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