If the NCAA cares so much about the regionals and the championships, how about they start by taking the broadcasting rights for the NCAA Championships away from Flotrack?
If the NCAA cares so much about the regionals and the championships, how about they start by taking the broadcasting rights for the NCAA Championships away from Flotrack?
Mal Content wrote:
Kevin, should conferences realign back to geographic boundaries?
MAC only conference that has stayed historically the same.
Kevin, thoughts?
No. Conferences do not need to do anything. Being on the outside, looking in, I can be completely objective. Getting straight to the back strap (hunting term), traditional Conferences have zero to do with Cross Country, Track and Field, Tennis orBaseball. They have to do with football and/or basketball. That will never change. From strictly a business standpoint, it shouldn't.
If cross country wants to take a giant leap forward, in my opinion, it should abandon the current regional structure. The current geographical regions could continue to exist for the purpose of awards, coaches association representation, rankings, etc. However, to move forward in terms of respect and branding, my opinion, the NCAA uses the regional model of nearly every other sport. In order to move forward, the "NCAA Regional Championship" is not a geographical region. This is how golf, and many other sports work.
If the NCAA were to rebrand the NCAA Regional Championships as the ACTUAL First Round of the NCAAs (meaning qualifying for the NCAA Regionals is = qualifying to the NCAAs. 64 Teams. 4 Regions. You take the model of other sports like Soccer, Baseball, Golf, etc. where they only seed a handful of the teams and SEED the Top 4 teams. Those teams are then placed in the four regions and each of the four teams is given the opportunity to host. The qualifying program is still point based and instead of using the order of finish for the current regionals/autos and Kolas Calculator: you simply reprogram the "calculator" to use the order of finish for the conferences and give the auto to the Champ and it will determine the 64 teams
Once you have the qualifiers, the field of 16 teams in each regional is then determined by committee to try and balance the regions while using geography as one of the main criteria (this is how many sports are "seeded"). You then have the Top-4 teams from each region automatically qualify for the NCAA Championship and use the current point system to determine the next 16 teams (yes, move the field to 32). It would take a lot of wins to make the Regional so that negates some Power5 coaches assertation that, "some crap conference can q a team..." The reality is that the better schools would have beaten numerous teams from these conferences at invites. I would bet it would take 7-8 wins to make it to the region at-large.
This opens the NCAAs to all conference championships like EVERY OTHER SPORT. It also then helps to legitimize and brand the sport, in my opinion, within each athletic department. Right now, the sport is perceived by ADs to be an "all-comers" sports because track coaches can always use the excuse "it is too hard to qualify for the NCAAs in XC and winning the conference does nothing for us so we will concentrate on track only." Now, you have legitimized ALL conference championships.
This is an opportunity for cross country to take a giant step forward in my opinion. I look at this from the standpoint of being a coach from a Mid-Major urban public state school that embraced the old system and worked hard to send multiple teams at-large. It seemed insurmountable in the beginning (as we only got 22 teams to the NCAAs back in the day). However, those were the rules and it took near 20 years to make it happen. So, this is not coming from a standpoint where I would want to make it "easier" to make it to the NCAAs. (note: My coaching career is likely in the rearview mirror so this is as objective as it gets.)
I think this is a situation where the NCAA does not want to endorse schools treating their Championship as some all-comers meet. As a businessman now, I can see where the NCAA wants their Championships to be branded and run within the context of their vision for all sports. They want access to the championships to all conferences (that is clearly not the case now).
On twitter someone responded to one of my tweets talking about the USTFCCCA being the driving force. As a long -time executive on the cross country board, I can say that this is only a coaches association. Nothing more. Important and useful. However, the NCAA does not want to sit around and let a coaches association make the decisions. They want to make the decisions because, frankly, it is their organization and their championships. We actually talked about this 10 years ago when the first rumors came out that the NCAA was starting to ask why there is no qualifying procedure to the regionals.
I am working on an article right now about all this. It should be ready by the end of the week.
