Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Big News from NCAA Convention

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

  • Big News from NCAA Convention

    Big news from the NCAA Convention today as Prposals 5 and 6 are adopted, dropping the number of teams required for an autobid from 7 to 6, and, I believe, changing the access ratio of NCAA Tournament bids from 6.5-1 to 6-1.

  • #2
    Not 100% sure about the access ratio change, but I thought I had read that would be part of it. Still trying to confirm that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Not-so-much applicable to DIII Hockey, but Proposal 4 passed as well, allowing DIII schools with DI programs to offer scholarships to DI student-athletes. Great news for an RIT guy like myself, but the fine line within DIII athletics has been slightly-blurred. For example, Hobart fields a DI Lacrosse program. Can they now offer a DI scholarship to a multi-sport athlete to play Lacrosse and, say... Hockey? Not sure how the rules are written on this, but unless this is explicitly-stated as forbidden, it shall be exploited.

      Also, does the "mandate" of financial aid equity between athletes and non-athletes remain in-place for DIII institutions with DI programs? Or, are DI financial aid awards removed from that equation, while the equity "mandate" is still applies to athletes/non-athletes in DIII programs.

      Cheers!!!
      ~TTF
      Last edited by Transplanted Tiger Fan; 01-22-2022, 12:06 PM.
      Dave
      RIT - '90

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Transplanted Tiger Fan View Post
        Not-so-much applicable to DIII Hockey, but Proposal 4 passed as well, allowing DIII schools with DI programs to offer scholarships to DI student-athletes. Great news for an RIT guy like myself, but the fine line within DIII athletics has been slightly-blurred. For example, Hobart fields a DI Lacrosse program. Can they now offer a DI scholarship to a multi-sport athlete to play Lacrosse and, say... Hockey? Not sure how the rules are written on this, but unless this is explicitly-stated as forbidden, it shall be exploited.

        Also, does the "mandate" of financial aid equity between athletes and non-athletes remain in-place for DIII institutions with DI programs? Or, are DI financial aid awards removed from that equation, while the equity "mandate" is still applies to athletes/non-athletes in DIII programs.

        Cheers!!!
        ~TTF
        Good questions. I guess we’ll see.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dhammond View Post
          Not 100% sure about the access ratio change, but I thought I had read that would be part of it. Still trying to confirm that.
          I’m pretty sure the access ratio was not part of it.

          Besides the enjoyment of watching Fishman go apoplectic :-) for some sports, this is a real concern.

          Football already has 27 out of 32 spots for AQs. Which means a lot of very good teams don’t make the playoffs with just five at-large bids. And there is movement afoot for some football conferences to rearrange themselves to take advantage of this new rule, taking more at-large bids away. Thus, the playoff field becomes even more what Fishman detests. And it’s hard to disagree with him.

          As for hockey, it will be interesting to see what happens. Does the SUNYAC start up women's hockey, allowing Morrisville in but not Canton? Or the opposite — does the SUNYAC finally kick out their lone affiliate member, Morrisville, because they no longer need them for the field hockey AQ?

          Not to mention all the other hockey ramifications for the "smaller" conferences.
          Russell Jaslow
          [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
          U.S. College Hockey Online

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Transplanted Tiger Fan View Post
            Not-so-much applicable to DIII Hockey, but Proposal 4 passed as well, allowing DIII schools with DI programs to offer scholarships to DI student-athletes. Great news for an RIT guy like myself, but the fine line within DIII athletics has been slightly-blurred. For example, Hobart fields a DI Lacrosse program. Can they now offer a DI scholarship to a multi-sport athlete to play Lacrosse and, say... Hockey? Not sure how the rules are written on this, but unless this is explicitly-stated as forbidden, it shall be exploited.

            Also, does the "mandate" of financial aid equity between athletes and non-athletes remain in-place for DIII institutions with DI programs? Or, are DI financial aid awards removed from that equation, while the equity "mandate" is still applies to athletes/non-athletes in DIII programs.

            Cheers!!!
            ~TTF
            All these rules have already been taken care of by the grandfathered schools in the past, such as Clarkson, SLU, and RPI.

