National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Division I group to study basketball schedule trend
Treatment of ‘exempt events’ scrutinized
Treatment of ‘exempt events’ scrutinized
|
By Greg Johnson
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
Now that Division I basketball teams are allowed to play in qualifying regular-season multiple-team events every season, the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet is watching to ensure the intent of NCAA Bylaw 17.5.5.1.1 is being followed.
The legislation, which went into effect for the 2006-07 academic year, allows institutions to participate in one qualifying regular-season multiple-team event every season, though they can’t appear in the same event more than once every four years.
The rule was hailed as a significant upgrade from previous legislation that restricted participation in any certified multiple-team event to twice every four years, but some member institutions and conferences are concerned about possible inconsistent or incorrect application of the first-year bylaw.
At the February cabinet meeting, the playing and practice seasons subcommittee reviewed a few formats for multiple-team events that raised questions with some members about whether they were in keeping with the spirit of the new legislation.
For example, Team A hosts three institutions, and all four teams compete in a three-day round robin. Meanwhile, in the same event, Team B hosts its own four-team round robin. A week later, Team A and Team B meet in a predetermined contest that also is considered part of the same event. In other words, Teams A and B play three home games and then a week later play each other on one or the other’s home court, and each are allowed to count all four games as part of the multiple-team event.
Technically, that is permissible, though subcommittee members wonder whether it’s the kind of format the new rule was intended to generate. Subcommittee members even heard about potential alterations to that format in which either Team A or B would play Team C at a predetermined site even though Team C did not participate in the round-robin portion of the event. NCAA officials say that fourth game may not be included as part of the multiple-team event because Team C did not participate in the round robin. In effect, under that format, the two teams that compete in the fourth game must count that game against their limit of 27 contests.
Part of the challenge, subcommittee members say, is that the new legislation removed the certification component the NCAA used to apply to multiple-team events and does not specify that the event be arranged in a specific format. Since the NCAA no longer certifies the events, institutions are left to determine whether the format complies with the letter of the law. In most cases it does, but the subcommittee is concerned that schools will push the envelope too far.
“Certainly, people are being creative,” said subcommittee member Bruce Johnson, faculty athletics representative at Missouri State University. “This is about the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish here. We were thinking when the legislation was put together and eventually passed that everyone was on the same page.”
Rather than proposing an amendment right away, though, the cabinet subcommittee believes it is important to first clarify the intent of the bylaw and then monitor scheduling for another year to see its effect.
In that vein, the subcommittee is reminding schools of the parameters of the legislation as they assemble their 2007-08 basketball schedules.
Among the more salient points:
The event must be sponsored by the NCAA, an active or affiliated member or a member conference and must take place in the U.S. or one of its territories. Those entities may sponsor multiple events during the same academic year, provided the events are separate and distinct with different names and different participants. The last point is designed to promote and protect the integrity of the event and preclude a sponsor from simply lending its name to an event.
The event can include no more than four contests per institution and must end no later than 14 days after the first contest of the event. That is designed to promote a multiple-game event that is structured like a traditional tournament.
Participation in events is still limited to one team per conference, and an institution cannot compete in the same event over a four-year period. An entity may host distinctly separate events in consecutive years or more than once over a four-year period, but an event with the same name is considered the same event regardless of the venue or sponsorship arrangements.
For example, it is not permissible for an institution to host the “Sponsor A Classic” in 2006 and the “Sponsor B Classic” in 2007 if the Sponsor A Classic does not continue in 2007. An arrangement like that appears to be the same event occurring in consecutive years, with the only significant change being the name of the event. Such a case would require a review by the conference office or the NCAA to determine whether it complies with the intent of the rule.
Also, an event that involves 50 percent or more of the same teams, regardless of the site, title or sponsorship arrangements, is considered the same event and is not permissible.
Each institution participating in a qualifying multiple-team event must use Bylaw 17.5.5.1-(a) as its maximum contest limit for the playing season. The maximum number of contests allowed for teams competing in one multiple-team event is 27. Teams are allowed to play 29 contests if they are not participating in a multiple-team event.
Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford is familiar with the intent of the legislation, since his league sponsored it in the first place.
“We felt it was important to minimize the competitive advantage that could be gained by some institutions participating in multiple-team events, which would give those institutions 31 games in a season,” Swofford said. “Also, it helps the evaluation process when comparing teams that are chosen for the NCAA tournament.”
The bylaw also gives institutions the flexibility of not having to commit to play in a multiple-team event. They may choose to play 29 games and possibly add two additional home games or test themselves with nonconference road games.
