For about a year now, the NCCS committee has been discussing the concept of changing the format of our national competitions from an Open Model of competition, where any team can participate in our national championship, to a Championship Model, where teams must qualify to compete at the national tournament. In a recent conference call, the committee agreed to move forward with the concept – to look at implementing a Championship Model for all of our national championships. Within those same discussions, there was a majority opinion that a Hybrid Model might work best, where a Championship Tournament takes place alongside an open tournament, at the same facilities, at the same time. I call this the Soccer Model, because it is currently employed with great success in our Soccer Championships.
A somewhat modified format exists for our tennis championships, where teams qualify at sectional tournaments. Moreover, non-qualifying teams that have competed in a sectional tournament can sign up for the national tournament on a first come, first served basis.
That leaves volleyball, flag football and basketball. Well, volleyball seems to be the furthest from this structure, where a very successful national tournament employs an open tournament format. Let’s leave that one alone for a while. Mr. Gary Colberg will be joining us at the summit in a couple of weeks to help us understand how this might or might not work in a future NCCS volleyball tournament.
That leaves football and basketball – two traditional “extramural” events – as the most likely tournaments to be initially transitioned. But what are the issues that we need to consider in this transition? Why do it? And how do we make a National Championship Tournament successful in this format?
Let’s make the case for the transition.
· Creates a true national championship
· Emphasizes participation in our regional tournaments
· Financial support to regional winners may be only avenue for teams to compete at the national level, thus increasing interest at the regional level
· Creates a unique collegiate tournament experience
· Creates a financial infrastructure that can help support the national tournament
· This format is more attractive to corporate America, increasing the likelihood of attracting and keeping important partners in the business world.
· For some schools, this format validates their student participation in national sports programs, creating greater opportunity for institutional financial support for their participating teams.
· We have the ability and flexibility to offer a Hybrid Model
Let’s make a case against transition:
· Why change? What we have works.
· A Championship format abandons our traditional roots – our philosophy of open participation for all.
· Emphasizing regional tournament play will put a greater burden on regional tournament hosts.
· It takes a lot of money to make this work – particularly if we provide travel stipends to regional champions (and runners-up).
Now, we understand that this shift to a Championship Model isn’t enthusiastically accepted by everyone. We also understand that this model may not be the best format for all of our championships; and that, even if it is, the timeline for transitioning to this model varies greatly between our championships. That’s why we are posting it here.
The NCCS Committee is interested in your thoughts. Please feel free to provide your opinions on this topic and/or new variables to consider when its time to reach a decision. The only thing we ask is that your comments:
1. Are on task to the matter at hand;
2. Provide input based on facts and not conjecture (if you need information, please email me…I’m happy to provide what I can); and
3. Are conducive to follow up comments.
Our summit occurs July 28-30, and we will discuss this issue extensively. The committee would appreciate any perspective you can provide prior to those dates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
My biggest concern with this model for Flag Football is that for the first two years of the NIRSA National Tournament, there has been a really poor showing from the winners and runner ups from regionals. The first year all winners and runner ups had entry fees and travel stipends paid for but still didn't show up.
Mark - that's a very valid point. Do you think in some way that is attributable to the timing of the tournament the first two years? Location?
Jacob Tingle
Being in a state (SC) where we just recently got state extramurals (flag, basketball, softball) off the ground in the past few years, I understand where Crager is coming from in his previous comments. Yes, we are going to face some difficulty in getting anything new/different to really take hold.
However, if the NCCS Committee and NIRSA are truly committed to creating this national championship, then it almost seems like we have to see it through (for at least 4-5 years). If the goal is, again, to create a national championship, then the regionals are a must and now will much more emphasized.
Is that what we want? On my campus, and I think most campuses, the kids just want to play as much as possible. They want more games than they get during on-campus league play, they want to go to the state tournament, regional tournament(s) and national tournaments. Further, to them, they'd go to ACIS or NCCS tournaments, they don't care. I think its going to be up to the IM Sports professionals to direct the teams what to do and where to go.
In that way, the NCCS Committee may find themselves in the business of ways to market to professional staff the benefits of going to NCCS Regionals and then qualifying for the National Tournament.
Mark - I don't know the exact numbers for flag or basketball the last few years...but I do know when the NIBC was in Atlanta we had a pretty high percentage of regional winners attend. The issue with the current model is that outside of those teams...the tournament was more or less a glorified regional event. So, your concern for flag football applies to basketball as well.
Are there any concerns that the ACIS national basketball tournament used this exact same structure up until a couple of years ago? It wasn't exactly wildly successful.
What makes this format a "true" national championship? Is there some sort of criteria that makes it qualify?
Thanks to those who posted yesterday. I'll try to provide my input as breifly as possible to the issues that I can.
Mr. Brost's comment raises an important question. Can we learn from the mistakes or conditions that have lead to previous failures? We should be analyzing the conditions that lead to ACIS's failures, rather than assuming that because they failed, so will we. Am I concerned about it? Sure, to the extent that all of these concepts precipitate change, and therefore involve risk. However, the fact that ACIS failed to make this work does not deter me from thinking we will succeed.
Mr. Crager's comment is valid, though a tad bit imprecise. We did have lower than desired participation from our regional champions, and to a far greater extent, from our regional runners-up (in 2006 we provided $1500 to our regional champs and $750 to regional runner's up). In 2006, we had roughly 56% of regional champs attend the national and 32% of our regional runners-up. In 2007, we had 83% of our regional champs attend our national championship. So we have seen progress. But Mark's point is valid, in that, we want more than that. In a conversation with Mark a while back, he correctly stated that we are always going to run into problems with that time of year, whether it is before new years or after new years, because there are just too many time demands on student's time -- whether it be family vacations, the holidays, the impending start of classes, and so on. (Sorry Mark -- I took the liberty of paraphrasing) Our challenge is to provide the best package we can to get the highest percentage turnout possible.
Finally, a true national championship is one which has national representation, with equal opportunities for qualification at the regional level. Is "true" the best word to describe that? Probably not. Does this proposed format meet those criteria? Not sure. I'd like to hear how we make that happen, which brings us back to the original posted question.
Thanks again to all who posted. And please keep the comments coming. We need this conversation.
Chad Ellsworth
I would like to commend you for your forward thinking about these issues and for allowing us the membership the opportunity to discuss these issues. I like you believe that the hybrid model would work the best for all of NCCS sponsored sports.
I would like to focus my comments on the Volleyball tournament. My comments will be honest and to the point.
The NCCS volleyball championship are great and they could be even better if improvement and or modifications could be made in the near future.
Most NIRSA sport club programmers love the current concept, however the open model currently being used opens the entire NIRSA membership and your committee to many unwanted problems. Let me say that I understand the this championship is a huge cash cow for the NIRSA and that the bottom line is very important. However, the numbers are continuing to growing and the governance along with the health, welfare and safety of the sport club athletes are tested to say the least. I know for a fact that the NIRSA can only go to certain city's across the USA because of the size of the tournament, facility space needed and because of past (hotel) problems that have occurred in the past. This should be a red flag for all are involved with this event.
Another issue is the entire cost of this tournament (entry fee, travel, lodging and food for our teams) The prices never seem to go down, just up. At our institutions we are held accountable for the use of our resources and we are expected to be fiscally responsible. Why is this not the case with this NIRSA event? Should we do everything possible to keep the cost affordable? I believe we should.
Here is some food for thought regarding a case for the transition:
Creating a true national championship, emphasizes that this event is serious by nature and that is it not just another spring break opportunity for those who can afford to go. Teams with losing records should not receive the same consideration as a team who have won their league championships.
We should emphasizes the use of a regional format. This would allow everyone to participate and would allow us the professional to do things at a grassroots level. We would apply the philosophy of open participation for all who wish to be considered. Then everyone would have a chance to EARN a spot to the nationals! We would let the teams decide who should represent their region at the national championships. We the sport club professional are the one who should be running this event because that is what we do via our jobs. It would provide a much need hands on approach teaching the new professionals and students how to run and manage tournaments. This is professional development by it very nature.
This type of regional tournament format would provide a unique collegiate experience and it could be done in a way that it should control cost and make money for the NIRSA to run the national championships. I like you believe that providing some financial support to the regional place finishers is a must and give all teams something to strive for. It also creates a financial infrastructure that can and should support the national tournament. As you stated this type of hybrid model could be packaged in such a way that it becomes more attractive to corporate America.
Also at the regional championships we can work to improve awareness about rules, polices and procedures regarding all aspects of the national tournament. We could provide governance at the grassroots level, instead of putting this burden on a all volunteer staff (which currently happen at the volleyball championships now) We know and network with the professionals and students within our regions, we should be the one expected to help run this type of event and we could fix and or address a problem before it could happen at the national tournament.
Money should not be the only determining factor for all decisions. We all know that you have to spend money to make money and if the this money can help the students we are charged to sever then how can the concept be wrong. We already use the regional format for other NCCS Soccer and Tennis and it works. The amount of people who participate in this event are about 20 times the amount of people (professional and volunteers) who are willing to work at this event. If people were trained and groomed on how to run this type of event at a regional event, them maybe we just increased our talent pool who should and could help the NIRSA run the championships. Again the NIRSA provides the best learning experiences for everyone who work or participates in recreational sports, we should use this to our advantage.
In closing, Hopefully you can see that I want to help make things better for everyone who is involved. It is not my intention to point out problems. We all know them and I don't want to point out who is responsible for these problems. However we must want to make things better to ensure that we the NIRSA are serving the students to whom we serve.
For the record, my team has enjoyed participating in the championships over the years. However over the past three years the problems that take place before, during and after the tournament is creating huge problems. Our department will now require that a professional staff member travel to the championships to ensure that the health, welfare and safety issue are addressed by someone. Unfortunately that someone is us the NIRSA! University's, students and parents want and are demanding accountability in all areas and we must continue to provide this accountability. NIRSA takes everyone's money, provide the venue and we run the tournament for these teams the best we can. We can fix these problem if like you said we are all willing to work together.
Thank you for your time!
Respectfully Submitted,
Joe
Joseph D. Muscarella, CRSS
SUNY @ Buffalo - R&I Services
Assistant Director, Sport Clubs
In response to Chad's question about helping make a "true" national championship:
In some conversations, there has been debate about risking ending the traditions of many state and regional tournaments with a long and storied history - how this Championship Model with improved emphasis on Regional events may hinder those previously successful tournaments. The argument goes that these events would be adversely affected in prestige by rendering them not as important as NCCS sponsored regional tournaments. In other words, if a state or separate regional tournament would like to raise funds through sponsors locally and provide their winning team entry and travel to the National Tournament, this new Championship model would negate that opportunity, as only winners of NCCS recognized regional tournaments would be awarded entry into the National Championships.
By default, that is what makes a “true” National Championship. Each of the NCCS regions provides schools and teams equal access to a playing field, whereby a winner gets a shot at a National Championship. It’s not like we’re implanting the BCS for our extramural events…
At the risk of sounding "heartless", moving forward into a new and exciting format cannot be hindered by what has been successful in the past. In fact, if the Championship Model moves forward, the prestige of these state and regional tournaments could be enhanced while accomplishing the mission of the NCCS. For example, a state tournament champion could be awarded entry and travel to the regional tournament with a chance to qualify for Nationals on the line. I don't necessarily think that a Championship Model will kill these local tournaments. I do think if those who operate these tournaments refuse to support the mission and goals set forth by the NCCS, problems can arise (i.e. – NCCS decides to go the Championship Model route, and these local tourneys elect to pay for their teams to attend National ACIS events instead of NCCS regionals)
Further, the argument that students will feel there are less opportunities to compete holds little merit. In our profession, there is a high turnover of students - it's called graduation. As a new Championship Model evolves, new students coming into our programs would know little of previous models and formats that allowed anyone into National Championships, and over a period of time, would come to accept qualifying at regional tournaments as part of the "normal" National Championship process.
