at least a few regular posters out there who probably have a copy of the rule book and could let me know the rule. I can search for it myself if it comes to that. Just thought it might be quicker to ask.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Just Bill on February 04, 2016, 10:39:37 am
Technically, it's a technical foul because they are outside of the coaching box. No warning or interference is necessary. But it's almost never enforced unless the coach is being an a**.

I'll find you the rule citation in a moment.

UPDATE: I was wrong in that the rule does call for one warning before issuing a technical foul.

Rule 10 Article 2, f(1)
The head coach may stand but must remain completely and clearly
in his coaching box. One warning shall be issued to the head coach
before any subsequent infraction is penalized.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR17.pdf
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on February 04, 2016, 11:31:04 am
It's not anything that ever bothered me, because I'd rather see a coach do that.. that is, COACH... rather than be out there yelling at the refs...  As long as he never  makes contact with a player, or influences the path of a player or the path of a pass... or isn't actually making body motions close to a player when the player is shooting...  It's not something I've ever thought too much about
Now then, if he's out there to yell at the ref, T him up...
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: sac on February 04, 2016, 12:02:37 pm
Coaches on the court is a side sport in the MIAA.

I think most refs understand d3 gyms don't have the space of the big arenas and give a lot of leeway.   Some sidelines are really tight.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: y_jack_lok on February 04, 2016, 12:56:17 pm
Thanks everyone for your input -- especially Just Bill for the rule citation. +1K. Each one's personal opinions notwithstanding, my view is that the case I observed was a deliberate "tale of two halves". In the second half he stayed clearly out of bounds when his team was on offense at that end of the floor. He could have done the same in the first half. I know lots of coaches prowl the sideline and coach their team verbally as play is going on and that their feet are at times on the playing surface and I have no problem with that. But last night was something I have never seen a coach do before -- literally standing and not moving with both feet clearly in bounds. And it wasn't just once. It was on virtually every possession. I was trying to watch play on the floor, but every time I looked at the coach when the action was down there in the first half the coach was in that same spot. As I said, nothing specific happened that affected the game, but it's hard to know how a player on the court might be influenced by that coach's presence in that location.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: AppletonRocks on September 19, 2016, 10:30:56 am
Tom Crean should be sent to a prison camp for violations in this area.  >:( >:(
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 20, 2016, 04:46:41 pm
Throwing this one in here because it is the most relevant room I figure for this.

I decided to tackle something in Division III I don't think many understand or appreciate. As a result, my suggestions at changing preseason basketball in Division III: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/10/20/time-to-change-preseason-basketball/

Feel free to discuss or even share with others.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: ronk on October 20, 2016, 08:22:18 pm
Throwing this one in here because it is the most relevant room I figure for this.

I decided to tackle something in Division III I don't think many understand or appreciate. As a result, my suggestions at changing preseason basketball in Division III: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/10/20/time-to-change-preseason-basketball/

Feel free to discuss or even share with others.

Thanks!

 Some good ideas, Dave. Meet the newcomers, have  a few practices w/open tryouts to reduce the # later in the preseason. Students should be able to drop in with the coaches, in-season or out-of-season.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Bengalsrule on October 20, 2016, 11:30:19 pm
Throwing this one in here because it is the most relevant room I figure for this.

I decided to tackle something in Division III I don't think many understand or appreciate. As a result, my suggestions at changing preseason basketball in Division III: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/10/20/time-to-change-preseason-basketball/

Feel free to discuss or even share with others.

Thanks!

Good points made throughout!  I know a head coach in western ny who dreads the "pick up" or as he calls them " rec ball" basketball games.   Talented young men mixing it up in the gym with, on some cases, other kids who could do good ball players more harm than good.  Not to mention the "no defense" aspect of rec ball. Rec ball can create horrible tendencies in kids who know better but have no one correcting them.

And campus security, can sometimes assume that a kid is on the basketball team, just because of his size. Fortunately, at at least 1 d3 school in buffalo, most of campus security know the coach who has worked on the campus for nearly 35 years.  Woe be the coach who doesn't have that kind of relationship with campus security.  Every kid who fits a certain "type" could be associated with hoops just because he plans on going out for the team or has attended a basketball "interest" meeting!

Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: HOPEful on October 21, 2016, 07:51:31 am
I decided to tackle something in Division III I don't think many understand or appreciate. As a result, my suggestions at changing preseason basketball in Division III: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/10/20/time-to-change-preseason-basketball/

Really well written Dave! I have often thought it was strange that D3 holds many of the same rules/regulations as D1. If the primary goal and focus is to create meaningful student athlete experiences, it is hypocritical and/or asinine to regulate/withhold immediate access to the mentors/coaches who have the greatest ability to make a lasting positive impact. 
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 21, 2016, 12:41:38 pm
I should point out that many have reminded me that players can meet with coaches when talking about academics and the like as long as it isn't about basketball. While I agree that is allowed, I know many coaches who still are frustrated with the lack of contact as it still is restrictive and you have to be careful not to start talking about hoops. So, they can meet with players in the beginning, but being there and providing a full structured start can be frustrating for many coaches and students.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: 7express on October 25, 2016, 04:12:15 pm
I really hate the 4 quarters in the women's game and 1,000% agree with Dave in that blog he put together in May that I just found today.  I'd actually like it if the men went to it too (hey the NBA, Europe and every other international/high school competition is 4 quarters as well...) but hate it with just the women using is.  Dave mentioned something like this in the blog: assume you're a freshmen at college this year, and want to get into basketball.  Since most games in D-3 are double headers, you go to the women's game first and see they play four 10 minute quarters, and then the men's game starts and to your utter surprise you see them play two 20 minute halves, and you're wondering to yourself "with a few slight changes [now mainly the size of the ball the biggest difference]) both men & women play the same game with the same rules, how can the game length be completely different between the gender leagues??"  Incredibly stupid!

This is mainly for division 1 only, and for division 3 only a select few teams, but the 30 second shot clock gives a huge advantage to the power teams, with athletes that can run up and down the court.  The Western Connecticut team from 4 years ago with DaQuan Brooks I think could've done pretty well in this new format, but can't see many d-3 teams, maybe Amherst, and some Midwest/West teams; For division 1 see Duke, Kentucky, etc), but overall I like it.

