National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Scheduling plan provides relief for schools in flux
Interim solution allows teams to operate under different regionalization models
Interim solution allows teams to operate under different regionalization models
|
By Gary T. Brown
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
The Division II Championships Committee has developed an interim solution to the issue of regionalization that provides some much-needed direction for sports that have begun scheduling under guidelines previously approved for 2007-08.
Division II earlier had approved a comprehensive plan — after two years of membership debate — that provided one regional map for all Division II sports, instead of the current system in which regions are determined on a sport-by-sport basis. The plan, developed by the Regionalization Task Force, supported by the Championships Committee and eventually adopted by the Division II Presidents Council last April, was designed to reduce travel and missed class time for student-athletes by dividing the nation into eight regions based on state boundaries and conference memberships.
Since the plan’s approval, though, at least one conference cited concerns that the plan put its members at a disadvantage. The Presidents Council investigated those concerns and others (such as emerging uncertainties in conference alignments and membership affiliation) and decided in January to hold off for at least one year on implementing the new plan.
That action, however, left institutions in some sports that were slated to implement the plan for 2007-08 wondering how to arrange their schedules. Many schools in fact were far along in the scheduling process.
To address the issue, the Championships Committee at its January 30-February 1 meeting in Indianapolis approved an interim scheduling plan to accommodate those schools that may have already scheduled contests under the new regionalization model. The interim plan applies to men’s and women’s basketball, field hockey, men’s lacrosse, women’s soccer, and women’s volleyball — sports that were scheduled to implement the new model in 2007-08.
Under the interim plan, any additional contests that need to be scheduled in those sports for next year should be scheduled against schools in the current regional alignment (in other words, the alignment in place for 2006-07).
“This interim plan will help coaches and institutions in their scheduling for this coming year,” said Mike Covone, chair of the Championships Committee and athletics director at Barry University. “That was our goal. It accommodates institutions that are deep in their scheduling for next year.”
Under the interim scheduling plan, the following contests will be considered in-region:
Contests against schools that are members of conferences assigned to the given institution’s current regional alignment.
Contests against schools that are members of conferences assigned to the given institution’s region in the new regionalization model.
Contests against schools in a state contiguous to the state in which the given institution resides.
Contests against schools in the given institution’s state.
“The interim plan provides the flexibility for those schools that need it to schedule under the parameters provided in both the current and new regionalization plans,” said Covone. “It was important for us to provide an interim system in which no institution is disadvantaged.”
Covone noted the interim model applies only to regular-season contests. Conference alignments for postseason will remain the same as the current regional alignment.
Championships Committee members provided some examples to illustrate their point. For instance, a women’s volleyball team in the Southwest region is currently aligned with the Lone Star, Heartland and Rocky Mountain Athletic Conferences, and under the new model is aligned with those conferences plus the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association.
Under the interim scheduling plan, that team could consider as in-region contests any matches against schools from any of those four conferences. In addition, matches against opponents in states contiguous to the institution’s — and matches against in-state teams — would be considered as in-region contests.
Postseason competition in that example, though, would include only the Lone Star, Heartland and Rocky Mountain Conferences.
Another example is a basketball team in the South Atlantic region. That team’s current regional alignment (2006-07) includes the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the South Atlantic Conference and the Peach Belt Conference. The new regionalization model includes the Carolinas, South Atlantic and Peach Belt Conferences. Again, the 2007-08 regional alignment under the interim scheduling plan to determine in-region contests for the South Atlantic Region would include institutions in any of those conferences. The in-state and contiguous-state applications in the previous example also apply.
Postseason competition in that example, however, would include only the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the South Atlantic Conference and the Peach Belt Conference.
Covone said the interim scheduling plan will be communicated and provided to the Division II membership and will include information on how it affects each region for men’s and women’s basketball, field hockey, men’s lacrosse, women’s soccer, and women’s volleyball.
To address the regionalization issue beyond 2007-08, the Presidents Council has appointed an “advisory board” to help the Championships Committee study and review potential regionalization models. The Presidents Council has asked Roberta Page, director of athletics at Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, to chair the board. Page is a member of the Division II Management Council and the Championships Committee.
The advisory board, which will include representatives from conferences in regions that might be affected by any change, will meet later this month, as well as in April and June. During that time, the board will provide updates to the Division II membership, including various associations, groups and committees, for the purpose of seeking input and feedback.
Covone said all options will be considered, including the interim plan. “We’re open to looking at everything,” he said. “We’ll work through the advisory board to assess and evaluate the alternatives. Hopefully by the end of this year we’ll come up with a plan that is acceptable to all our members.”
The Championships Committee will next meet in June to assess whether to adopt a new regionalization model or whether an interim scheduling plan is necessary for 2008-09.
January 30-February 1/Indianapolis
Division II earlier had approved a comprehensive plan — after two years of membership debate — that provided one regional map for all Division II sports, instead of the current system in which regions are determined on a sport-by-sport basis. The plan, developed by the Regionalization Task Force, supported by the Championships Committee and eventually adopted by the Division II Presidents Council last April, was designed to reduce travel and missed class time for student-athletes by dividing the nation into eight regions based on state boundaries and conference memberships.
Since the plan’s approval, though, at least one conference cited concerns that the plan put its members at a disadvantage. The Presidents Council investigated those concerns and others (such as emerging uncertainties in conference alignments and membership affiliation) and decided in January to hold off for at least one year on implementing the new plan.
That action, however, left institutions in some sports that were slated to implement the plan for 2007-08 wondering how to arrange their schedules. Many schools in fact were far along in the scheduling process.
To address the issue, the Championships Committee at its January 30-February 1 meeting in Indianapolis approved an interim scheduling plan to accommodate those schools that may have already scheduled contests under the new regionalization model. The interim plan applies to men’s and women’s basketball, field hockey, men’s lacrosse, women’s soccer, and women’s volleyball — sports that were scheduled to implement the new model in 2007-08.
Under the interim plan, any additional contests that need to be scheduled in those sports for next year should be scheduled against schools in the current regional alignment (in other words, the alignment in place for 2006-07).
“This interim plan will help coaches and institutions in their scheduling for this coming year,” said Mike Covone, chair of the Championships Committee and athletics director at Barry University. “That was our goal. It accommodates institutions that are deep in their scheduling for next year.”Under the interim scheduling plan, the following contests will be considered in-region:
Contests against schools that are members of conferences assigned to the given institution’s current regional alignment.
Contests against schools that are members of conferences assigned to the given institution’s region in the new regionalization model.
Contests against schools in a state contiguous to the state in which the given institution resides.
Contests against schools in the given institution’s state.
“The interim plan provides the flexibility for those schools that need it to schedule under the parameters provided in both the current and new regionalization plans,” said Covone. “It was important for us to provide an interim system in which no institution is disadvantaged.”
Covone noted the interim model applies only to regular-season contests. Conference alignments for postseason will remain the same as the current regional alignment.
Championships Committee members provided some examples to illustrate their point. For instance, a women’s volleyball team in the Southwest region is currently aligned with the Lone Star, Heartland and Rocky Mountain Athletic Conferences, and under the new model is aligned with those conferences plus the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association.
Under the interim scheduling plan, that team could consider as in-region contests any matches against schools from any of those four conferences. In addition, matches against opponents in states contiguous to the institution’s — and matches against in-state teams — would be considered as in-region contests.
Postseason competition in that example, though, would include only the Lone Star, Heartland and Rocky Mountain Conferences.
Another example is a basketball team in the South Atlantic region. That team’s current regional alignment (2006-07) includes the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the South Atlantic Conference and the Peach Belt Conference. The new regionalization model includes the Carolinas, South Atlantic and Peach Belt Conferences. Again, the 2007-08 regional alignment under the interim scheduling plan to determine in-region contests for the South Atlantic Region would include institutions in any of those conferences. The in-state and contiguous-state applications in the previous example also apply.
Postseason competition in that example, however, would include only the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the South Atlantic Conference and the Peach Belt Conference.
Covone said the interim scheduling plan will be communicated and provided to the Division II membership and will include information on how it affects each region for men’s and women’s basketball, field hockey, men’s lacrosse, women’s soccer, and women’s volleyball.
To address the regionalization issue beyond 2007-08, the Presidents Council has appointed an “advisory board” to help the Championships Committee study and review potential regionalization models. The Presidents Council has asked Roberta Page, director of athletics at Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, to chair the board. Page is a member of the Division II Management Council and the Championships Committee.
The advisory board, which will include representatives from conferences in regions that might be affected by any change, will meet later this month, as well as in April and June. During that time, the board will provide updates to the Division II membership, including various associations, groups and committees, for the purpose of seeking input and feedback.
Covone said all options will be considered, including the interim plan. “We’re open to looking at everything,” he said. “We’ll work through the advisory board to assess and evaluate the alternatives. Hopefully by the end of this year we’ll come up with a plan that is acceptable to all our members.”
The Championships Committee will next meet in June to assess whether to adopt a new regionalization model or whether an interim scheduling plan is necessary for 2008-09.
Other highlights
Division II Championships Committee
January 30-February 1/Indianapolis
- Asked staff to study the current nullification values through the 2006-07 season to determine the method that should be used in calculating those values for postseason selection. Division II adopted the nullification plan to apply to cases in which an ineligible player competes. The nullification system applies to only the offending teams; whereas the previous forfeiture system affected that team’s opponents as well.
- Reviewed a proposal referred by the Management Council that would expand the composition of the Championships Committee to include one representative from each Division II conference. The Management Council did not support that proposal, but it asked the Championships Committee to consider a composition policy that would ensure regional representation. The Championships Committee agreed that regional representation provides sound composition but opted against making a recommendation until the regionalization issues have been resolved.
- Agreed to appoint committee members as liaisons to various sports committees. The role is strictly to enhance communication and share information. Championships Committee members will not attend sport committees’ annual meetings, championships or other in-person activities.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy