NCAA News Archive - 2010

back to 2010 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index

    • Print
    DII weighs regional selection process

    Feb 4, 2010 9:22:36 AM

    By Gary Brown
    The NCAA News

     

    The Division II Championships Committee is weighing the feasibility of allowing regions to determine their own selection criteria for various NCAA championships – and whether a Rating Percentage Index should be added to the criteria toolbox.

    As part of an ongoing review of selection criteria and the current Division II regionalization model, the Championships Committee at its meeting this week in Indianapolis appointed two subgroups to conduct a year-long review of how best to determine teams and individuals for Division II championships competition.

    Included is an examination of all the criteria sport committees use and why those committees so frequently ask the Championships Committee for approval to change them. The review also will examine whether criteria can be more consistently applied across more sports. The idea of regional autonomy in determining those criteria also will be studied.

    "The concept of autonomy is just that – a concept," said Janet Montgomery, associate director of athletics at West Alabama and chair of the Division II Championships Committee. "We're examining all of this from a broad perspective and trying to determine whether there's a better way to operate when it comes to postseason selections in all our sports. The idea is to more clearly define the best method of selection for our membership."

    Two years ago, the Championships Committee offered a template for selection criteria to make them more uniform among sport committees, but the Championships Committee even since then has seen an influx of requests for adjustments.

    As part of its comprehensive review, the Championships Committee also will consider a Rating Percentage Index for appropriate team-championship sports to help with postseason selection.

    The RPI − a weighted index composed primarily of a team's winning percentage, that team's opponents' winning percentage and its opponents' opponents' winning percentage − has been a tool several Division I committees have used (particularly men's and women's basketball) to help guide bracket decisions for many years.

    While Division II sport committees do not use an RPI, many do rely on the components that compose it. The RPI, as a compilation of those three components, would be another tool those committees could use.

    Championships Committee members heard from NCAA Director of Statistics Jim Wright, who has overseen NCAA-generated RPIs for Division I sports for more than two decades. He said while the statistics staff at the NCAA national office compiles these indices, the RPI is not recommended to committees as a silver bullet for selections. Rather, Wright said, committees are advised to become comfortable with the RPI on an informational basis before committing to it as a selection criterion.

    That observation blended with the Championships Committee's broader discussion on selection criteria in general.

    "The consideration of an RPI in sports where it might make sense is another example of why such a broad-based review is prudent," Montgomery said.

    She cautioned, though, that the Championships Committee's dalliance with the RPI doesn't mean the index will automatically be adopted down the road. She also said the committee will rely on membership feedback and encouraged commentary on how the RPI might help. Division II members are urged to talk with Championships Committee representatives about the potential benefits.

    The review also will include a look at the division's regionalization model implemented almost two years ago that includes a contiguous-state approach to help teams play more in-region contests. At the time, the Division II Presidents Council promised a review of the model after three years. The Championships Committee is particularly interested in how the influx of new Division II members over that time has affected the regionalization model, if at all.

    Championship site selection

    In addition to the selection criteria discussion, the Championships Committee approved the following championship sites and hosts for 2011:

    The committee also approved the following hosts for six of the eight regional competitions in the 2010 Division II Men's and Women's Cross Country Championships:

    The committee will determine hosts for the other two regions (Central and Atlantic) during a subsequent conference call.

    In other action, the committee: