D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

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

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

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

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

[jknezek]

A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

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

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

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

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

I think a pure Power 5 basketball tournament would do just fine. Yes the upsets spice things up, and most people love a mid-major story, but TV would pay enormous amounts for a P5 tournament. Add in even kore enormous amounts from football and there is plenty of incentive for 4 16 team P5 conferences to completely breakaway. I think the main reason it hasn't happened yet is one of the 4 conference staffs would be eliminated and the University Presidents are still mildly wary of being thought of as too mercenary. But I still think it is inevitable.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

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

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

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

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

I think a pure Power 5 basketball tournament would do just fine. Yes the upsets spice things up, and most people love a mid-major story, but TV would pay enormous amounts for a P5 tournament. Add in even kore enormous amounts from football and there is plenty of incentive for 4 16 team P5 conferences to completely breakaway. I think the main reason it hasn't happened yet is one of the 4 conference staffs would be eliminated and the University Presidents are still mildly wary of being thought of as too mercenary. But I still think it is inevitable.

Could there be any hesitation of the P5 because of the failed Super League in Europe last year where a bunch of top soccer teams were going to form their own league and there was such an uproar over it from fans to other clubs to FIFA that they backed out.

[Ron Boerger]

Could there be any hesitation of the P5 because of the failed Super League in Europe last year where a bunch of top soccer teams were going to form their own league and there was such an uproar over it from fans to other clubs to FIFA that they backed out.

I can't see the average D1 fan giving enough of a damn to make a difference.   If they get to see more Alabama and less Cincinnati on TV, more Duke and less UTSA they'll be fine with it. 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The rest of the teams would still have a tournament, and people would still watch it. It's just less money. Even if it ends up as two divisions, the NCAA is working hard to keep them both in house.

[jknezek]

A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

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

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

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

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

I think a pure Power 5 basketball tournament would do just fine. Yes the upsets spice things up, and most people love a mid-major story, but TV would pay enormous amounts for a P5 tournament. Add in even kore enormous amounts from football and there is plenty of incentive for 4 16 team P5 conferences to completely breakaway. I think the main reason it hasn't happened yet is one of the 4 conference staffs would be eliminated and the University Presidents are still mildly wary of being thought of as too mercenary. But I still think it is inevitable.

Could there be any hesitation of the P5 because of the failed Super League in Europe last year where a bunch of top soccer teams were going to form their own league and there was such an uproar over it from fans to other clubs to FIFA that they backed out.

No. Americans don't have the same attitude toward billionaire "owners", or University Presidents, as Europeans do. In Europe, soccer teams are very much thought of as community property, property of the fans, regardless of who owns them. And in many cases they actually are property of the fans, like Barcelona. In the U.S. there is a bit of that, but we are way more accepting than Europeans of sports being a business, college or pro, and primarily for making money.

[Ron Boerger]

SI story on this situation:  https://www.si.com/college/2022/01/20/ncaa-future-power-5-football-basketball-money with just a few quotes from a pretty meaty article:

[...]

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

"Is there some magic to having 32 conferences? No," McMillen [president of Lead1, an association representing the FBS athletic directors] says. "The whole AQ thing breeds inefficiency."

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

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

This has all been in the works for two decades now, but the revolving door of Presidents and no clear dominant voice, it takes a lot of time for them to work it all out.  Certainly this new Constitution is a big step, though.

[Ron Boerger]

Here's the results of today's vote from the NCAA.  Except where noted, changes are effective immediately: 

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

Preseason changes:

• Increases the acclimatization period from five to six days.
• Establishes a maximum of eight practices in full pads.
• Establishes contact limitations of no more than 75 minutes of contact per day and no more than two consecutive days of full contact.

Regular season:

• limits football teams to two full-padded practices per week during the regular season. If a school has a bye week, it is permitted up to three practices in full pads that week.

Spring:

• Allows student-athletes to wear helmets during all 16 days of the spring period.
• On four of the 16 days, student-athletes can wear shoulder pads and engage in drills focused on teaching appropriate tackling and blocking.
• For the 12 days of helmets only, there is no change in what constitutes a permissible activity.

International student-athlete amateurism certification:  Adopted (452-1-1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equestrian as an emerging sport for women:  Defeated (154-195-101).

[Ralph Turner]

How many Pool A football conferences will we have by fall 2026?

Let the speculation begin.

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

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

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

If/when the SCAC affiliates leave the ASC, the ASC has 6 schools: ETBU, UMHB, HSU, HPU, McM and SRSU.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

How many Pool A football conferences will we have by fall 2026?

Let the speculation begin.

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

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

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

If/when the SCAC affiliates leave the ASC, the ASC has 6 schools: ETBU, UMHB, HSU, HPU, McM and SRSU.

Will the MAC stay as one or will they finally officially split into two separate conferences. They have that weird 2 separate conferences but still 1 big conference deal that the NCAA doesn't like in basketball. Could they finally break into two proper conferences now? They had 11 football teams this year, add one team and they've got enough for 2 groups of 6.

The USAC with as massive as it is only had 9 football teams this year.

[hickory_cornhusker]

UAA brings back Johns Hopkins and pulls everyone together for an AQ in football with Chicago, WashU, Carnegie Mellon, Case Western Reserve, Rochester, and JHU.



Extremely unlikely.

[Ralph Turner]

From the SAA Board...

I'm going to predict that there will be ZERO at large bids within 5-7 years.

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

I will take this quote as a mind game.

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

Now is when it gets tougher.

NESCAC?

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

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

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

Which conferences add football as a new sport?  I could only speculate.

The access ratio gives us 36 bids.
What if the "D-IV" conferences wanted to go to a 14 week season, instead of a 16 week season.

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

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

Who would join the Short Season Division?

[Ron Boerger]

From today's D3playbook email, a breakdown of how conferences voted on the 6 school for AQ issue.  Some surprises here IMO.   If you go to the link you can see how the individual schools in each conference voted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wisconsin 7-1 (1 DNV)

[Gregory Sager]

From today's D3playbook email, a breakdown of how conferences voted on the 6 school for AQ issue.  Some surprises here IMO.   If you go to the link you can see how the individual schools in each conference voted.

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

CCIW 0-10

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