Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

    Skiing is different--there is one national championship for schools in all divisions. That doesn't count as a "play-up" in the NCAA's system.

    "The game of hockey, though much in vogue on the ice in New England and other parts of the United States, is not much known here."

    --The Montreal Gazette, March 4, 1875.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

      Originally posted by blockski View Post
      Wouldn't it be possible for hockey to end the concept of 'playing up,' since there's no real choice for D-2 members? The 4 existing D-3 teams that play up continue to be grandfathered in.

      That's essentially what happens now, anyway.
      If the option of playing-up is removed, then the Division I men's ice hockey championship is kaput. There are only 36 full Division I schools playing the sport, with 40 being the magic number to sponsor a divisional championship (Bylaw 18.2.3).

      The options for the ice hockey community would be slim, either establish a "national collegiate championship" which would combine all three divisions (see women's bowling, men's volleyball) or simply end the NCAA championship altogether and allow it to be administered as squash, rodeo and sailing are.
      UAH - The Cleveland Browns of COLLEGE HOCKEY

      Mike Anderson
      2006 Time Person of the Year
      Finger far off the pulse of college hockey, thanks to Mack Portera.
      It was fun for a whole lot of seasons.

      "Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more." Proverbs 31:6-7 (NIV)

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

        Originally posted by Alton View Post
        Skiing is different--there is one national championship for schools in all divisions. That doesn't count as a "play-up" in the NCAA's system.
        . . . which is the reason that the ******* president of Middlebury College could rail against the participation of D3 schools in D1 sports, without worrying that his school would have to stop competing against Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Denver, Dartmouth, and UVM for the national championship in skiing. If skiing did follow the divisional format, he wouldn't have dared say anything about the hockey play-ups.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

          Originally posted by MikeAnderson View Post
          If the option of playing-up is removed, then the Division I men's ice hockey championship is kaput. There are only 36 full Division I schools playing the sport, with 40 being the magic number to sponsor a divisional championship (Bylaw 18.2.3).

          The options for the ice hockey community would be slim, either establish a "national collegiate championship" which would combine all three divisions (see women's bowling, men's volleyball) or simply end the NCAA championship altogether and allow it to be administered as squash, rodeo and sailing are.
          I don't think I was quite clear - by ending the concept of 'playing up,' I mean interpreting D1 hockey more like the NCAA skiing example mentioned above. Since there isn't a real D2 option, D2 schools playing D1 hockey shouldn't count as playing up.
          "...the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."

          Wisconsin '05 Michigan '07

          http://noalibisnoregrets.blogspot.com/

          my other blog

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

            Originally posted by RaceBoarder View Post
            What is the big push to be D-I vs D-II? Does it stem from being able to collect checks for being cupcakes in Football and Basketball?
            Got it in one.

            The allure is mostly basketball, but if you play football, I suppose you could get some extra dollars by being someone's speedbump.

            Basketball is ridiculously cheap to put on, and the teams can easily score a few big payout games (as well as their cut of the NCAA tourney revenue, if they get themselves into a conference), which can easily make basketball break-even, if not fund a few extra sports.
            UConn -- Clarkson

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

              Originally posted by kingdobbs View Post
              Got it in one.

              The allure is mostly basketball, but if you play football, I suppose you could get some extra dollars by being someone's speedbump.

              Basketball is ridiculously cheap to put on, and the teams can easily score a few big payout games (as well as their cut of the NCAA tourney revenue, if they get themselves into a conference), which can easily make basketball break-even, if not fund a few extra sports.
              I'm surprised there aren't more "Denver"-type schools out there (i.e. no D-I football, but D-I in everything else) for this exact reason. Football has the potential to bring in big money (Michigan, Florida, USC, Notre Dame, etc.), but in more cases, costs more than it's worth (plus has the title IX ramifications of 100+ male athletes to deal with). Why not "go D-I" without football, invest in basketball, and start pulling in those checks? Seems like a no-brainer to me...
              Current NCAA D-I rinks I've been to:

              AHA:
              B1G: UMinn, UWisc
              ECAC:
              HEA: UMass, Notre Dame
              NCHC: UMD, UND, SCSU, WMU
              WCHA: UAH, BSU, FSU, LSSU, MSU, MTU, NMU

              Inactive: BSU, UMD, UND, NMU, Notre Dame

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

                Originally posted by blockski View Post
                I don't think I was quite clear - by ending the concept of 'playing up,' I mean interpreting D1 hockey more like the NCAA skiing example mentioned above. Since there isn't a real D2 option, D2 schools playing D1 hockey shouldn't count as playing up.
                Then you move to the "national collegiate championship" formula and completely kill the tradition and competition in Division III schools.

                Division I presidents have rarely been a group that would cut off its nose to spite its face, so I would be shocked to see the presidents fundamentally alter one of their championships in this case.
                UAH - The Cleveland Browns of COLLEGE HOCKEY

                Mike Anderson
                2006 Time Person of the Year
                Finger far off the pulse of college hockey, thanks to Mack Portera.
                It was fun for a whole lot of seasons.

