One issue that needs to be resolved by the NCCS Committee is how to create fairness in the national flag football and basketball systems. Inequities are created when you have large tournaments in one region, and smaller tournaments in another, particularly when revenue is generated at these tournaments that support a national program.
For example, this year in flag football Stephen F. Austin hosted the Region 4 flag football tournament. They drew approximately 60 teams. Iowa hosted the Region 5 tournament and drew eight men's teams. When comparing revenue generated at these tournaments (using 2009 fees), Stephen F. Austin will have generated $5760 to support the national program, while Iowa would have generated $768. Yet, these two regions have the same representation at the national tournament. This is fundamentally unfair to Region 4.
What recommendations do you have to balance this uneven equation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Maybe the "super" regionals get an extra team and officials bid to the National Tournament.
Maybe we explore why schools are electing not to participate.
Maybe some regions just can't support a regional tournament.
I'm not sure I have an answer. Could this be a topic at the Conference?
I think that the current system creates some tournaments being larger and more difficult to win (i.e. S.F.A.), the geographic distance for teams to travel should be the number one reason for having a large set of regional tournaments.
The team winning the tournament at S.F.A. will likely be a stronger team than the team that wins the Iowa St. tournament. This is because the team at S.F.A. will have played more top levels of competition.
Living in Colorado it is difficult to get an intramural team to travel to one of the regional tournaments that are sometimes a 15 hour drive away. While it is good that S.F.A. had so many teams at their tournament it is important to remember that to win the National Championship you still need to beat everyone. Providing regional tournaments that are geographically feaseable for teams to travel to is the best way to expand the national tournament.
So let me get this straight- You're equating revenue generation with representation? That's flat-out inappropriate. It sends the wrong message and will forever create inequalities in which schools can earn their way to national tournaments.
What about giving 16 bids to Nationals? The amount of bids a tournament gets would be based on participation.
In regards to finances, obvisouly, we need to keep costs at a minimum. I think the NCCS committee should have a predetermined fee that host schools should tack on to the entry fee.
I would ask the NIRSA NCCS committee to be cautious in forming additional procedures involving revenue generation and number of teams participating. i would think that we want to avoid creating a structure that limits or discourages involvement from areas of lower density of participation or revenue potential. These areas may grow to become stronger or they may simply continue to bring in participations that would otherwise not exist. I would like to see our emphasis and structure remain focused on participation opportunities that do not weight revenue generation or number of team entries too heavily. I left my job as a collegiate Athletic Director for a reason and would encourage us to be careful to not become too similar in our approach within these event types. I also would like to see us be careful that revenue and sponsorship is kept in check vs. our mission and purpose. Thanks for posting topic and for considering the thoughts of others in working through these challenges.
What if money weren't an issue?
How do we create fairness, in a championship format where participation is limited -- and regional participation is varied?
Participation would be limited, in part, because knowing we are going to have 36 national flag football teams or basketball teams is more predictable than thinking we might get 50 (and then getting 30). This allows us to budget appropriately for a national tournament.
By the way, those are random numbers -- so please don't read anything into the.
Furthermore, this is no knock on Iowa. They stepped up and put on a tournament in region 5 when no one else was willing to. Without Iowa, we have no representation from Region 5 for our national tournament. This has nothing to do with their numbers -- it has everything to do with inequities in regional participation -- and creating more proportional representation at the national level, based on regional participation.
Aaron makes a good point that gets to the crux of our dilemma. To truly have national representation at a national tournament, we need regional hosts that are willing to hold the tournament -- in each region. This would reduce travel demands, which in turn could increase regional participation.
In a recent survey sent to colleagues in the field, 85% sighted financial risk as the number one consideration when deciding whether to host or not.
So, how do we reduce the financial risks associated with hosting? One of the major steps we took was to standardize the entry fee at $300 and incorporate a revenue sharing plan between the host and the NCCS/NSC. While it's not perfect, it's a start that we can modify as necessary.
Ultimately, I'd love us to have two tournaments in every NIRSA region, as the regional map dictates. But in order to do that, we have to moderate some of the barriers that keep schools from hosting, primarily the financial risk.
So you see -- one way or another, it all comes back to money. Talking about our financial issues doesn't make the conversation "Innapropriate". It makes it valid. Yes, in a business model, representation is related to revenue-generation. Without it, we don't have a national sports program.
And as dav_exersize referenced,we need to balance revenue and sponsorship with mission and purpose. We are cognizant of that -- and it's an excellent point.
And Anonymous #2 -- excellent suggestion. That's the kind of suggestion that will help us find a reasonable solution.
Keep them coming.
Based on previous year's particpation numbers (number of teams total
vs. at one particular site). That would result in a number of bids to
nationals based on number of teams.
In other words if for all 8 sites there are 200 total men's teams that
participated and 50 of those men's team were at the Texas regional,
that regional would get 25% of its teams to receive a bid the
following year. And if the Iowa regional only had 10 men's teams, they
would get 1 bid (since you can't give 1/2 a bid). You could do it for
the current year, but that might be hard to predict.
So each region would get a proportionate number of bids based on teams
that attend its regional tournament. As long as even the smallest
region still gets at least one bid (or more if you decide to do that).
Sorry Chad, but you completely avoid defining what "unfair" means. Either revise the question, or elaborate on the definition of "unfair" in this context. If there is no existing rule on the minimum or maximum size tournaments can be, then maybe there should be. We could also adapt the method the NCAA uses in deciding the field of 64. Some conferences have greater representation than others. Maybe, in the example given...Iowa's tournament be given only 1 slot...SFA gets 3...get my point? A regional tournament's "purse" should not exceed its revenues. On that issue, I think we agree.
Two great points recently made by Anonymous. First -- fairness isn't actually defined -- what does fairness actually mean?
I kinda hoped you would all tell me. Here are the things we do know. (1) We want national representation at our national tournament, and (2) regional participation levels vary.
What I'm looking for is people's perspective on what fairness is and how we might achieve it. Maybe that clarifies the original post.
Everything is on the table in discussing this. I don't have an answer to it. I see one possible recommendation from Anonymous is to limit size of tournaments and/or require a minimum number of teams. That's something to be investigated -- but would meet resistance from current host sites that draw large numbers. And it might scare off potential host sites that are concerned about drawing teams -- particularly in an economic climate like this.
Let's see if I can shake the bushes with this one. Just talking this out, so don't get mad at me. If each tournament could host 30-36 teams and we could have a 3-game minimum, (so the $300 entry fee might make more sense to some), This would automatically limit the number of teams a regional could host, based upon their facilities. Regional host sites that could support more than this number, say 48 teams or more, could be designated super sites and be eligible for additional benefits (teams and stipends, staff and officials, etc.). This might address thier concerns. It wouldn't be proportionate, but it would be "earned" benefit for thier hosting a larger tournament. As regional hosts cap thier number of teams, this might create more opportunity for more regional tournaments within a NIRSA Region -- moving us towards our capacity of 12 regional sites. This would also, in theory, reduce travel time for some teams and reduce our carbon footprint that a lot of institutions are talking about (trying to be green).
I'd like to hear perspectives on this one.
The other suggestion was to give a proportionate number of "bids" to each regional based on actual participation. That's possible.
What complicates this scenario is that we offer "Awards" to qualifying teams to get to the national, which creates a financial burden. So, if we open up that much participation, who get's the stipend support and who does not?
Great stuff -- please help continue this dialogue. And if I still don't make sense, let me know.
Post a Comment