            It's not a concern. Those same rules will be followed.
            Russell Jaslow
            [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
            U.S. College Hockey Online

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Russell Jaslow View Post

              I’m pretty sure the access ratio was not part of it.

              Besides the enjoyment of watching Fishman go apoplectic :-) for some sports, this is a real concern.

              Football already has 27 out of 32 spots for AQs. Which means a lot of very good teams don’t make the playoffs with just five at-large bids. And there is movement afoot for some football conferences to rearrange themselves to take advantage of this new rule, taking more at-large bids away. Thus, the playoff field becomes even more what Fishman detests. And it’s hard to disagree with him.

              As for hockey, it will be interesting to see what happens. Does the SUNYAC start up women's hockey, allowing Morrisville in but not Canton? Or the opposite — does the SUNYAC finally kick out their lone affiliate member, Morrisville, because they no longer need them for the field hockey AQ?

              Not to mention all the other hockey ramifications for the "smaller" conferences.
              I would think the access ratio has to change. Next year there will be 84 men’s teams. You could theoretically have 14 conferences each with 6 teams, with each getting an autobid. Thus, the ratio in that scenario would be 6-1.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dhammond View Post

                I would think the access ratio has to change. Next year there will be 84 men’s teams. You could theoretically have 14 conferences each with 6 teams, with each getting an autobid. Thus, the ratio in that scenario would be 6-1.
                From the podcast I listened to before this vote, they said the access ratio is a policy, so it has nothing to do with legislative changes.

                Now you do bring up a key point I forgot to mention. If things go really crazy, it is conceivable that football ends up with 33 conferences. Then what?!

                I think your scenario of simply dividing by six is rare (after all, conferences like SUNYAC, MIAC, etc. are not going to split up just because of this as they certainly were never going to do it before when the magic number was seven). But it’s not too outlandish to find a sport where this could happen, especially in those sports where the field is limited below the maximum number based on the ratio, like football and basketball.
                Russell Jaslow
                [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
                U.S. College Hockey Online

                Comment


                • #9
                  I was told the access ratio is not part of it this year, but to look for a possible change next year.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ya know, all this "access ratio" BS makes no actual sense to the Man on the Street. Nor should it.

                    We have this thing that we call the PWR.

                    Select the field from that calculus, regardless of conference-affiliation.

                    (Now, THAT makes sense!)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A few years back, St. Lawrence had a hockey player Kyle Rank who was on scholarship. He played on the golf team as well however the NCAA stopped it after his freshman year. In short, you can't be on a D 1 scholarship and play a D 3 sport as well. Kyle Rank was the player.
                      LETS GO BEARS!

                      "Never play flag football in the nude"-Bob Kevoian

                      "Don't let anyone tell you what we do builds character, it only reveals it." J.Marsh

                      SUNY Potsdam '98

                      St.Lawrence '00


                      Mike St. Louis is not a BUM!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dhammond View Post
                        Big news from the NCAA Convention today as Prposals 5 and 6 are adopted, dropping the number of teams required for an autobid from 7 to 6, and, I believe, changing the access ratio of NCAA Tournament bids from 6.5-1 to 6-1.
                        IIRC the MAC will have 6 teams next season.
                        CCT '77 & '78
                        4 kids
                        5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                        1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                        ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                        - Benjamin Franklin

                        Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                        I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          So does this go into effect immediately or next season?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Quasi Hatrack View Post
                            So does this go into effect immediately or next season?
                            Next school year.
                            Russell Jaslow
                            [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
                            U.S. College Hockey Online

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Saints17 View Post
                              A few years back, St. Lawrence had a hockey player Kyle Rank who was on scholarship. He played on the golf team as well however the NCAA stopped it after his freshman year. In short, you can't be on a D 1 scholarship and play a D 3 sport as well. Kyle Rank was the player.
                              I get it: what sort of "logic" was involved in that call? Who TF was put at "a competitive disadvantage" via his participation in either/both sport(s)?

                              The NCAA is losing its stranglehold on college sports, and could well become irrelevant very soon. The NIL thing has breached its reservoir of hypocrisy, and tyhere's more to come.

                              Bring it on; the system has been so corrupt (and so stupid) for far too long.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X