~Kevin
If you are actually correct that AD's will decide this change makes the sport legitimate and puts it on an even playing field with all others then that would be great. I simply don't see that happening at many places it will still be disregarded as unimportant.
To me the only way to legitimize the sport and create a brand for the sport is to make it like all other sports. Give XC athletic scholarships.
That solution would be simple... reduce women's track scholarships by maybe 4.5 and men's by maybe 3. Give those scholarships to XC. If you want to run XC and get scholarship money you have to be on an XC scholarship. If you are on an XC scholarship you can run track but if you are on a track scholarship you can't run XC. Not perfect but better than what we have... which is some programs throwing everything into XC and nothing into track, others which try to split things somewhat, and other programs that completely disregard XC. That is what doesn't allow the sport to be legitimate and what creates no brand image.
Not disagreeing with you. Only, right now, there’s no reason to. However, with a radical change like this, one would argue (successfully, in my opinion) that it would make more sense to an AD (a businessman. Not a coach). With a change like this, cross country would be viewed by an AD like other non-revs.
Name another sport where the coach can legitimately tell their AD that they simply don’t try to be good? Under the current system; coaches who take that philosophy have a built-in excuse. However now, with open access to all conferences to the NCAA championships, there’s a legitimate reason to ask, “why aren’t you trying?”
A radical change like this would need to happen first.
Lets keep the conversation to qualifying and ncaa championships. Keep the other issues for another thread (ex scholarships).
I believe the ncaa and ADs like the idea of conference AQs. I think they dont like that every team currently is allowed to race regionals. This is a movement that had existed for several years and will most surely happen.
There is going to be teams that will not like how things will evolve because of region alignment/placement and how teams advance from the regional (first round) to the championship. I think you start with 64 teams which includes the conference AQ along with at large teams to make up the”ncaa field”
I would do 4 regions of 16 teams and have top 8 teams from each region advance to championship. This would give the most “selection committee” input at the regional level where it would most likely be easier to get the best teams into the hopper (more room for error trying to select approxImately 32-34 at large berths). From regional you just flat out earn it with a top 8 finish.
The key is there need to be two systems:
1) how at large berths get decided
2) how to balance regions (seeded?) to keep them relatively equivalent in quality.
Plus-
Top 5-7 individuals from conference championship whose team does not advance to regionals should advance as individuals into region meet. Top 7 of these runners from each region should advance to ncaa championship as individuals
If you are actually correct that AD's will decide this change makes the sport legitimate and puts it on an even playing field with all others then that would be great. I simply don't see that happening at many places it will still be disregarded as unimportant.
To me the only way to legitimize the sport and create a brand for the sport is to make it like all other sports. Give XC athletic scholarships.
That solution would be simple... reduce women's track scholarships by maybe 4.5 and men's by maybe 3. Give those scholarships to XC. If you want to run XC and get scholarship money you have to be on an XC scholarship. If you are on an XC scholarship you can run track but if you are on a track scholarship you can't run XC. Not perfect but better than what we have... which is some programs throwing everything into XC and nothing into track, others which try to split things somewhat, and other programs that completely disregard XC. That is what doesn't allow the sport to be legitimate and what creates no brand image.[/quote]
Not disagreeing with you. Only, right now, there’s no reason to. However, with a radical change like this, one would argue (successfully, in my opinion) that it would make more sense to an AD (a businessman. Not a coach). With a change like this, cross country would be viewed by an AD like other non-revs.
Name another sport where the coach can legitimately tell their AD that they simply don’t try to be good? Under the current system; coaches who take that philosophy have a built-in excuse. However now, with open access to all conferences to the NCAA championships, there’s a legitimate reason to ask, “why aren’t you trying?”
A radical change like this would need to happen first.[/quote]
Sam Seemes has proposed a simple fix to Cross Country’s scholarship inequity problem before (see below). 5max men /6max women. Just like XC only schools get. Not adding scholarships, just limiting how many of your 12.6/18 can be on your XC roster.
Until the NCAA cares enough about XC to follow its own equity bylaw and make the scholarship situation “fair”, who cares about a fair qualifying procedure???
PROPOSAL
Justin Sell, Chair
NCAA Division I Student-Athlete Experience Committee Director of Athletics
South Dakota State University
2820 HPER Center
Brookings, SD 57007
March 21, 2018
Dear Mr. Sell,
On behalf of the Division I Cross Country coaches of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA), we respectfully request that the Student-Athlete Experience Committee review the enclosed legislative proposal to establish financial aid limitations in Men’s Cross Country and Women’s Cross Country, for recommendation as proposed legislation to the Division I Council.
At the December 2017 USTFCCCA Convention, Division I Cross Country coaches voted in an institutional vote of 69 percent in favor to seek to establish maximum equivalency limits for the sports of Men’s Cross Country and Women’s Cross Country, separate from and without negatively impacting the existing limits of 12.6 equivalencies for Men’s Track & Field and 18 equivalencies for Women’s Track & Field.
Lack of Independent Maximum Equivalency Limits is Unique to Cross Country
The present lack of independent maximum equivalency limits is an issue unique to the sports of Men’s and Women’s Cross Country. While institutional variability in resources exists across all sports, NCAA Division I Men’s and Women’s Cross Country are the only NCAA Championship sports in which the existing inequity in financial aid from one institution to another is actually created and enforced by the existing legislation that establishes financial aid limits dependent on the sponsorship of another Championship sport.
For schools that do not sponsor Indoor and/or Outdoor Track & Field, maximum equivalency limits are set at five for Men’s Cross Country and six for Women’s Cross Country.
For institutions that do sponsor Indoor and/or Outdoor Track & Field, Cross Country shares the existing equivalency limits for the sports of Indoor and/or Outdoor Track & Field (12.6 for men and 18 for women), the same limits that exist for schools that only sponsor Indoor and/or Outdoor Track & Field (Division I Bylaw 15.5.3.1).
This is not an issue of a small or newly-emerging sport. Men’s and Women’s Cross Country are widely- sponsored sports with a significant number of participants. NCAA Division I Men’s and Women’s Cross Country are the second-most-sponsored sports in NCAA Division I for both men and women. As of 2016- 17, 344 NCAA Division I institutions sponsor Women’s Cross Country, and 312 NCAA Division I institutions sponsor Men’s Cross Country. Over 5,900 women and over 4,700 men participate in NCAA Division I Cross Country. For women, this is nearly 1,000 more student-athletes than currently participate in Women’s Basketball, the most-sponsored sport for NCAA Division I women.
This is also not an issue of multisport participants. Other Division I Championship sports with common multisport participants, such as Beach Volleyball and Volleyball or Water Polo and Swimming & Diving, have separate financial aid limits for these distinct Championship sports. Institutions competing in both Volleyball and Beach Volleyball, for example, do not operate under a single financial aid limit for both sports; instead, each sport has its own financial aid limits, and a separate carve-out exists to address institutions that sponsor both sports. We do not have a recommendation from Division I Cross Country coaches regarding a model of how to count multisport participants in Cross Country and Track & Field, but we believe there are several different models that could be employed to account for multisport participants, depending on the goals of the NCAA Division I institutional membership.
Lack of Independent Maximum Equivalency Limits Harms Cross Country
The current lack of independent maximum equivalency limits harms the sports of NCAA Division I Men’s and Women’s Cross Country, student-athletes, and participating institutions and is inconsistent with the NCAA’s Principle of Competitive Equity (2.10), which states that the “structure and programs of the Association and the activities of its members shall promote opportunity for equity in competition to assure that individual student-athletes and institutions will not be prevented unfairly from achieving the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics.”
Instead of promoting equity in competition, the NCAA-legislated structure forces institutions to operate under two very different maximum equivalency limits for the same sport. Schools that only sponsor Cross Country may utilize up to five men’s equivalencies and/or six women’s equivalencies, while schools that sponsor Track & Field may use up to 12.6 men’s equivalencies or 18 women’s equivalencies in Cross Country. This imbalanced legislated structure harms competitive equity both for NCAA Division I student-athletes and for institutions.
