Larry asks several good questions (both things to think about and
practical issues) about the fairness of the way the NCAA distributes
the money from various tournaments. His points are good points. Much
of this was discussed last year, when a lot of the new rules were
approved by the NCAA in the name of "reform."
Here is my summary, from memory. If anything is really wrong, I
am sure I will be corrected.... (Note: I am not defending this
plan, just explaining my understanding of what they did and
why).
The old situation:
-- In the past, schools got more money the further they
advanced in the tournament. The big money is in the
basketball tournament. It was felt that this rewarded
schools for winning, and for nothing else.
-- There is a concept of being a "Division I school" or a
"Division III school" in addition to having a team in
a particular division
-- There was further concern that schools that did not
otherwise meet the criteria for Division I status were
fielding (strong) Division I basketball teams, essentially
just for the money, while other schools had Division I
programs (and thus expenses) in all their sports.
The new plan (as of last year):
-- criteria for being a "Division I" school were made tougher
(I think it is one more Division I sport than before -- I
don't remember the exact number)
-- I think there was something discouraging or forbidding
new mixed-division schools (Division I in Basketball and
Division III in football, for example, or, of more concern
to us, Division I in hockey and Division III otherwise).
-- Each team in the national tournament is given a stipend to
cover expenses (I assume this is per game/per round or
something like that)
-- all money from each Division's tournaments (men's and
women's basketball, hockey, etc) are put into a pool (by
Division). Most of this money is distributed to the
Division schools based on a complicated formula including
how many teams are fielded, how many scholarships are given,
and how many counselors/tutors are on the staff. The basic
idea was to reward schools with more comprehensive programs
and a higher commitment (by some objective measure, i.e.
number of tutors) to STUDENT-athletes. (In a major irony,
Wisconsin was allocated more money last year under this
formula than any other school in the country. Wisconsin
hasn't been in the basketball tournament in decades. Other
Big Ten schools also made the top ten money list. However,
the Big Ten has a rule that all schools share all tournament
and bowl money equally).
Thus, Division III schools that have Division I Hockey
programs don't share in the Division I hockey tournament
revenues.
I believe that someone said last year that the Division I Hockey
tournament is the NCAA's number 3 money maker (after the basketball
tournaments), but that most NCAA delegates don't know that (or anything
else about hockey). Unfortuntly, Hockey seems to be an orphan in the
NCAA....
--david
--------
david parter [log in to unmask]
university of wisconsin -- madison computer sciences department
|