Conference changes

Started by hopefan, May 01, 2008, 11:25:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

hopefan

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 08, 2020, 02:21:01 PM
Quote from: Smitty Oom on January 08, 2020, 02:13:55 PM
All I want is a post-season tourney of all the ACAA teams. Doesn't even need to be for an AQ, just think it would be quirky and fun. "Centrally" locate it at the Palestra and have Dave call all the games, what a treat that would be!

Ha ... for who would that treat be for? Unless CNU and Salisbury are in it, I am not sure how much of a treat it would be for me ... because I am also quite sure the pay wouldn't be that good. :)

As indicated, they do have a four-team tournament based on some ranking (I can't remember which).

But ... there was a time when the old GSAC and another group (maybe the ACAA) had the same kind of four-team tournament and one or more of those who qualified decided not to attend. Costs was part of the reasoning. If schools can't come to the tournament, playing conference games is a bust (to my earlier point).

Reminds me of the D3 ECAC tourneys
The only thing not to be liked in Florida is no D3 hoops!!!

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Usually ECACs the schools might show interest, but they have removed themselves from consideration before the brackets are made. The ECAC is well aware of who is in or not for those tournaments when bracketing.

In the example I was talking about, the teams simply didn't show up.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

hopefan

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 09, 2020, 12:25:21 PM
Usually ECACs the schools might show interest, but they have removed themselves from consideration before the brackets are made. The ECAC is well aware of who is in or not for those tournaments when bracketing.

In the example I was talking about, the teams simply didn't show up.

OUCH... that's pitiful
The only thing not to be liked in Florida is no D3 hoops!!!

deiscanton

#843
Speaking of the ACAA, Pine Manor would be a very good subject for the Hoopsville marathon show in January.  Pine Manor is a very small college that caters to immigrants, low-income people, and first generation college students.  85% of the undergrads at Pine Manor are people of color.   Pine Manor would be a candidate to replace Dean in the NECC when Dean heads to the GNAC.  The athletic department is very small and runs on a very frugal budget.  There needs to be some talks between the college president, th e athletic director, and the alumni about upgrading the bathroom and locker room facilities at Brunelli Court, but the basketball floor did get resurfaced eecently.  Since the athletic director at Pine Manor is also the Sports Info Director, some of the communications could use some work.

I attended the NYU men's basketball game at Pine Manor last night, and it was interesting watching the first half from the very small bleacher rows.  I had to watch the second half standing and not being in those bleachers.  There were about 50 to 75 fans present at the game.






CNU85

Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 08, 2020, 01:18:42 PM
Not to contradict Dave, but just because CNU was in the USA South previously doesn't mean they would be welcomed back. First off, conferences can always change bylaws, as we have been reminded in the past year, and even without a bylaw change, there's plenty of reason to think the USAC doesn't want CNU back.

Now, that having been said, the USAC has changed quite a bit since CNU left, and who knows who wants what among its membership. Never know.

Thanks Pat. There is no way USA South wants CNU back except as an occasional affiliate member for a sport or two. Technically CNU left for the CAC, but in reality we were about to get tossed out of the conference.

VT-Alum-NOVA

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 07, 2020, 01:42:07 PM
Quote from: CNU85 on January 07, 2020, 10:06:11 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 18, 2019, 10:43:31 PM
Forgot to update the answer I got ... sorry for the delay.

Conference has to be four members to be a true conference in the eyes of the NCAA. I can't remember the ramifications, but I am quite sure the commissioner doesn't get a vote if they aren't at four. There could be other items, but I am not exactly sure as I haven't researched that part of it.

There was an article out in the Virginia Pilot which is interesting ... some quotes to take out of it that makes you wonder what the CAC has planned. I am not going to read into anything, but I will be back to my seemingly unending effort to ask those in the know: https://www.pilotonline.com/sports/vp-sp-cnu-capital-athletic-future-1218-20191217-avqntv3nsrc7neymrmxhsyvnwe-story.html

Interesting how detailed the story covered the issue. The ACAA model will only solve about a 3rd of the sponsored sports issue. If you look at the sports/teams in the ACAA, it doesn't cover all the bases. And a conference affiliation such as this only addresses the AQ situation. It doesn't resolve scheduling issues for some sports such as basketball once January rolls around.

I don't think the scheduling will be as significant considering how many schools are around the three remaining CAC schools - but their conference games would have to be isolated to February when finding a non-conference game will be impossible.

The problem with merging with the ACAA are two-fold (based on one another):
- The division is likely to require conferences to play a certain number of games during the regular season to be eligible as part of the AQ requirements. Giving an AQ out for just playing a conference tournament is something the division is not keen about what so ever.
- So if the top segment goes through, I cannot see an ACAA-CAC merged conference being able to get conference games during the season when it requires teams on the east coast and west coast to play one another - meaning travel.

While the ACAA seems like the CAC target, I am just not sure it can work out. There are six schools "available" (two are leaving next academic year for other conferences and the third already exists in a conference for basketball), but I just don't see how this works out for everyone. It very likely could depend on whether the division decides to put in the in-season conference play requirement (which I agree with, by the way).

I am interested to understand if D3 requires conferences to play regular season conference games as part of requirement for AQ?  I thought AQ was based on conference tournament winner?

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

The division requires a minimum of 7 programs per sport. There are no other requirements. A conference can decide how they hand out their AQs (see UAA). Conferences that have tournaments also have back-up plans should there need to be an AQ handed out and the tournament champ or the tournament isn't able to be finished.

The idea being discussed is to add one other item other than the minimum program number - in-season conference play. The reason is simple: the division isn't keen about the idea of giving out AQs (should the minimum of 7 programs exist and a conference be eligible for an AQ) to a conference that doesn't play one another except a tournament to hand out the AQ.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

VT-Alum-NOVA

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 09, 2020, 09:00:52 PM
The division requires a minimum of 7 programs per sport. There are no other requirements. A conference can decide how they hand out their AQs (see UAA). Conferences that have tournaments also have back-up plans should there need to be an AQ handed out and the tournament champ or the tournament isn't able to be finished.

The idea being discussed is to add one other item other than the minimum program number - in-season conference play. The reason is simple: the division isn't keen about the idea of giving out AQs (should the minimum of 7 programs exist and a conference be eligible for an AQ) to a conference that doesn't play one another except a tournament to hand out the AQ.
Thanks.  So if CAC (3 members left) and ACAA merge/combine, they would have the minimum 7 programs for multiple sports with conference tourney to determine AQ.  If division decides on additional in-season conference play requirement, then the additional rule would have to spell out specific number of in-season conference games played.  Maybe each member only have to play minimum 6 conference games?

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

I have been told the specific number of games has been suggested. A percentage really. Probably use the NESCAC model and say at least once against each opponent, or grandfather the NESCAC and have the number be higher. Not sure because I haven't had the chance to chat with anyone directly involved with those conversations.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

jeffconn

Quote from: VT-Alum-NOVA on January 09, 2020, 10:20:57 PM

Thanks.  So if CAC (3 members left) and ACAA merge/combine, they would have the minimum 7 programs for multiple sports with conference tourney to determine AQ.
Maybe. By my counting, this fall the ACAA will have four co-ed schools and two women's colleges, assuming that no more schools jump to other conferences. Perhaps, the CAC should just invite the whole  ACAA to join the CAC. Would the CAC then be able to retain their automatic qualifier if they decide to "temporarily" waive round robin play?

FYI, in some sports, the USA South doesn't play a round-robin either. They play a round-robin (or double round-robin) with teams in their division and don't play the teams in the other division. So, there could be ways to work around any round-robin rule.

jeffconn

By the way, the ACAA uses Massey Ratings to decide the rankings for their post season tournaments. It's referenced in this press release.
https://www.goacaa.org/general/2018-19/releases/20190205is7i19

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


I don't get the impression the CAC is looking for a short term solution.  Merging with the ACAA would be exactly that.  Maybe they need a stopgap to keep the AQs until they figure out the long term picture, but I don't think there's much use projecting possibilities multiple years into the future.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

VT-Alum-NOVA

Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 10, 2020, 07:52:59 AM

I don't get the impression the CAC is looking for a short term solution.  Merging with the ACAA would be exactly that.  Maybe they need a stopgap to keep the AQs until they figure out the long term picture, but I don't think there's much use projecting possibilities multiple years into the future.


agreed that it's short term solution but CNU has fewer options than MWU and Salisbury and 21-22 season coming up soon.  Got to guess that all 3 ADs are talking about doing something together, maybe an announcement this early spring??

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: jeffconn on January 10, 2020, 02:25:51 AM
Quote from: VT-Alum-NOVA on January 09, 2020, 10:20:57 PM

Thanks.  So if CAC (3 members left) and ACAA merge/combine, they would have the minimum 7 programs for multiple sports with conference tourney to determine AQ.
Maybe. By my counting, this fall the ACAA will have four co-ed schools and two women's colleges, assuming that no more schools jump to other conferences. Perhaps, the CAC should just invite the whole  ACAA to join the CAC. Would the CAC then be able to retain their automatic qualifier if they decide to "temporarily" waive round robin play?

FYI, in some sports, the USA South doesn't play a round-robin either. They play a round-robin (or double round-robin) with teams in their division and don't play the teams in the other division. So, there could be ways to work around any round-robin rule.

If you have read anything I wrote, you will notice I said they could take the NESCAC model and just play everyone once.

But using the USA South as an example isn't good because the USA South is large (too big, honestly) and if they did anything that allowed teams to play everyone at least once while keeping divisions (meaning they have to play double-round-robin against their division or the standings would make no sense), they wouldn't really have any out-of-conference games to add to the mix ... or help with at-large selections.

You have to look at smaller conferences and what they do with conference schedules. Most have double-round-robins. The NESCAC is the only one that has a single run through (though you have the Little Three and the Maine Three which play each other a second time as "out of conference.") You also have the ODAC who does a rotational double/single round setup, but that can't work for a 7/8 member conference.

My point was this: I have heard talk that mandating a double-round-robin has been suggested. The only way that works is if they grandfather the NESCAC (forcing them to a double-round isn't fair, though the NESCAC might end up there on their own eventually). The other I've heard is a certain percentage of their total games has to be conference games (that might be hard to truly "math out"). And my suggestion is they may mandate a single round at the very least (i.e. NESCAC style).

The basic premise with the idea is this: The division is leery about handing out AQs to conferences that came together with only the purpose of getting an AQ and NO purpose of actually playing one another outside of a tournament (that not everyone is even invited to). This actually started with the old GSAC as it was falling apart. They wouldn't play one another until the conference tournament - and we got a couple years of AQs handed out that way. The only reason it didn't cause a bigger reaction was the GSAC was an established conference that used to exist as a "normal" conference that played each other during the regular season. It quickly folded after going to the tournament-only style, but the ACAA came along a few years ago and the division started to raise flags.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

VT-Alum-NOVA

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 10, 2020, 12:18:29 PM
Quote from: jeffconn on January 10, 2020, 02:25:51 AM
Quote from: VT-Alum-NOVA on January 09, 2020, 10:20:57 PM

Thanks.  So if CAC (3 members left) and ACAA merge/combine, they would have the minimum 7 programs for multiple sports with conference tourney to determine AQ.
Maybe. By my counting, this fall the ACAA will have four co-ed schools and two women's colleges, assuming that no more schools jump to other conferences. Perhaps, the CAC should just invite the whole  ACAA to join the CAC. Would the CAC then be able to retain their automatic qualifier if they decide to "temporarily" waive round robin play?

FYI, in some sports, the USA South doesn't play a round-robin either. They play a round-robin (or double round-robin) with teams in their division and don't play the teams in the other division. So, there could be ways to work around any round-robin rule.

If you have read anything I wrote, you will notice I said they could take the NESCAC model and just play everyone once.

But using the USA South as an example isn't good because the USA South is large (too big, honestly) and if they did anything that allowed teams to play everyone at least once while keeping divisions (meaning they have to play double-round-robin against their division or the standings would make no sense), they wouldn't really have any out-of-conference games to add to the mix ... or help with at-large selections.

You have to look at smaller conferences and what they do with conference schedules. Most have double-round-robins. The NESCAC is the only one that has a single run through (though you have the Little Three and the Maine Three which play each other a second time as "out of conference.") You also have the ODAC who does a rotational double/single round setup, but that can't work for a 7/8 member conference.

My point was this: I have heard talk that mandating a double-round-robin has been suggested. The only way that works is if they grandfather the NESCAC (forcing them to a double-round isn't fair, though the NESCAC might end up there on their own eventually). The other I've heard is a certain percentage of their total games has to be conference games (that might be hard to truly "math out"). And my suggestion is they may mandate a single round at the very least (i.e. NESCAC style).

The basic premise with the idea is this: The division is leery about handing out AQs to conferences that came together with only the purpose of getting an AQ and NO purpose of actually playing one another outside of a tournament (that not everyone is even invited to). This actually started with the old GSAC as it was falling apart. They wouldn't play one another until the conference tournament - and we got a couple years of AQs handed out that way. The only reason it didn't cause a bigger reaction was the GSAC was an established conference that used to exist as a "normal" conference that played each other during the regular season. It quickly folded after going to the tournament-only style, but the ACAA came along a few years ago and the division started to raise flags.

Understandable to be leery on AQs for conferences without any regular season play.  But there are some schools that find it hard to get conference suitors within 500 miles of their campus due to politics or other factors.  In Mid-Atlantic region, there are plenty of D3 schools but CNU is finding it difficult to find one (within 500 miles) conference to join/be invited.