Lack of Independent Maximum Equivalency Limits Harms Track & Field
The present lack of independent maximum equivalency limits for Men’s and Women’s Cross Country also harms the sports of NCAA Division I Men’s and Women’s Indoor and Outdoor Track & Field and has a negative impact on the racial and ethnic diversity of Track & Field programs at schools that also sponsor Cross Country.
Institutions that sponsor Track & Field but not Cross Country have a maximum of 12.6 equivalencies for men and 18 equivalencies for women. Institutions that sponsor both Cross Country and Track & Field have the same limit of 12.6 equivalencies for men and 18 equivalency limits for women. However, these institutions are forced to make a choice as to what portion of their Track & Field financial aid awards to use, if any, toward student-athletes who also compete in the Championship sport of Cross Country.
Each financial aid award used toward a student-athlete who also competes in the sport of Cross Country reduces the number of equivalencies and opportunities available to student-athletes who only compete in Track & Field. As an unintended consequence, this choice potentially reduces the overall racial and ethnic diversity of participants in a school’s Track & Field program and the aid available to student-athletes from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, as there is a much higher percentage of racial and ethnic diversity in Track & Field participants than in Cross Country participants. As of the NCAA’s 2016- 17 participation data, 42.1% of men and 41.8% of women in NCAA Outdoor Track & Field programs identify as Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or Two or More Races, whereas those numbers are only 24.4% for participants in Men’s Cross Country and 24.1% for participants in Women’s Cross Country.
Whereas rules around financial aid are intended to create the parameters of a level playing field for NCAA Division I institutions participating in each sport, existing legislation actually imposes and enforces an imbalance in the sports of Men’s and Women’s Cross Country. To redress the inequity created by existing NCAA legislation, NCAA Division I Cross Country coaches respectfully request the introduction of proposed legislation to establish financial aid limits for the sports of Men’s and Women’s Cross Country, separate from those of any other sport and without negatively impacting the existing financial aid limits for the sport of Track & Field.
I look forward to speaking with you soon regarding our request. Please feel free to contact me with your questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Sam Seemes, CEO
U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association 1100 Poydras St. Suite 1750
New Orleans, LA 70163
Encl: USTFCCCA Proposal: Financial Aid - - Maximum Institutional Grant-In-Aid Limitations By Sport - - Equivalency Sports
FINANCIAL AID - - MAXIMUM INSTITUTIONAL GRANT-IN-AID LIMITATIONS BY SPORT - - EQUIVALENCY SPORTS - - MAXIMUM EQUIVALENCY LIMITS
Intent: To establish financial aid limitations in Men’s Cross Country and Women’s Cross Country. Bylaws:
15.5.3.1 Maximum Equivalency Limits.
15.5.3.1.1 Men’s Sports. There shall be a limit on the value (equivalency) of financial aid awards (per Bylaw 15.02.4.2) that an institution may provide in any academic year to counters in the following men’s sports:
Cross Country.................................................5
Cross Country/Track & Field........................12.6 Fencing.............................................................4.5 Golf....................................................................4.5 Gymnastics.......................................................6.3 Lacrosse.........................................................12.6 Rifle...................................................................3.6
Skiing...............................................................6.3 Soccer.............................................................9.9 Swimming and Diving...................................9.9 Tennis..............................................................4.5 Volleyball........................................................4.5 Water Polo.....................................................4.5 Wrestling........................................................9.9
15.5.3.1.2 Women’s Sports. There shall be a limit on the value (equivalency) of financial aid awards (per Bylaw 15.02.4.2) that an institution may provide in any academic year to counters in the following women’s sports:
Bowling...............................................................5
Cross Country................................................6
Cross Country/Track & Field.........................18 Equestrian........................................................15 Fencing...............................................................5 Field Hockey....................................................12 Golf.....................................................................6 Lacrosse...........................................................12 Rowing..............................................................20
Rugby...............................................................12 Skiing.................................................................7 Soccer.............................................................14 Softball............................................................12 Swimming and Diving...................................14 Triathlon.........................................................6.5 Water Polo.......................................................8
15.5.3.1.3 Maximum Equivalency Limits—Institutions That Sponsor Cross Country but Do Not Sponsor Track and Field. There shall be a limit of five on the value (equivalency) of financial aid awards (per Bylaw 15.02.4.2) that an institution may provide in any academic year to counters in men’s cross country, if the institution does not sponsor indoor or outdoor track and field for men. There shall be a limit of six on the value (equivalency) of financial aid awards (per Bylaw 15.02.4.2) that an institution may provide in any academic year to counters in women’s cross country, if the institution does not sponsor indoor or outdoor track and field
3 for XC? That would destroy NAU, BYU. Iowa State. and even schools like Furman and Bradley.