I said this on another board but adding an extra foul would be another moronic move by Indianapolis and I'm really hoping this doesn't go through next year.  Like the 30 second shot clock that gives another huge advantage to top tier teams with a lot of depth at forward & center and it still doesn't solve the problem by playing defense without fouling which most of these 4 & 5 guys in college can't do, so your going to reward them by giving them an EXTRA foul now??  If anything they should REDUCE the number of fouls from 5 to 4, actually make these guys play defense.

Looking back at my extremely idiotic post from last November I actually came around to the four 10 minute quarters in the women's game, and really, really wish the men would adopt this format in the coming years.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 26, 2016, 10:19:01 am
I really hate the 4 quarters in the women's game and 1,000% agree with Dave in that blog he put together in May that I just found today.  I'd actually like it if the men went to it too (hey the NBA, Europe and every other international/high school competition is 4 quarters as well...) but hate it with just the women using is.  Dave mentioned something like this in the blog: assume you're a freshmen at college this year, and want to get into basketball.  Since most games in D-3 are double headers, you go to the women's game first and see they play four 10 minute quarters, and then the men's game starts and to your utter surprise you see them play two 20 minute halves, and you're wondering to yourself "with a few slight changes [now mainly the size of the ball the biggest difference]) both men & women play the same game with the same rules, how can the game length be completely different between the gender leagues??"  Incredibly stupid!

This is mainly for division 1 only, and for division 3 only a select few teams, but the 30 second shot clock gives a huge advantage to the power teams, with athletes that can run up and down the court.  The Western Connecticut team from 4 years ago with DaQuan Brooks I think could've done pretty well in this new format, but can't see many d-3 teams, maybe Amherst, and some Midwest/West teams; For division 1 see Duke, Kentucky, etc), but overall I like it.

I said this on another board but adding an extra foul would be another moronic move by Indianapolis and I'm really hoping this doesn't go through next year.  Like the 30 second shot clock that gives another huge advantage to top tier teams with a lot of depth at forward & center and it still doesn't solve the problem by playing defense without fouling which most of these 4 & 5 guys in college can't do, so your going to reward them by giving them an EXTRA foul now??  If anything they should REDUCE the number of fouls from 5 to 4, actually make these guys play defense.

Looking back at my extremely idiotic post from last November I actually came around to the four 10 minute quarters in the women's game, and really, really wish the men would adopt this format in the coming years.

Don't be surprised if they do. I know the men have considered it, but the women surprised them. They wanted to research it a bit more before adopting it and the women just went ahead and jumped to it. However, in conversations I have had with those who would be involved, I think this is absolutely on the table for the next rules cycle which would be now ahead of next year's season.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 15, 2017, 02:12:11 pm
Men announced their new rules (tweeks) today: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/men-s-basketball-coach-s-box-grows-10-feet

I am disappointed to not see quarters and some other items. Otherwise, most of this is ho-hum - though, I am glad they are clarifying the screens (which I wish was either taught correctly or called more often; they are calling it a lot to my pleasure).

Women came out yesterday: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/men-s-basketball-coach-s-box-grows-10-feet

I am not thrilled with their moves, necessarily.

For both... I hate the larger coach boxes. I don't think anyone is considering game operations here.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Just Bill on June 19, 2017, 11:46:03 am
Men announced their new rules (tweeks) today: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/men-s-basketball-coach-s-box-grows-10-feet

I am disappointed to not see quarters and some other items. Otherwise, most of this is ho-hum - though, I am glad they are clarifying the screens (which I wish was either taught correctly or called more often; they are calling it a lot to my pleasure).

Women came out yesterday: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/men-s-basketball-coach-s-box-grows-10-feet

I am not thrilled with their moves, necessarily.

For both... I hate the larger coach boxes. I don't think anyone is considering game operations here.

Dave, you linked the men's rules twice on this post.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: lmitzel on June 19, 2017, 12:44:55 pm
Here's the link to the women's one. (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/women-s-basketball-moves-4-foot-arc-lane)

I, for one, am saddened that unused first half timeouts in the women's game will no longer be donated to charity.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 20, 2017, 11:29:53 am
Sorry about that - apparently I wasn't paying attention.

I am disappointed about the lack of losing a timeout at half time as well.

I am also disappointed the men didn't go to quarters and the 20-second reset on a foul (versus 15-sec reset on a kick ball) is beyond annoying. There are some others that just make me shake my head as well.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on June 20, 2017, 01:48:06 pm
So I'm wondering if the extended coaches box will diminish the number of coaches who step out of the box.  My experience has been that many coaches were already extending the box by a few feet.  Will they now do the same, and actually start crossing half court (is this like raising the speed limit, which just means most drivers now go the new limit + 5 or 10mph more)?  Are the officials going to monitor it more closely? 
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 20, 2017, 02:00:00 pm
Yeah - this is my problem with this rule. They were already five feet (from what I usually see) out of the box. Allowing that now would basically put coaches a step away from the midcourt line. That's ridiculous.

Now in the rule change, it is stressed that officials must enforce the box more aggressively. This is going to go one of two ways: they will enforce, hand out warnings, and even give techs to coaches who aren't abiding; the refs warn and warn and warn, the coaches ignore and keep pushing and eventually the refs look the other way unless it is egregious - aka what we have been dealing with for years.

Either way, I think this is a major problem for game operations. Those running the scoreboard, clock(s), official book, announcer, and live stats crew (even broadcasters) are going to be affected because line of sight is going to be affected. Refs are going to have to take extra time to convey info and much more. I know that an SID who apparently was on the committee (or support committee) voted against this for these very reasons. It wasn't enough. Many rules are put in place with no clue how they affect the game in other ways. Sadly, I wish coaches just dealt with the box they had and moved on. We don't need a bigger box.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on June 20, 2017, 04:54:01 pm
I'm in complete agreement Dave, and I wish they had simply made it a point of emphasis to enforce the existing rule.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 20, 2017, 05:39:47 pm
I'm in complete agreement Dave, and I wish they had simply made it a point of emphasis to enforce the existing rule.

I can't wait for fans and others to complain that refs are too distracted with the coaches out of their boxes and too many techs and warnings are being handed out. You know, like when they don't understand hand-checking, illegal screens, and whatnot are being emphasized and that if the coaches and teams would simply adjust to how the refs are being asked to call the game... there wouldn't be as many whistles. Too easy to blame the refs without understanding why the whistle is being blown in the first place.

Of course, people also don't bother to pay attention to the fact that the coaches... THE COACHES... are the ones who ask for an basically approve these rule changes. Everyone just thinks the "NCAA" does ... but I am stepping up on a soap box, so before I go too far... I will step off and go back to the rest of my day. LOL
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on October 04, 2017, 04:15:53 pm
The current posted Louisiana College schedule has 23 regular season games and 4 exhibition games (3 of them before the 11/15 regular season tipoff date).

Has something in the rules changed, or has Louisiana College just goofed up somehow?  2 exhibitions has always been the max.   Note, I have already placed virtually every other D3 schedule in my spreadsheet (there are still about 15 schedules not yet posted), and no other school shows more than 2 exhibitions.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Just Bill on October 04, 2017, 04:38:25 pm
The current posted Louisiana College schedule has 23 regular season games and 4 exhibition games (3 of them before the 11/15 regular season tipoff date).

Has something in the rules changed, or has Louisiana College just goofed up somehow?  2 exhibitions has always been the max.   Note, I have already placed virtually every other D3 schedule in my spreadsheet (there are still about 15 schedules not yet posted), and no other school shows more than 2 exhibitions.

I saw this pop up in soccer too. There are a few schools who believe, or who claim they received an interpretation from the NCAA, that they could essentially "sacrifice" regular season games to play more than 2 exhibitions. So essentially, as long as they don't exceed 25 counting contests and 27 total contests, they are compliant.

From my understanding this not a correct interpretation, but I can't possibly know what conversations they've had with the conference or the NCAA. I believe you get 2 exhibitions/scrimmages against outside competition no matter what. I thought that was the new cleaner legislation.

Here's the soccer example that sparked my curiosity in the fall: http://www.dustars.com/schedule.aspx?path=Msoc
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 05, 2017, 05:59:32 am
The current posted Louisiana College schedule has 23 regular season games and 4 exhibition games (3 of them before the 11/15 regular season tipoff date).

Has something in the rules changed, or has Louisiana College just goofed up somehow?  2 exhibitions has always been the max.   Note, I have already placed virtually every other D3 schedule in my spreadsheet (there are still about 15 schedules not yet posted), and no other school shows more than 2 exhibitions.

I saw this pop up in soccer too. There are a few schools who believe, or who claim they received an interpretation from the NCAA, that they could essentially "sacrifice" regular season games to play more than 2 exhibitions. So essentially, as long as they don't exceed 25 counting contests and 27 total contests, they are compliant.

From my understanding this not a correct interpretation, but I can't possibly know what conversations they've had with the conference or the NCAA. I believe you get 2 exhibitions/scrimmages against outside competition no matter what. I thought that was the new cleaner legislation.

Here's the soccer example that sparked my curiosity in the fall: http://www.dustars.com/schedule.aspx?path=Msoc

I was under the impression the change made this offseason was to prevent exhibitions and scrimmages after the season starts - but, I do believe, it was accepted (even if discouraged) before this year.  It's entirely possible that scheduling personnel at some schools aren't aware of changes or completely up on all the rules.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 11:23:55 am
Here is what I can tell you from a note I sent to the NCAA per a different twist on what we are talking about. The legislation that was passed in January allows ALL sports to conduct two scrimmages, exhibitions, or joint practices. The legislation is specific to state these contests may occur before the first permissible contest date. However, institutions are not required to play them before the first contest date. They can permissibly conduct them after the first permissible date.

I do not have the answer to playing more than allowed and losing regular season contest dates as a result. I will say that sounds familiar to me, but I need to do some research or follow-up with the NCAA.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 11:27:31 am
Let me add that what Louisiana College is doing with that schedule does not look legal to me. Three dates prior to Nov. 15 while removing one from the regular season doesn't add up. But again, I need to read through some things and ask the NCAA since it is already a topic of conversation.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 12:09:18 pm
Found the answer - kind of (my understand in italics below each if needed:

17.3.3 First Contest.
A member institution shall not play its first contest (games, scrimmages and exhibitions) against outside competition in basketball before November 15, except as provided under Bylaw 17.3.3.1. When November 15 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday, a member institution may play its first contest on the Friday immediately preceding November 15.

17.3.3.1 Exceptions.
An institution is permitted to conduct exempted exhibitions, scrimmages or joint practices prior to the first permissible date for regular season competition.

17.3.5.1 Maximum Limitations - Institutional.
A member institution shall limit its total playing schedule against outside competition in basketball in any one year to a maximum of 25 contests (games and scrimmages), except for those contests excluded under Bylaw 17.3.5.3.
This would make it appear that you can have more than the two scrimmages/exhibitions allowed in the exemption, but they then count as part of the 25 contests. The "games and scrimmages" language seems to bear that out. Notice this also says "in any one year." I take that to mean that you can put these games prior to Nov. 15 as long as you stick with those games not counting for regular season. The regular season games cannot start prior to the first contest date.

17.1.4.5 Standard Contest or Date of Competition Exemptions.
17.1.4.5.1 Annual Exemptions.
The maximum number of contests or dates of competition during the traditional segment shall exclude the following (see Figure 17-1):
(a) Conference Championship. Competition in one conference championship tournament (or the tournament used to determine the conferenceís automatic entry in the NCAA championship);
(b) Season-Ending Tournament. Competition in one season-ending tournament (e.g., NCAA championship, NAIA championship, NCCAA championship). A season-ending tournament is one that involves competition after the end of the regular season between teams that are not identified until the close of that regular season; and
(c) Exhibitions, Scrimmages or Joint Practices. Competition in up to two exhibitions, scrimmages or joint practices against any opponent.
Again, seems to clarify that there are two exhibitions, scrimmages, joint practices allowed and then going back to the other time if you go over those two, they must come out of your 25 game limit.

Basically I take this as a team has 27 total contests to work with. 25 games if they wish plus two exhibitions. They can then work with that number as they see fit. If they go over the two exhibition exemption, they have to take from their 25 games total for the regular season even if it happens before the first contest date.

As for soccer, they have a different number of games allowed (20), but soccer, basketball, and all other team sports are now allowed two exhibition game exemption in pre-season making their total 22 (23 if you count the one date of competition during the non-traditional segment).

I hope that makes sense.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on October 05, 2017, 06:40:29 pm
Dave, thanks for the work ... kind of quirky that 27 games is never mentioned...so it does seem that Louisiana is within its rights to call all four games vs D1 opponents exhibitions... and nothing in what you've shown says you can't play 3 exhibitions before the start date, or any number after the start date... very interesting...   almost wonder why D3 schools don't claim any game vs D1 to be an exhibition, when loss to D1 schools is almost inevitable. It only hurts their win-loss record for it to be a real game....








Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 09:00:14 pm
Dave, thanks for the work ... kind of quirky that 27 games is never mentioned...so it does seem that Louisiana is within its rights to call all four games vs D1 opponents exhibitions... and nothing in what you've shown says you can't play 3 exhibitions before the start date, or any number after the start date... very interesting...   almost wonder why D3 schools don't claim any game vs D1 to be an exhibition, when loss to D1 schools is almost inevitable. It only hurts their win-loss record for it to be a real game....

Well, if you read the rules you can see there is actually 28 allowed "contests." The key is they have to mention the max amount of regular season games (25), the exemptions outside of those 25 for scrimmages/exhibitions (2), and the alumni game (1). :)

The biggest reason they don't just say 27 is because the scrimmages/exhibitions is now locked at two for all sports, but not all sports have the same allotted amount of games, obviously.

I think there are a few reasons DIIIs don't just mark all DIs as exhibitions. The biggest may be the fact that if they are exhibition they don't count period. While it might be a game they lose, the DI game at least could be considered come NCAA tournament time. Unlikely, sure, but maybe.

They also can't promote or cover an exhibition as much as they can a regular season game. These rules have changed several times, but for the most part it doesn't carry as much weight. Some coaches may want to make sure that game has a much weight as the others.

Thirdly, believe it or not I don't think people read the rules the same as others or understand how it all works. It dates back a few years when I helped a school from accidentally having a 26th game because their DI game wasn't supposed to be an exhibition (it was in season and at the time the wording was hard to understand, but after Nov. 15 it wasn't allowed). They had misunderstood the rule. It was later changed and allowed the game to be exhibition. Then when you read the rules, it doesn't actually say you can just name other games exhibition and lose the game from your record (like Louisiana College has done). So unless someone actually knows how that works or reads it correctly, they aren't going to realize they can do it. So some coaches may not realize they can change the status of the game.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: gordonmann on October 06, 2017, 01:03:46 am
I've seen a lot more schedules than usual with more than 25 games this season. Hope it all gets worked out and the schools log onto this site to make corrections. :)
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 06, 2017, 01:15:41 pm
I've seen a lot more schedules than usual with more than 25 games this season. Hope it all gets worked out and the schools log onto this site to make corrections. :)

Agreed... along with some other miscommunications that I have seen in more frequency than in the past as well. Odd off-season.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on October 10, 2017, 10:29:37 pm
I've seen a lot more schedules than usual with more than 25 games this season. Hope it all gets worked out and the schools log onto this site to make corrections. :)

I spend as much (or far more) time as anyone this time of the year collecting schedules from school sites and putting them into a spreadsheet... it's the first step of collecting data, some of which I put into these chat rooms each year.  I've got a count of 427 D3 teams this season, and I now have schedules for 419 of them... only 1 has more than 25 regular season games... the College of New Rochelle... there were others, but they have cleared up as I have contacted  SIDs, most of whom have been very thankful for the corrections....

Now then.. want to follow the final 8 wh have not seen fit to release their schedules?  (one of whom I received a rather caustic  note from responding to my request for the schedule... " They'll just have to wait like everyone else. World will keep spinning."

8 unposted on their sites are:

Albertus Magnus
Amherst
Lesley    (yes there is a 2017-18 sked behind the 2016-17 sked, but it is short 3 or 4 games)
Johnson State
Greensboro
Wilson
Stockton
Rosemont

Anyway, Gordon/Dave message me if you have problem schedules and need them reduced to 25
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 10, 2017, 10:38:13 pm
Wow. Catty response from that SID. Worthy of 2007-era Pat Coleman.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on October 10, 2017, 11:20:32 pm
Wow. Catty response from that SID. Worthy of 2007-era Pat Coleman.

the good old days  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 11, 2017, 12:07:45 pm
Thanks hopefan... I think most of what Gordon and I have found have been games that actually don't exist, are put into the system incorrectly (exhibitions, etc.), and other snags. I have found more than 25 this year more often, but the reasons and the clear-ups have made sense.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: smedindy on October 11, 2017, 12:37:03 pm
With that few of games you could conceivably reverse engineer the other schedules - and sometimes the conferences post the schedules before the teams.

Now if we could get results from some schools...

Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 11, 2017, 02:31:33 pm
With that few of games you could conceivably reverse engineer the other schedules - and sometimes the conferences post the schedules before the teams.

Now if we could get results from some schools...

That's the great thing about Presto and our being associated with them since it was D3scoreboard.com ... reverse engineering takes on a completely different look when they self-fill the other schedules when games are added. :)

Scores on the other hand... yeah.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: smedindy on October 11, 2017, 02:45:31 pm
Looks like Louisiana College is at 26, with a 11/10 date with UTEP still there.  That game is on UTEP's site and is listed as regular season for them (of course, because, you know, NCAA logic).
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on October 11, 2017, 03:11:03 pm
Looks like Louisiana College is at 26, with a 11/10 date with UTEP still there.  That game is on UTEP's site and is listed as regular season for them (of course, because, you know, NCAA logic).

Smed... no.. remember we are talking regular season games only... 3 of Louisiana's games are listed properly as exhibitions (actually, there were 4 listed as exhibitions, but they dropped one in the last several days)  So they have 23 regular season games... which is what Dave and Gordon were referring to... ;)
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 12, 2017, 12:23:30 pm
Also remember, D1 schools can have a regular season game against a DIII who considers it an exhibition. There are many reasons for allowing that especially since both seasons start on different dates (which I think DIII needs to reconsider) and for competition reasons.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: smedindy on October 12, 2017, 10:09:29 pm
I really don't like calling them exhibitions after the season starts, and when D-1 counts them and D-3 doesn't. But I may be choir preaching here.

Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 12, 2017, 10:22:15 pm
I really don't like calling them exhibitions after the season starts, and when D-1 counts them and D-3 doesn't. But I may be choir preaching here.

I'm part of the choir. LOL
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 12, 2017, 10:39:28 pm
I am honestly deleting my stuff from earlier... things have gotten confusing again and I need to dive so deep into this it isn't funny. I apologize for anyone who has seen it and now sees it is gone.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on October 12, 2017, 11:11:54 pm
Well Well Well... 2 days after I told about the horse race to see who would be the last D3 school to post their schedule, 6 of the missing 8 have shown up... thanks to the SIDs of Johnson State, Albertus Magnus, Lesley, Wilson, Rosemont, and Stockton for responding..

Leaving the final 2

Amherst   and   Greensboro

I will say that both of these schools have historically been extremely late in getting their schedule posted!!   Who knows why....
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: smedindy on October 13, 2017, 02:31:56 pm
I really don't like calling them exhibitions after the season starts, and when D-1 counts them and D-3 doesn't. But I may be choir preaching here.

I'm part of the choir. LOL

We have it both ways at D-2 CWU. Our women play Pacific Lutheran and it's an 'exhibition' for them. We play Linfield's men but it doesn't seem they're calling it that, but we play a Canadian school during the break in their Canadian schedule and it's an exhibition.

Then last year our men played Washington State and we called it an exhibition.

Oy...
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on October 17, 2017, 03:14:40 pm
Well Well Well... 2 days after I told about the horse race to see who would be the last D3 school to post their schedule, 6 of the missing 8 have shown up... thanks to the SIDs of Johnson State, Albertus Magnus, Lesley, Wilson, Rosemont, and Stockton for responding..

Leaving the final 2

Amherst   and   Greensboro

I will say that both of these schools have historically been extremely late in getting their schedule posted!!   Who knows why....

Amherst got theirs posted, I've given up on Greensboro... why one school of 427 would not have their schedule posted after practice has started is beyond me... My pointing it out to the SID (in a friendly way) has not helped...
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Greek Tragedy on October 17, 2017, 03:23:45 pm
Good work, hopefan!
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: smedindy on October 17, 2017, 06:08:57 pm
Well Well Well... 2 days after I told about the horse race to see who would be the last D3 school to post their schedule, 6 of the missing 8 have shown up... thanks to the SIDs of Johnson State, Albertus Magnus, Lesley, Wilson, Rosemont, and Stockton for responding..

Leaving the final 2

Amherst   and   Greensboro

I will say that both of these schools have historically been extremely late in getting their schedule posted!!   Who knows why....

Amherst got theirs posted, I've given up on Greensboro... why one school of 427 would not have their schedule posted after practice has started is beyond me... My pointing it out to the SID (in a friendly way) has not helped...

SPIES!

They even have an assistant SID, which is uncommon in many D-3 shops.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 17, 2017, 11:06:21 pm
Well Well Well... 2 days after I told about the horse race to see who would be the last D3 school to post their schedule, 6 of the missing 8 have shown up... thanks to the SIDs of Johnson State, Albertus Magnus, Lesley, Wilson, Rosemont, and Stockton for responding..

Leaving the final 2

Amherst   and   Greensboro

I will say that both of these schools have historically been extremely late in getting their schedule posted!!   Who knows why....

Amherst got theirs posted, I've given up on Greensboro... why one school of 427 would not have their schedule posted after practice has started is beyond me... My pointing it out to the SID (in a friendly way) has not helped...

I was going to say -- we have Amherst's schedule on our site. And 25 games for Greensboro:
http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Greensboro/Men/2017-18/index
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on October 18, 2017, 04:45:59 am
Well Well Well... 2 days after I told about the horse race to see who would be the last D3 school to post their schedule, 6 of the missing 8 have shown up... thanks to the SIDs of Johnson State, Albertus Magnus, Lesley, Wilson, Rosemont, and Stockton for responding..

Leaving the final 2

Amherst   and   Greensboro

I will say that both of these schools have historically been extremely late in getting their schedule posted!!   Who knows why....

Amherst got theirs posted, I've given up on Greensboro... why one school of 427 would not have their schedule posted after practice has started is beyond me... My pointing it out to the SID (in a friendly way) has not helped...

I was going to say -- we have Amherst's schedule on our site. And 25 games for Greensboro:
http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Greensboro/Men/2017-18/index

I agree Pat.. but the 25 games are backed into from everyone else's schedules... pity the poor Greensboro college fan who doesn't know about D3hoops.com and goes to the Greensboro site, only to still find the 2016-17 schedule posted!! :'(
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 19, 2017, 03:35:40 pm
In news I am not sure if anyone knows about, there is an effort to move the start of the Division III season up a week to basically coincide with Division I and II. The idea has many reasons behind it, but expanding conference schedules coupled by academic challenges especially in the month of December plus quirks to the calendar that sometimes don't allow a lot of time before Thanksgiving are the biggest reasons.

The Division III Management Council has endorsed a bill supported by the MIAC and the SUNYAC that would move the start of the season to Nov. 8 (with the same rule per the 8th falling on Saturday, Sunday, or Monday we have now with the 15th). This will ultimately be decided at the January NCAA Convention. Just an FYI, it would remove a week of the preseason to accommodate the schedule change and thus keep the season at 19-weeks.

