Recently, the NCCS adopted a regional map that is consistent with the 6-region NIRSA map. Within the NCCS regional map, each region is divided into two sub-regions, making our maximum tournament capacity equal to twelve tournaments.
Why did we adopt such a map? Well, it was a bit of a compromise.
First, between the NIRSA regional map (used more often by sport club championships) and the 8-region map used exclusively by extramural tournaments, there was an obvious lack of consistency, which led to confusion all over the place.
Second, the sub-regions were developed to reduce the distances teams might travel to attend a regional tournament.
Third, it provides us flexibility if our regional tournament structure requires growth or retraction.
And finally, a more controversial – and I think, exciting – opportunity for the NCCS. If we choose to, we could designate four to six of these tournaments as permanent regional sites, or super-sites, and still have up to six regional tournaments rotating on an annual or bi-annual basis.
Let’s be honest with ourselves – there are a number of regional host sites that have hosted forever and will continue to do it every year, whether or not they are selected as an NCCS host site. Maryland, Southern Mississippi, Arizona State, Ohio State might be examples of such tournament hosts. Others might become so if they knew we were serious about this possibility.
What do we have to lose? Not much, in my opinion, as long as (1) we provide opportunities for other schools and professionals to host, if they so desire, and (2) as long as each tournament upholds NCCS standards of competition.
What do we stand to gain? Consistency…Dependability…Predictability….all of which are desirable for students, professionals and participants.
Let me hear your thoughts on this topic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am in favor of having permanent regional sites. Many of the sites that Mr. Ellsworth mentioned as annual hosts have the tournement proceedures down to a science which makes them run very smoothly. As a school who was a first time host I know it may take a year or two to work out all the kinks no matter how much planning is done. If permanent sites are created we can provide our participants with the best possible experience which can in turn make them more likely to return in the future. I think we can all agree that having more teams fosters a better atmosphere and makes the tournament more enjoyable for teams that attend even if they do not win.
Ben Wakely
Oklahoma State University
I like the concept of permanent sites and regional rotating sites very much. Here at Maryland we average about 70-80 teams a year and will continue to host this event with or without NIRSA. We made the decision in 2001 to commit to NIRSA, a commitment we have never regretted. This system would allow the older traditional tournaments to continue (as long as they comply with the NCCS Standards and are successful). It would also allow those institutions who have never hosted to have the opportunity. I support this 100%.
Post a Comment