|
Post by sarasota on Feb 3, 2017 17:09:16 GMT -5
NCAA rules- unintended consequences
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 3, 2017 17:40:45 GMT -5
NCAA rules- unintended consequences Title IX is not a NCAA rule, and the consequences that ensued were intended. When one can't find another model / prototype for what some here are trying to do in fashioning a future HC athletics program, the question they should ask themselves is 'why?' Why doesn't BC have a men's lacrosse team, or Syracuse a men's ice hockey team, or Georgetown offer football scollies? The NCAA requires a minimum number of men's / women's sports, and requires that sports be competed over three seasons of the year (summer is excluded). Title IX requires relative parity in spending between men and women's sports (with allowance made for football and men's basketball), and that the level of spending between M/W sports reflect the ratio of M/W undergraduates. When a school like BostonU is already spending to the max on women's sports, BU had to drop men's wrestling to field men's lacrosse. The M/F ratio at BU us particularly disadvantageous from a men's sports standpoint. Whereas, at Lehigh (and IIRC Lafayette) the M/F ratio is advantageous with respect to support levels for men's sports. .
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Feb 3, 2017 22:51:06 GMT -5
PP- I certainly know that Title IX is a Fed law. I was referring to the NCAA rule requiring 14 sports at Div I schools, for example. Also, why shouldn't a school be allowed to have ONE Div I sport and all the others Div II or Div III? This is what happens when governing bodies try to make one shoe fit all. It's awful. The spectacle of hundreds of schools going through incredible hoops and even hiring people to insure compliance is tragic. The analogy with Government regulations is 100% valid. Monopolies are never good.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 4, 2017 7:15:55 GMT -5
PP- I certainly know that Title IX is a Fed law. I was referring to the NCAA rule requiring 14 sports at Div I schools, for example. Also, why shouldn't a school be allowed to have ONE Div I sport and all the others Div II or Div III? This is what happens when governing bodies try to make one shoe fit all. It's awful. The spectacle of hundreds of schools going through incredible hoops and even hiring people to insure compliance is tragic. The analogy with Government regulations is 100% valid. Monopolies are never good. 'Sota, I think you know the answer to that. If schools were only required to play one Div I sport, they'd all try to play football because that's where the money is. And under Title IX, to offset the x number of football scollies, the women's sports at these Div I football schools would have to offer a comparable level of scollies, which would bring their women's sports into Division I. The football schools would play in conferences with other football schools. For those schools choosing to have another Division I sport, e.g., hoops or ice hockey, they'd play in conferences with peer schools doing likewise. The football conferences wouldn't play the ice hockey conferences, because a football conference's ice hockey teams would be at a competitive disadvantage to foes in an ice hockey conference (offering ice hockey scollies) The NCAA, and the various conferences, attempt to introduce competitive parity. When that parity does not exist, then you have games such as women's ice hockey versus Nichols the other night. And that's not fair to anyone. The Ivies would make out like bandits because their athletic scollies are 'need-based'.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Feb 4, 2017 17:50:37 GMT -5
PP- "they'd all try to play football because that's where the money is" A preposterous statement. Hardly any schools make money on fball now as it is. Also, there is no reason to believe women's scollies would necessarily bring their sports into Div I. They could play other women scollie teams at other Div II schools, for example. Come to think of it......the only reason for Divisions at all is so the NCAA can protect the multi zillions they make on their major sport Div I national championships. Wake up, PP. Try to think outside the box for once. The NCAA is a MONSTER MONOPOLY. Mark my words, some day some schools will have the cujones to start doing what's in THEIR best interests. The movement will grow and eventually the NCAA will have true competitors--a multitude of schools who voluntarily come together, form their own leagues and make up their own league rules in their own best interests. Winning their own league championships will be valued and media networks will choose to televise some of the league championships. Instead of one humongous media contract with the NCAA there will be a number of media contracts with a number of leagues. Probably the leagues and the media contracts will be regional in nature reflecting natural regional competitors. Let's put an end to this ridiculous fantasizing about getting into a national tournament where half the teams are a one-and-out.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 4, 2017 18:13:48 GMT -5
Actually, half the teams at practically every tournament are one-and-out. Why single out the NCAA?
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Feb 4, 2017 22:04:59 GMT -5
rgs- Teams have a better chance of advancing in their league tourney as opposed to THE national tourney where 16 seeds NEVER beat 1 seeds. Now do you see why I "singled out the NCAA?"
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Feb 5, 2017 0:52:57 GMT -5
NOBODY CARES....HC basketball is irrelevant
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Feb 5, 2017 2:25:42 GMT -5
hc87- A large part of the reason is that HC is one of the innumerable victims of the NCAA rules. HC cannot due what is in its own unique interests. This is what I have been harping on.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 5, 2017 7:14:44 GMT -5
'Sota, those warm Gulf zephyrs must be suffocating your synapses. Move back north, -- to reality. The monopoly that the NCAA had over college sports was sharply curtailed in 1984 by the Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, a 7-2 opinion, with a former football star, Whizzer White, dissenting. caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/468/85.htmlAs a result, the Power Five basically run their own fiefdom, and there is little that the NCAA or any conference outside of the FBS can do about it. Money talks.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 5, 2017 7:21:37 GMT -5
Holy Cross is no more victim of the NCAA than any of the other hundreds of member colleges and universities.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 5, 2017 10:59:57 GMT -5
PP- I certainly know that Title IX is a Fed law. I was referring to the NCAA rule requiring 14 sports at Div I schools, for example. Also, why shouldn't a school be allowed to have ONE Div I sport and all the others Div II or Div III? This is what happens when governing bodies try to make one shoe fit all. It's awful. The spectacle of hundreds of schools going through incredible hoops and even hiring people to insure compliance is tragic. The analogy with Government regulations is 100% valid. Monopolies are never good. 1 All NCAA rules are voted on by the schools. Virtually all of them have passed with huge majorities. 2. The rule to prevent schools from having just one D1 sport was proposed by the colleges themselves and passed by a large majority when voted on. 3. The NCAA isn't a monopoly. Schools are free to move to the NAIA if the don't like the rules their fellow schools have enacted.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Feb 5, 2017 12:43:32 GMT -5
Without the NCAA to temper the FBS schools, we'd be in Div2 in basketball as well.
|
|
|
Post by DiMarz on Feb 5, 2017 13:14:08 GMT -5
NOBODY CARES....HC basketball is irrelevant If you are still posting here, somebody does care!
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Feb 6, 2017 0:05:08 GMT -5
bison- Russians vote for Putin as well.
|
|