Here is the release from the NCAA along with a lot of other things: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-management-council-recommends-amended-saac-proposal

Personally, I am for it... no one has to start on the 8th if they don't want to. I will be interested to hear what others think as I call around the country, though most I have talked to up to this point do agree there needs to be a bit of a pressure release in terms of scheduling out of conference games along with where conferences are scheduling now.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Greek Tragedy on October 19, 2017, 06:43:41 pm
It's interesting how the scheduling is now. There are some schools that have 2 to 3 weeks off in December, playing the 1st week of the month and then not playing until after the New Year. Some of these same schools have 3 to 5 games in a 10-day span, playing Friday, Saturday, Wednesday and then Friday and Saturday again. It seems a lot of conferences have a nice set schedule after the New Year, usually playing Wednesday and Saturday. I know some conferences play up to 3 conference games a week.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 19, 2017, 09:17:16 pm
It's interesting how the scheduling is now. There are some schools that have 2 to 3 weeks off in December, playing the 1st week of the month and then not playing until after the New Year. Some of these same schools have 3 to 5 games in a 10-day span, playing Friday, Saturday, Wednesday and then Friday and Saturday again. It seems a lot of conferences have a nice set schedule after the New Year, usually playing Wednesday and Saturday. I know some conferences play up to 3 conference games a week.

There are a lot of complicated reasons for these things: exam period, school vacation periods (which coincides with school structures like semesters, trimesters, January terms, etc.), and other things. A number of schools who still want to be involved with the ECAC post-season have to make sure to take 10 full days off (I believe that is the number) which obviously affects things as well. While less schools are involved in the ECAC, it doesn't mean they don't keep the model in place "just in case."

The biggest thing I have noticed is the larger conferences struggling with playing all of their games in a reasonable period of time and when they have to start looking at moving games to the first semester, they run into all kinds of trouble. Centennial had their first set of games prior to Thanksgiving last year which drove me insane.

Having been one who has had to help put a tournament together and work with all kinds of scheduling challenges ... I know where the challenges are. This could at least loosen things up for schools a bit while also giving them a chance to be in better condition when the first conference games get played. I would hate to see a conference regular season decided because the calendar wasn't friendly.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 20, 2017, 04:58:54 am
I would have been in favor of moving the end of the season back a week to be closer to the other divisions rather than at the start of the season. I remember when the tournament was stretched out forever the year all the finals were played together.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 20, 2017, 12:13:40 pm
I would have been in favor of moving the end of the season back a week to be closer to the other divisions rather than at the start of the season. I remember when the tournament was stretched out forever the year all the finals were played together.

Well there are multiple things in place here that were unavoidable, but let's start with the normal calendar. The DIII championships are the third weekend of March, the DII championships are the fourth weekend, and then the D1 championships are the following weekend. As a result, you have all three titles in back-to-back-to-back weekends. Personally, I like that format as it gives DIII it's own place in the sun even if it is during the opening weekend of the D1 tournament.

Back in 2013, two things screwed up the calendar. First was moving all the championships to Atlanta. If the regular calendar had been in place, we would have had two more weekends added to the calendar - see the women's championships in 2016 for an example of how that worked out. However, the D1 tournament was also moved back a week. This was mainly done by CBS so that the D1 Final Four weekend led straight into The Master's weekend a few days later. It was a combination of things that led to a protracted championship season for Division III coupled by the fact that it was a somewhat last minute decision that allowed absolutely no ability to shift or extend the season.

I mention all of that for the following reason: the 2018-2019 calendar is going to be a repeat of the 2013 calendar minus all the men's titles being played (in Minneapolis that year). D1 is being pushed back a week because The Masters has been pushed back a week. As a result, the DIII championships will be played on the D1 conference championships weekend (DII I don't know) and I think that buries the championship weekend. What's worse. That will be the first year in Fort Myers.

I have actually already contact the NCAA about all of this because there are a number of coaches wondering how DIII's season will be impacted. I have been told there are no changes being proposed or on the table to extend the DIII 19-week season (October 15 to the end of February). With that being the case, the changes would have to come in the postseason to realign the championships with the normal D1 tournament opening weekend. I have been told there is nothing being discussed about this as well. I also checked the Fort Myers arena's calendar only to find the only thing mentioned for March is an event for the exact weekend the NCAA would have to move the championships to if they moved the calendar. In other words, I don't see it happening (the NCAA got lucky that Salem was able to move it's championships weekend slot back a week in 2013; that arena is pretty busy, but Salem made it happen).

Personally, I don't think we want to move our championships to coincide with DIs normally. It would only bury us even further. Also, I can assure you the presidents in Division III aren't about to approve a longer season (more than the 19-weeks) and they already had issues with the 2013 experiment. No way they approve sliding the post-season in a permanent way. If they did, they would move the start of the season and when you start looking at holidays, exam periods, and school breaks, I don't see any way of moving the season later that makes any sense.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: smedindy on October 20, 2017, 01:34:56 pm
I really do think each division needs its own championship week. D3 first, then D2, then D1.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 20, 2017, 01:35:32 pm
I really do think each division needs its own championship week. D3 first, then D2, then D1.

I agree with you. Lacrosse has them all on the same weekend and I sometimes love that and sometimes wish DIII got a bigger spotlight.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 21, 2017, 07:38:17 am
That will be the first year in Fort Myers.


That would surely be a much better option for March travel.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Greek Tragedy on October 21, 2017, 10:22:40 am
That will be the first year in Fort Myers.


That would surely be a much better option for March travel.

Yeah. Further than Indiana, but Florida weather in March is warm and cozy, plus it's an excuse to visit in-laws and friends!
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: ronk on October 21, 2017, 11:37:12 am
 Fort Myers? I missed the announcement. It didn't come up in any previous discussion on this board about desirable alternatives to Salem; for example, one consideration was a locale within a reasonable transit(drive) of a D3 presence(schools). Fort Myers wouldn't qualify on that basis.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Greek Tragedy on October 21, 2017, 12:30:53 pm
Fort Myers? I missed the announcement. It didn't come up in any previous discussion on this board about desirable alternatives to Salem; for example, one consideration was a locale within a reasonable transit(drive) of a D3 presence(schools). Fort Myers wouldn't qualify on that basis.

The NCAA u-turned on their decision to move the Final Four from Salem to Fort Wayne. They then asked D3hoops to conduct a poll as to where they wanted to move the Final Four, but it couldn't be back to Salem. Any poster at All-American level or higher was eligible to vote on the new location, as HoFers' votes counted as 2. The final decision was made to move it to sunny Fort Myers.

How could you miss all that?? Where have you been? Check your spam email. I know it's the off-season and all... ???  ;D  :D  :)
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: ronk on October 21, 2017, 12:55:18 pm
Fort Myers? I missed the announcement. It didn't come up in any previous discussion on this board about desirable alternatives to Salem; for example, one consideration was a locale within a reasonable transit(drive) of a D3 presence(schools). Fort Myers wouldn't qualify on that basis.

The NCAA u-turned on their decision to move the Final Four from Salem to Fort Wayne. They then asked D3hoops to conduct a poll as to where they wanted to move the Final Four, but it couldn't be back to Salem. Any poster at All-American level or higher was eligible to vote on the new location, as HoFers' votes counted as 2. The final decision was made to move it to sunny Fort Myers.

How could you miss all that?? Where have you been? Check your spam email. I know it's the off-season and all... ???  ;D  :D  :)

 Glad to know it was a decision procedure with which I'm comfortable. ::) I've been by Fort Wayne on the train; for you youngsters, Fort Wayne was in the original NBA(now the Detroit Pistons) and I remember the Celtics having to get off the train a few miles out of town and having to get local transportation into the city.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2017, 01:17:40 pm
LOL
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on October 21, 2017, 06:19:50 pm
Just to put everyone's mind at ease😄😄

Greensboro has posted their schedule...  no 427 and dead last
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 22, 2017, 11:58:38 am
Sorry guys.. not sure how I swapped out Wayne for Myers. SMH
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Greek Tragedy on October 22, 2017, 01:38:58 pm
Sorry guys.. not sure how I swapped out Wayne for Myers. SMH

Not sure how? Easy, it's more appealing.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: hopefan on October 22, 2017, 06:57:04 pm
Won't tell you all how close I was to making  post about how excited I was that the final 4 was coming just 2 hours away from my new 'alternate' location.. was ready to host first come first serve D3hoops fan... ::) ::)
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: ronk on October 22, 2017, 07:19:34 pm
 Hoopsville would have been doing their remote show @ the Final 4 and wondering why no one was stopping by. I hear Trump is releasing the minutes of the site selection vote(Ft. Wayne Vs Fort Myers) in conjunction with the Kennedy info release.  ;)
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: jmcozenlaw on October 22, 2017, 08:33:48 pm
Hoopsville would have been doing their remote show @ the Final 4 and wondering why no one was stopping by. I hear Trump is releasing the minutes of the site selection vote(Ft. Wayne Vs Fort Myers) in conjunction with the Kennedy info release.  ;)

Also in conjunction with the Clinton Foundation info release ;)
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2017, 08:46:18 pm
I really do think each division needs its own championship week. D3 first, then D2, then D1.

I agree with you. Lacrosse has them all on the same weekend and I sometimes love that and sometimes wish DIII got a bigger spotlight.
But,Dave, I have gotten the impression that Lacrosse and the "Lacrosse nation" are a different breed, and the mega-weekend seems to work in that sport.

Is that partially correct?  Thanks
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 23, 2017, 11:54:52 am
I really do think each division needs its own championship week. D3 first, then D2, then D1.

I agree with you. Lacrosse has them all on the same weekend and I sometimes love that and sometimes wish DIII got a bigger spotlight.
But,Dave, I have gotten the impression that Lacrosse and the "Lacrosse nation" are a different breed, and the mega-weekend seems to work in that sport.

Is that partially correct?  Thanks

They are a different bread and the DIII title game for men is well attended (sometimes equal attendance to the semifinals and even final games [individually] for DI). However, I feel the current men's structure for the tournament is a mess because of their size and the Memorial Day Weekend game. More importantly, I think the DIII women are completely lost in the weekend. They had been paired with the DI women for awhile which had worked, but once in awhile (like last year) they are on their own and no one seems to notice (besides Salem who hosted them).

I just feel DIII deserves a slightly brighter spotlight. Women's lacrosse as well (DI title game was held BEFORE the DII and DIII men's title games on Memorial Day Weekend Sunday). The men's weekend is also hit or miss depending on the location and stadium. Lacrosse is moving back to smaller stadiums in the future which may help.

Let me also say, men's lacrosse seems to have a different camaraderie than the women's game as well. I am also not thrilled with DIII men's lacrosse, especially the championships committee, in how it has been handling the growth of the sport. The "old boys network" seems to be controlling things (like two regions for a sport of 200 institutions) and it is a joke. Someone should actually file a lawsuit... but that is a different conversation I could get into.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 24, 2017, 04:26:59 pm
Going to through out a tease for everyone... I just put together a Hoopsville audio-only podcast regarding a new national coordinator for officials at the Division III level. A full story and the podcast will be online sometime soon - not sure the exact ETA. You can learn a lot more then. :)
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 30, 2017, 11:19:20 am
Per what I was teasing last week: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2017/10/ncaa-officials-coordinator
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2017, 12:09:46 pm
Well Well Well... 2 days after I told about the horse race to see who would be the last D3 school to post their schedule, 6 of the missing 8 have shown up... thanks to the SIDs of Johnson State, Albertus Magnus, Lesley, Wilson, Rosemont, and Stockton for responding..

Leaving the final 2

Amherst   and   Greensboro

I will say that both of these schools have historically been extremely late in getting their schedule posted!!   Who knows why....

Amherst got theirs posted, I've given up on Greensboro... why one school of 427 would not have their schedule posted after practice has started is beyond me... My pointing it out to the SID (in a friendly way) has not helped...

I was going to say -- we have Amherst's schedule on our site. And 25 games for Greensboro:
http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Greensboro/Men/2017-18/index

I agree Pat.. but the 25 games are backed into from everyone else's schedules... pity the poor Greensboro college fan who doesn't know about D3hoops.com and goes to the Greensboro site, only to still find the 2016-17 schedule posted!! :'(

Greensboro does have their schedule posted, in case you were wondering.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: sac on October 30, 2017, 12:17:33 pm
How were officials assigned for the national tournament before?
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 30, 2017, 12:27:00 pm
How were officials assigned for the national tournament before?

Usually the NCAA contacted the conference commissioners and thus the conference assigners and a list of names, or specific names, were given to the NCAA for assigning. Those names could be provided with no specific criteria or evaluation added... so sometimes (a lot of times) assigners made sure to help their guys out to get them games late in the year. Also, once a ref did a game they would most likely done for the tournament. And the final four was basically one ref from every region provided for the games (maybe a couple of extras, but I can't remember off the top of my head).

That entire system will be blown up and eventually Haney (and his women's basketball counterpart) will do all of the assigning. It may not work exactly that way this year, but at least the choices will be based more on merit and skills than in the past.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Just Bill on October 30, 2017, 12:36:29 pm
How were officials assigned for the national tournament before?

Usually the NCAA contacted the conference commissioners and thus the conference assigners and a list of names, or specific names, were given to the NCAA for assigning. Those names could be provided with no specific criteria or evaluation added... so sometimes (a lot of times) assigners made sure to help their guys out to get them games late in the year. Also, once a ref did a game they would most likely done for the tournament. And the final four was basically one ref from every region provided for the games (maybe a couple of extras, but I can't remember off the top of my head).

That entire system will be blown up and eventually Haney (and his women's basketball counterpart) will do all of the assigning. It may not work exactly that way this year, but at least the choices will be based more on merit and skills than in the past.
Close. Each region had a regional coordinator that would work with the conference coordinators to make assignments in their section of the bracket. For the semifinals and finals there was a rotating order of regions, so each regional coordinator of those regions whose turn it was would send their best three officials to the finals. The championships committee would then decide which crew would work which game, attempting to not put refs and teams from the same region in the same game.

From what I've heard I don't think the system will be blown up that much. Just the chain of command will be changed. The National Coordinator will still have to rely heavily on the Regional Coordinators to make early round assignments. Because there's simply no way that the NC can know EVERY ref in the country.

The big difference is that assignments previously were approved or denied by the championships committee and the NCAA liaison, who often didn't have any detailed knowledge of the referees or officiating experience. Now, the National Coordinator will be the point person for the NCAA to make those approvals. Being that they are experienced referees and can focus on just this area, they should have a better handle and understanding on the composition of the officiating crews. Will relieve the Championships Committee and the NCAA liaison of a time-consuming responsibility and will be able to do a better job at it.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 30, 2017, 12:48:08 pm
How were officials assigned for the national tournament before?

Usually the NCAA contacted the conference commissioners and thus the conference assigners and a list of names, or specific names, were given to the NCAA for assigning. Those names could be provided with no specific criteria or evaluation added... so sometimes (a lot of times) assigners made sure to help their guys out to get them games late in the year. Also, once a ref did a game they would most likely done for the tournament. And the final four was basically one ref from every region provided for the games (maybe a couple of extras, but I can't remember off the top of my head).

That entire system will be blown up and eventually Haney (and his women's basketball counterpart) will do all of the assigning. It may not work exactly that way this year, but at least the choices will be based more on merit and skills than in the past.
Close. Each region had a regional coordinator that would work with the conference coordinators to make assignments in their section of the bracket. For the semifinals and finals there was a rotating order of regions, so each regional coordinator of those regions whose turn it was would send their best three officials to the finals. The championships committee would then decide which crew would work which game, attempting to not put refs and teams from the same region in the same game.

Much of this was changed a few years ago. We have had each region represented in terms of refs for a few years now. The crews would be a mixture of regions (three for example) not one full crew from a region. Obviously, if a team was from a particular region, that ref was not used for that game. It allowed for the ref crews to be mixed and matched according to who was in what game. What you describe was how it was for a number of years prior.

From what I've heard I don't think the system will be blown up that much. Just the chain of command will be changed. The National Coordinator will still have to rely heavily on the Regional Coordinators to make early round assignments. Because there's simply no way that the NC can know EVERY ref in the country.

The big difference is that assignments previously were approved or denied by the championships committee and the NCAA liaison, who often didn't have any detailed knowledge of the referees or officiating experience. Now, the National Coordinator will be the point person for the NCAA to make those approvals. Being that they are experienced referees and can focus on just this area, they should have a better handle and understanding on the composition of the officiating crews. Will relieve the Championships Committee and the NCAA liaison of a time-consuming responsibility and will be able to do a better job at it.

Feel free to listen to the podcast I had with Jim Haney. He discusses his plans to blow up much of it actually. They will rely on the regional coordinators, but he hopes in the future to make the assignments himself and not rely on the regional coordinators to make those assignments. It will be based on evaluations and basically grades. It won't happen that way this year, but that is his goal.

Also, Jim will be able to assign officials to more than one round of games. If they do a good enough job, he plans to move them through the tournament just as teams move through and thus reward them. He hopes that those who are working the final four games have actually worked one or two games earlier in the tournament as well. That is not always the case - sometimes never the case - in the past.

Like I said, listen to the podcast. I have had several on and off the air conversations with Jim Haney in the last six weeks and plan to have him, and hopefully the women's coordinator, on Hoopsville often in the future.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Just Bill on October 30, 2017, 01:40:21 pm
I admittedly have a firmer grasp on WBB than on MBB. They do not assign finals officials in the manner you describe. As usual, I suspect MBB and WBB will each have their own unique way that they will operate.
Title: Re: Rule and Policy Changes
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 30, 2017, 01:42:49 pm
I admittedly have a firmer grasp on WBB than on MBB. They do not assign finals officials in the manner you describe. As usual, I suspect MBB and WBB will each have their own unique way that they will operate.

They have adjusted things at each final four with each national committee and with each coaches' organization (NABC and WBCA) for a number of years. I am sure this could have been adjusted differently than the women's. It hasn't been a topic of conversation on the women's side maybe because traditionally I go to the men's final four (lots of reasons), so I can't say for sure.

That all said... I will be sure to check in on the women's side soon to find out what is going on and to compare. I suspect the women's coordinator will be a future guest on Hoopsville as well (have had more difficulty getting info from that side of things unfortunately).