Tweet
By now most of us have seen that hockey, and probably all of athletics, at UAA and UAF is headed for the gallows.
I say part, a significant part, of the problem is the NCAA's model of "divisions". The NCAA mandates 14 sports if you're DI (FCS) or 16 sports (FBS) or some other numbers for DII or DIII. Basically, the NCAA mandates "n" sports to be sponsored if you want to play at Division "M".
Instead, wouldn't it be wonderful if the NCAA allowed a school to just play what makes sense for it, and at the level that makes sense for it. I'm over a decade into calling for a "cafeteria plan" for NCAA sports. The Alaska situation has me bringing it up again.
I say the NCAA should define by sport, not by division, the levels and limits of play (a "cafeteria" plan).
For example (a hypothetical):
- four tiers of football: 85 max, 65 max, 45 max, and 20 max scholarship
- three tiers of basketball: 14 max, 9 max, 2 max scholarships
- two tiers of hockey: 18 max, 3 max scholarships
and so on. The levels (and maybe even spending caps, what a concept, per level!) could be worked out at the sport level by the sport experts.
Why do I say this? Say your school wants to play DI mens hockey and DII M/WBB and DIII W bowling and nothing else. So what. Who's that really hurt? Follow the rules for what you're playing and that's that.
Instead, we have a situation where all the programs at both Alaska schools may well disappear. How does that help student athletes? Worse? We have schools everywhere pouring monies that could go toward academics instead toward required athletic programs that do nothing more than continue to generate even more red ink.
I say the schools know what is sustainable in their markets. Let them play and support what works for them.
(And before you bring up Title IX, that's Federal law, not the NCAA. Each school would work that out internally ensuring equity.)
I say part, a significant part, of the problem is the NCAA's model of "divisions". The NCAA mandates 14 sports if you're DI (FCS) or 16 sports (FBS) or some other numbers for DII or DIII. Basically, the NCAA mandates "n" sports to be sponsored if you want to play at Division "M".
Instead, wouldn't it be wonderful if the NCAA allowed a school to just play what makes sense for it, and at the level that makes sense for it. I'm over a decade into calling for a "cafeteria plan" for NCAA sports. The Alaska situation has me bringing it up again.
I say the NCAA should define by sport, not by division, the levels and limits of play (a "cafeteria" plan).
For example (a hypothetical):
- four tiers of football: 85 max, 65 max, 45 max, and 20 max scholarship
- three tiers of basketball: 14 max, 9 max, 2 max scholarships
- two tiers of hockey: 18 max, 3 max scholarships
and so on. The levels (and maybe even spending caps, what a concept, per level!) could be worked out at the sport level by the sport experts.
Why do I say this? Say your school wants to play DI mens hockey and DII M/WBB and DIII W bowling and nothing else. So what. Who's that really hurt? Follow the rules for what you're playing and that's that.
Instead, we have a situation where all the programs at both Alaska schools may well disappear. How does that help student athletes? Worse? We have schools everywhere pouring monies that could go toward academics instead toward required athletic programs that do nothing more than continue to generate even more red ink.
I say the schools know what is sustainable in their markets. Let them play and support what works for them.
(And before you bring up Title IX, that's Federal law, not the NCAA. Each school would work that out internally ensuring equity.)
Comment