Swofford said for the most part, institutions are complying with the intent.
“But we’re all going to have to keep a close eye on this as it evolves and see if it truly fits into the spirit of what was intended,” Swofford said.
The legislation, which went into effect for the 2006-07 academic year, allows institutions to participate in one qualifying regular-season multiple-team event every season, though they can’t appear in the same event more than once every four years.
The rule was hailed as a significant upgrade from previous legislation that restricted participation in any certified multiple-team event to twice every four years, but some member institutions and conferences are concerned about possible inconsistent or incorrect application of the first-year bylaw.
At the February cabinet meeting, the playing and practice seasons subcommittee reviewed a few formats for multiple-team events that raised questions with some members about whether they were in keeping with the spirit of the new legislation.
For example, Team A hosts three institutions, and all four teams compete in a three-day round robin. Meanwhile, in the same event, Team B hosts its own four-team round robin. A week later, Team A and Team B meet in a predetermined contest that also is considered part of the same event. In other words, Teams A and B play three home games and then a week later play each other on one or the other’s home court, and each are allowed to count all four games as part of the multiple-team event.
Technically, that is permissible, though subcommittee members wonder whether it’s the kind of format the new rule was intended to generate. Subcommittee members even heard about potential alterations to that format in which either Team A or B would play Team C at a predetermined site even though Team C did not participate in the round-robin portion of the event. NCAA officials say that fourth game may not be included as part of the multiple-team event because Team C did not participate in the round robin. In effect, under that format, the two teams that compete in the fourth game must count that game against their limit of 27 contests.
Part of the challenge, subcommittee members say, is that the new legislation removed the certification component the NCAA used to apply to multiple-team events and does not specify that the event be arranged in a specific format. Since the NCAA no longer certifies the events, institutions are left to determine whether the format complies with the letter of the law. In most cases it does, but the subcommittee is concerned that schools will push the envelope too far.
“Certainly, people are being creative,” said subcommittee member Bruce Johnson, faculty athletics representative at Missouri State University. “This is about the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish here. We were thinking when the legislation was put together and eventually passed that everyone was on the same page.”
Rather than proposing an amendment right away, though, the cabinet subcommittee believes it is important to first clarify the intent of the bylaw and then monitor scheduling for another year to see its effect.
In that vein, the subcommittee is reminding schools of the parameters of the legislation as they assemble their 2007-08 basketball schedules.
Among the more salient points:
The event must be sponsored by the NCAA, an active or affiliated member or a member conference and must take place in the U.S. or one of its territories. Those entities may sponsor multiple events during the same academic year, provided the events are separate and distinct with different names and different participants. The last point is designed to promote and protect the integrity of the event and preclude a sponsor from simply lending its name to an event.
The event can include no more than four contests per institution and must end no later than 14 days after the first contest of the event. That is designed to promote a multiple-game event that is structured like a traditional tournament.
Participation in events is still limited to one team per conference, and an institution cannot compete in the same event over a four-year period. An entity may host distinctly separate events in consecutive years or more than once over a four-year period, but an event with the same name is considered the same event regardless of the venue or sponsorship arrangements.
For example, it is not permissible for an institution to host the “Sponsor A Classic” in 2006 and the “Sponsor B Classic” in 2007 if the Sponsor A Classic does not continue in 2007. An arrangement like that appears to be the same event occurring in consecutive years, with the only significant change being the name of the event. Such a case would require a review by the conference office or the NCAA to determine whether it complies with the intent of the rule.
Also, an event that involves 50 percent or more of the same teams, regardless of the site, title or sponsorship arrangements, is considered the same event and is not permissible.
Each institution participating in a qualifying multiple-team event must use Bylaw 17.5.5.1-(a) as its maximum contest limit for the playing season. The maximum number of contests allowed for teams competing in one multiple-team event is 27. Teams are allowed to play 29 contests if they are not participating in a multiple-team event.
Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford is familiar with the intent of the legislation, since his league sponsored it in the first place.
“We felt it was important to minimize the competitive advantage that could be gained by some institutions participating in multiple-team events, which would give those institutions 31 games in a season,” Swofford said. “Also, it helps the evaluation process when comparing teams that are chosen for the NCAA tournament.”
The bylaw also gives institutions the flexibility of not having to commit to play in a multiple-team event. They may choose to play 29 games and possibly add two additional home games or test themselves with nonconference road games.
Swofford said for the most part, institutions are complying with the intent.
“But we’re all going to have to keep a close eye on this as it evolves and see if it truly fits into the spirit of what was intended,” Swofford said.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy