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