                "Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more." Proverbs 31:6-7 (NIV)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

                  Originally posted by moose97 View Post
                  I'm surprised there aren't more "Denver"-type schools out there (i.e. no D-I football, but D-I in everything else) for this exact reason. Football has the potential to bring in big money (Michigan, Florida, USC, Notre Dame, etc.), but in more cases, costs more than it's worth (plus has the title IX ramifications of 100+ male athletes to deal with). Why not "go D-I" without football, invest in basketball, and start pulling in those checks? Seems like a no-brainer to me...
                  Boston University went that route. But invested in hockey instead of Basketball.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

                    Originally posted by moose97 View Post
                    I'm surprised there aren't more "Denver"-type schools out there (i.e. no D-I football, but D-I in everything else) for this exact reason. Football has the potential to bring in big money (Michigan, Florida, USC, Notre Dame, etc.), but in more cases, costs more than it's worth (plus has the title IX ramifications of 100+ male athletes to deal with). Why not "go D-I" without football, invest in basketball, and start pulling in those checks? Seems like a no-brainer to me...
                    IIRC football is the loss leader of higher ed... as far as I recall the "revenue potential" is there if you are really good... most schools lose all kinds of money... you have to be really good or have a basketball program so good that you make money just because you don't have to expend that much more (hence why UConn profits).
                    BS UML '04, PhD UConn '09

                    Jerseys I would like to have:
                    Skating Friar Jersey
                    AIC Yellowjacket Jersey w/ Yellowjacket logo on front
                    UAF Jersey w/ Polar Bear on Front
                    Army Black Knight logo jersey


                    NCAA Men's Division 1 Simulation Primer

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

                      Originally posted by MikeAnderson View Post
                      Then you move to the "national collegiate championship" formula and completely kill the tradition and competition in Division III schools.

                      Division I presidents have rarely been a group that would cut off its nose to spite its face, so I would be shocked to see the presidents fundamentally alter one of their championships in this case.
                      No, no, no. Again, I'm not being clear. Make a special case for hockey and any other sports with such a small participation rate that having three divisions is pointless. D3 is a totally different beast - the differences between D3 and D2 are far bigger than those between D2 and D1.

                      There are currently only two options for NCAA hockey - D3 and D1. Let the D3 schools play in D3, as they do now. Let everyone else play in D1 regardless of their school's larger affiliation, as they do now.

                      Nothing changes, except the nomenclature. It makes no sense for a school like UMD to 'play up' to the D1 hockey level because there is no level where they can 'play even,' and 'playing down' would be totally unfair to the D3 schools.

                      When I say 'end the concept of playing up,' I'm not proposing to change anything about how college hockey is structured today. I'm talking about changing the definition of playing up.

                      Since there are only two options, D2 schools have no choice but to play up. Since they have no choice, they really shouldn't be considered as playing up at all, just as all the D3 skiing participants aren't considered to be playing up, as they only have one option.
                      "...the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."

                      Wisconsin '05 Michigan '07

                      http://noalibisnoregrets.blogspot.com/

                      my other blog

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

                        Originally posted by kingdobbs View Post
                        Got it in one.

                        The allure is mostly basketball, but if you play football, I suppose you could get some extra dollars by being someone's speedbump.

                        Basketball is ridiculously cheap to put on, and the teams can easily score a few big payout games (as well as their cut of the NCAA tourney revenue, if they get themselves into a conference), which can easily make basketball break-even, if not fund a few extra sports.
                        The allure is almost exclusively basketball. The cost of running a D-1 football program is extremely high, and really only the major conferences make money. For every Notre Dame and Michigan, there is an Eastern Michigan struggleing to break even. Some of them play money games which are exactly what they sound like, but that is really aimed at not losing too much. And Division 1AA (FCS I guess it is now called) is really a no-win situation. I think I read somewhere that 2 teams finished in the black a couple of years ago. And I remember hearing the UMASS AD saying that they actually lost more money the year they won the national championship than they would had they not made the playoffs. And for the most part, you play in front of "crowds" of 7,500-10,000 at the Bigger FCS programs, the real successful ones draw 20,000, some draw maybe a couple of thousand.

                        Basketball is a whole different animal, though. If you get into a league, and virtually everyone is in one, you share in the NCAA revenues. And the costs

                        Basketball, on the other hand, is relatively inexpensive to run and you can play at a modest level and still do ok. for every Duke or UCONN or Kansas that plays in palatial facilities, there are a bunch of Sacred Hearts and Howards that play in on campus gyms that are pretty basic. You can get money games here too, and lotsof the D-1 powers make it a point to play a bunch of local mid-majors early in the year.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Death Knell for the Play-ups?????

                          Originally posted by moose97 View Post
                          I'm surprised there aren't more "Denver"-type schools out there (i.e. no D-I football, but D-I in everything else) for this exact reason. Football has the potential to bring in big money (Michigan, Florida, USC, Notre Dame, etc.), but in more cases, costs more than it's worth (plus has the title IX ramifications of 100+ male athletes to deal with). Why not "go D-I" without football, invest in basketball, and start pulling in those checks? Seems like a no-brainer to me...
                          True, But football does generate a lot of alumni that once they've graduated and have moved on from the sport, that are usually quite willing to give back to the University. Hell, it wasn't that long ago where some MTU football alums got together and pooled their cash together to save that program, and they pretty much pay for that program themselves without the University really having to spend a dime from their other funds. I bet if you went and surveyed most universities and their donors who donate over a thousand dollars a year, I would bet that most of those donors would have likely played football at the school, or perhaps been involved in another activity that would have been closely related to the football program, such as the Marching Band, Cheer leading, Dance team or some other part of the game-day experience. Football on average directly involves more people on campus than any other sport.
                          bueller: Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good? Why does Positrack work? Why does Ferris lose on the road and play dead at home?

                          It just happens.


                          nmupiccdiva: I'm sorry I missed you this weekend! I thought I saw you at the football game, but I didn't want to go up to a complete stranger and ask "are you Monster?" and have it not be you!

                          leswp1: you need the Monster to fix you

                          Life is active, find Balance!massage therapy Ann Arbor

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X