Many P5 schools only compete in elite meets never competing against teams ranked outside of the top 75. I forsee the regionals as being the P5 schools, the confefence champs, and 2-3 other schools. I like the idea of taking the top 5 individuals from each conference but that i also increases cost.
I don’t have a pony in this race. So, being completely objective, I would keep the focus on the NCAA qualifying. The scholarship situation is an entirely different conversation and is a valid one. However, the NCAA qualifying and regional structure is in the NCAA finance and championship committee’s hands at the moment. Once it gets to that level, the wheels are going to turn whether anyone likes it or not.
If it were me, I would be working double time right now to figure out a fair and equitable way to implement this type of scenario. I know exactly what you mean about the scholarship and the scholarships legitimizing the sport. However, I feel like you’ll have a better time doing that if cross country is legitimized more as a separate sport that’s operating in the same fashion that basically all other sports do.
Like I said, I would be laser focused on this current situation. If the NCAA has already said that it could be implemented by 2022, that means that they are not just going to, “forget“ about this.
red and sad wrote:
Many P5 schools only compete in elite meets never competing against teams ranked outside of the top 75. I forsee the regionals as being the P5 schools, the confefence champs, and 2-3 other schools. I like the idea of taking the top 5 individuals from each conference but that i also increases cost.
First of all, I wouldn’t necessarily say that that’s true because there are a lot of invitationals where smaller schools are also sprinkled into it. In addition, keep in mind that once this change happens, coaches are going to have to adapt to it. Within that adaptation, no school is going to want to be a martyr just to prove a point. The scheduling would then be more similar to basketball and baseball where they know they have to accumulate wins.
I would say that cross country and track and field have some of the smartest and most intelligent coaches of any sport at the collegiate level. You have a large group of highly motivated, intelligent and critically – thinking individuals. If the qualifying procedure changes, their scheduling philosophy will change.
So what are the best ideas as to how at large teams should be selected? How will regular season contribute to this? Will there still be large invites with kolas points? What are otherer options to select at large teams.
I think there are about 32 d1 conferences. This hopefully would allow for 32 at large teams if the field were 64. In general this seems to give you some room to select the correct at large teams provided you do it right.
With 5 regions, there can be about 150 teams. That would allow for all P5s and conference champs and another 50 at large teams.
red and sad wrote:
3 for XC? That would destroy NAU, BYU. Iowa State. and even schools like Furman and Bradley.
Well, 3 was just a suggestion ... it could be 4 or 5. The actual number needs to be determined. I used 3 because I know the institutions don't want to add more scholarships to their budget and taking more than 3 from men's track current limit of 12.5 will meet with a great deal of resistance from many track coaches. (Basically men's track should have more than 12.5 but that's another issue entirely.)
If this were ever to come to pass, stipulating the number of XC scholarships each institution would, of course, challenge a program who is currently using all of their track scholarships for XC.... in my mind using all of your scholarships that way isn't an equitable position either. (Btw, kids will still want to go to NAU and BYU anyway... there are other reasons to go to these schools to run beyond just the money.)
lazy me wrote:
So what are the best ideas as to how at large teams should be selected? How will regular season contribute to this? Will there still be large invites with kolas points? What are otherer options to select at large teams.
I think there are about 32 d1 conferences. This hopefully would allow for 32 at large teams if the field were 64. In general this seems to give you some room to select the correct at large teams provided you do it right.
An auto qualifier for conference champions is a HORRIBLE idea. To start, not all the teams in those conferences are even in the same region.
There are some pretty horrendous conferences when it comes to XC. Imagine the outrage you'd get if a horrible team like Central Connecticut State University wins a tiny conference, but then a team like Washington or Oregon gets 5th in the PAC-12 doesn't get into the regional.
The ADs would not consider a "NCAA XC First Round" a true national meet unless the NCAA PAYS FOR THE TRAVEL. That's something the NCAA absolutely will never do.
red and sad wrote:
With 5 regions, there can be about 150 teams. That would allow for all P5s and conference champs and another 50 at large teams.
This doesn’t sound like what the NCAA wants. They want the number of teams qualifying to be proportionate to other sports. that would mean a field of 64 in all likelihood.
I also think that in order to accomplish this, they would need to probably look at for regions. The problem with using the word “regions” is the cross country and track coaches are the only sports where the “regions” are literally geographical boundaries. One would need to abandon that mode of thinking.
All other sports go to the NCAA championship tournaments and are separated into “regions” but those regions are not hard geographical boundaries. The Regional Championship would have to be seeded. They could send you to the closest region to your school or, you could potentially be heading to another region. This would actually make it much more exciting on selection day. Not to mention, this would also illuminate “easy“ regions.
In other sports the lower seeds (or unseeded teams like in soccer or baseball) are usually just sent to the closest region site if at all possible.
Honestly, looking at it from the outside, I think it’s an opportunity for cross country to take a giant step forward. There will be a resistance to change, of course.
In terms of qualifying the 64 teams: you really only have three options. One option would be to have the current point system. Another option would be a committee just like other sports. The third option, and the one that makes the most sense to me, is a combination of the two.
The selection committee would have the point totals but they would also have the discretion to select the teams the feel have the most “quality“ wins. There would be resistance to the teams being selected by committee. The only real answer to those coaches is: “welcome to every other sport”.
Kevin,
I'm just discussing this as well... I'm not saying you are wrong because I certainly have no idea how this will play out.
I would absolutely be happy if you were correct in your prediction but I have a hard time believing that ADs who think of XC as an unimportant sport now are all of a sudden going to decide it's important and force the track coach to put resources into the sport.
I can see many of them (as business people) saying with this change why bother to put any money into this sport ( many think this already). "we can't compete with Stanford, BYU, New Mexico, NAU, etc anyway.... lets just drop the sport entirely." I can also see some ADs asking "why are we splitting our XC budget with track? Kids come here to run distance already and we are pretty successful, let's put all of our money in XC with nothing to track and win a NC".
I just see this as exaggerating an already inequitable situation which will ruin XC in the long run. I truly hope I am wrong.
We are cool. I’m just an actor and a businessman now with too much time on my hands. Haha. No real right or wrong answers. All speculation. :)
With all due respect, Kevin, XC is not like the other sports. It's unique IN A GOOD WAY and we should celebrate that instead of trying to change it.
XC is the only sport where all NCAA competitors compete at the same time against each other. There is no bracket for seeding, there are no computer programs using algorithms to determine seeding, etc. So at the end of an XC season, we have the most accurate results and rankings out of all the NCAA sports.
There is something special about having the regional meet be an all-comers meet. Every athlete has a chance, every team has a chance. We should never seek for a computer program or ranking system to select teams/individuals when we can easily just race and leave it up to the athletes. Again, XC is the only NCAA sport where that's possible. And that's something to be CELEBRATED.
I can't disagree with you here, assuming this will happen, the 'best' way is to have a combo points system and committee selection process.
This won't always be fair but what other option is fair... other than letting everyone compete in an open meet to qualify for nationals... Oh, wait, we already have that set up...hahaha.