As a group, it should be our goal to provide a great experience to as many students as possible. In the current "OPEN" format, there is no difference in attending a regional and national tournament. As Dan said, our Nationals have the feel of "glorified" regionals. In the same light, what purpose do our regional tournaments currently serve? As a player, I would be inclined to spend money on entering an open National Tournament, not wasting time at a regional event. I don't see how the current "open" model provides a National Championship tournament experience that qualifies as "great". The proposed idea for Basketball with Powerade at the Final Four provides a great tournament experience. The number of teams might be limited, but imagine the extra incentive involved to win a regional tournament with a trip to the Final Four as the prize.
The Championship Model puts more pressure on regional events, no doubt. However, I think there are plenty of qualified people throughout NIRSA to make those events better and successful, especially with the assistance of those working with the NCCS on workteams and as the Committee leaders. Trepidation in regards to regional events can't possibly be a reason to fear a new Championship Model.
As Jake mentioned, there has to be patience in seeing the process through - we can't realistically expect students and full time staff to accept drastic changes without some ruffled feathers. However, looking forward to what can be built over time makes expected problems in the near future manageable - especially when the rewards for a cohesive, respected, and outstanding National Championship model are in place.
Andy Lemons
July 22, 2008 9:14 AM
Greetings everyone.
Joe, buddy, got some free time on your hands do ya? How long did that take to write :-) lol, thanks for your thoughts, all valid points, just picking on you. I fear this might be as long.
Anyway, Jacob, to answer your question about the timing of the national tournament being an attribute to poor showing I believe the answer is NO. Their was no indication, rather the opposite, that the timing was of issue. I believe a survey found that most participants liked having the championships for FlFb after the New Year (at least I believe that is what Dan shared in Austin at the round table).
Now to Chad's question as it relates to FlFb and BB.
If we limit the number of teams to the national we are limiting the participation experience and professional development opportunities for our students.
There is and always should be a difference between the club championships and the extramural championships.
Fewer teams mean fewer officials and the smaller the tournament the fewer professional opportunities provided to our members.
The current model DOES "create a true national championship". The team left standing at the end of the tournament, no matter how they got there, are the Champions.
Crager is absolutely right (did I just write that). How can we depend on the Regional winners and/or Runner-Ups to attend? I also agree with Zac Brost. The ACIS model was developed by NIRSA members and had a lot of financial support. We cannot ignore this just because it was ACIS. That model was not successful and not appealing to corporate America.
Lastly, the point about administrators not allowing their intramural participants to travel because s/he did not agree with the format? Seriously? Do schools really tell their students they can't go because of the tournament format? I never knew that and find that disturbing in itself.
I'll get off my soap box now. Again, my response is only in regards to the FlFb and BB championships. I still think you have me beat Joe!
Kurt
Isn't this fun?!! Again, thanks to all for posting.
Let me start my "moderation" by saying that a Championship Model doesn't necessarily limit participation. The only thing that limits participation in this model is facility space and time. Some make the assumption that qualifying tournaments (regionals) have only one team advancing. That doesn't have to be the case. We could take the top one, two, three, or more teams. But each will have qualified by playing in the regional structure. Everyone on the NCCS committee understands the participation issue and the impact that size of tournament has on the opportunities it creates for student officials, staff and professionals. What has become known as the "Hybrid Model" answers those questions. In this model, a collegiate open tournament is played at the same time as a championship tournament, much like soccer does. It could have as many teams as we had at last year's tournament, with four (actually, up to six in FFB, with men's women's and corec divisions) tournaments running at the same time.
Why do this? Why might this be an enhanced format?
Well, this brings me to Kurt's last point about administrators preventing their teams from travelling beause they disagree with the format. And I'm glad Kurt posted this because this brings us to some of the critical elements of our debate.
There are really two key elements here. One is format; "What is the format that best draws the most students to our championships?" The other is institutional support for national sports programs -- which impacts access for students into our championships.
First, the format of our tournament has long been open. Anyone can come play in any of our tournaments, so long as they could afford to make the trip. We still operate this way for basketball and flag football, and to some degree volleyball. Would a change in format to a qualifying tournament, along with an open tournament (Hybrid Model), prevent these same students from attending? I think not -- they just want to play.
However, there is a whole other population of students that are attracted to the more structured qualifying tournament, like the NCAA or Professional model. Moreover, there is a population of administrators and their institutions that view these tournaments the same way -- that competitive sports should be offered in a structured way the creates equal opportunity for advancement into a national tournament. To answer Kurt's post, it's not that they don't support their teams becuse they disagree with the existing format; it's because they don't see an existing format. What we have, in their eyes, is a collection of regional tournaments leading to another regional tournament, that we call a national tournament.
And I don't mean to disrespect what exists and the people who have built it, because what we have has been great. But let's realize that it doesn't meet the needs of everyone.
So, why can't we have both?
Which leads me to the second critical question regarding our championships; where is the institutional support for these national sports programs?
Why is the NSC footing the bill for our institutional teams to travel and compete in our tournaments? I know they don't cover expenses for all, nor all of the expenses, but it accounts for a very high percentage of our budgeted expenditures.
What must we do to get ASU and other schools to financially support teams to go to our tournaments? Why don't they? What would be required for them to find value in it? Some schools already do. How do we get more of them?
For some institutions, a more structured format adds validity to the student's experience and creates a more likely case for financial assistance, which creates a more accessible tournament for our students.
For administrators like me, it means finding additional money to support my teams. But is it more likely that I find support for two or three teams OR is it more likely that my committee finds support for 16 or 32 or 48 teams. It's an entirely different perspective about how to perpetuate our tournaments.
Resolving the question of whether or not a championship model can work -- or if our national sports programs can continue -- might come down to these two critical issues.
Thanks all -- sorry for the lengthy "moderation". I do respect and appreciate all of your viewpoints. Please keep them coming.
Hello everyone,
It’s nice to see Sport Club and IM Sports folks debating the topics of the NCCS/NSC.
Thank you Chad for opening this line of communication.
I believe it is important to recognize the things that make the extramural experience differ from the club sport experience. I will paint with a broad brush so please forgive me if I gloss over a specific spot or two. Please correct me if I've got something wrong...
Extramural participants are:
1. Students (& faculty or staff at some schools).
2. Military personnel.
3. Compete on-campus for intramural championship in given sport
4. Are made aware of extramural opportunities through IM Sports staff or info may be handed down from year to year.
5. May travel to state, regional(s) and national events.
6. May or may not care who is endorsing/sponsoring/hosting the tournament
7. Want a quality experience for an affordable price.
Club Sport participants are:
1. Students (Faculty and Staff are not eligible for Sport Club nationals)
2. Compete intercollegiately, year-round
3. Seek out opportunities for games/tournaments through leagues and conferences
4. May travel or host events every weekend (as money allows)
5. Have made the choice to pursue their sport as a large part of his/her college experience
6. Would like to compete for a championship (evidenced by joining a league/conference)
7. Want a quality experience for an affordable price
Let’s not forget the students we serve through the NCCS are coming from different situations.
I support the hybrid model. It works well for soccer. This model gives teams the option to enter a track that could lead to qualifying for championship. In theory, they get to be tested against the best competition through state and regional (league and conference) tournaments. If they don’t qualify, the team can still enter the open division.
The open division exists for those teams that didn’t qualify or can’t afford, or simply choice not to enter a state or regional (league or conference) tournament. State and Regional events provide additional opportunity for students and professional staff alike.
I serve on the Volleyball work team this year and I hope we can address many of the issues Joe mentioned. In my opinion the volleyball tournament MUST change in order to stay viable. The behavior of the teams and the sheer number of teams must be managed in a way that maintains the integrity and intent of the event as well of code of conduct of the NIRSA. 300 volleyball teams in the current format is a recipe for disaster.
I hope that the fact that volleyball produces a LARGE amount of “excess revenue” that is used to subsidize NSC initiatives does not preclude the NCCS from making change.
I’m happy to talk or email with anyone who has questions or comments.
Bob Gough, 910-962-7758, goughr@uncw.edu
Thanks again Chad for the opportunity.
Hope to see you all in Charlotte, NC
-Bob Gough
Chad thank you for your response, I do admit I like the hybrid model you wrote about. I always liked the soccer model and can honestly say it would work, it certainly addresses some of my concerns.
Post a Comment