As I mentioned in my last article the NCCS Committee began to look strategically at the next 5 years for all of the NCCS sports properties. The underlying emphasis is to bring the extramural championships to the next level by formulating a “true” national champion, and Flag Football is the first sport we tackled. Listed below is the 5 year plan for growth and development of the sport:
2009/2010 Championships - Will be an “open” format in that any colligate or military team is eligible to register and play.
2010-2011 Championships – Will be a “modified open” format, which any collegiate or military team that has participated at a NCCS Regional tournament will be eligible to register and play
2011-2012 Championships – Will shift to an qualifying tournament, which top teams in each division (up to 4) qualify from every NCCS Regional. That would allow for a 48 team tournament, (24Mens, 12Womens, 12Co-Rec or 16Mens, 16Womens, 16 Co-Rec, depending on the saturation of teams). If a qualifying team can’t attend the tournament a waiting list will be made, and replacements will be drawn from the waiting list. The waiting list can consist of NCCS regional participants only.
2012-2013 Championships - Same as 2012
2013-2014 Championships – Tournament format will stay the same as in 2012 and 2013, with the exception that the waiting list would be derived from the order of finish at each NCCS regional tournament. For instance, if the 2nd place from the Region 4 tournament was unable to attend, one of the quarter final teams would receive the invite.
The NCCS is committed to providing travel stipends for the teams that finish first, in each division, at each NCCS regional for all five years. However, as the committee continues to solve the puzzle of balancing the budget this may change positively or negatively in the years to come.
The focus of this plan is twofold, 1) increase the growth at the regional level and 2) create a quality National Championship. In this down economy when our participants and institutions are restricted with how much extra funding they may have, a regional tournament can hopefully be more affordable while still providing a great opportunity for the student participants. By moving to a format where all teams have to participate at the regional level to be eligible for Nationals, we hope to see an increase in teams at the regionals. That growth at the regional level can increase the benefits of hosting, as well as looking further into the future to seeing more regional sites added to accommodate that growth, which means more professionals and students can experience the benefits of hosting a tournament.
The second focus is to create a “true” national champion at the Championships. By qualifying through a regional, the National Championship takes on a more serious tone and provides an experience that no one else can provide to the students. The NCCS committee has been working closely with the NIRSA National Center to continue to add enhancements to the National Championships to be a truly unique event for the student participant, professional volunteer, and student volunteers.
Check the NCCS Web page for a listing of the upcoming Flag Football Regional hosts, the first one starts Oct 17. http://www.nirsa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Sports/FlagFootball/flag_football.htm
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Flag Football Update
At the 2009 NIRSA Conference several actions were taken by the NSC Board and the NCCS Committee to address concerns about Flag Football Regional and National tournaments for the Fall of 2009.
First, concern was expressed about the entry fee and the percentage of revenue that was being used to support the national flag football budget -- that per team "royalty fee" that each host would pay. It has been decided that each regional host can set their own entry fee, as long as they contribute the per team fee as previously discussed. That "royalty fee" has been reduced from $75/team to $50/team for the fall 2009 season.
We have also been given 5 years, instead of three, to reach our goal of a balanced budget for flag football and basketball. Therefore, we will begin anew, in earnest, to identify a 5-year plan that brings us to that goals. We will be intentional about including hosts in our dialogue.
Announcements of our regional tournament hosts and their dates has been delayed as they review these new host criteria. As soon as we get committments from schools, we can announce our dates and locations for 2009.
First, concern was expressed about the entry fee and the percentage of revenue that was being used to support the national flag football budget -- that per team "royalty fee" that each host would pay. It has been decided that each regional host can set their own entry fee, as long as they contribute the per team fee as previously discussed. That "royalty fee" has been reduced from $75/team to $50/team for the fall 2009 season.
We have also been given 5 years, instead of three, to reach our goal of a balanced budget for flag football and basketball. Therefore, we will begin anew, in earnest, to identify a 5-year plan that brings us to that goals. We will be intentional about including hosts in our dialogue.
Announcements of our regional tournament hosts and their dates has been delayed as they review these new host criteria. As soon as we get committments from schools, we can announce our dates and locations for 2009.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Revenue Sharing -- What's Too Much?
OK -- here's your chance to give us guidance on the "Revenue Sharing" part of our plan.
As you should know, part of our plan for addressing revenue generation is to increase the entry fee for teams and to share the revenue between the regional hosts and the national program budget (by national I mean all expenses at the regional and national level).
Our basic formula was this (for football):
10% goes straight to the regional host as revenue.
7% goes to cover costs of insurance
25% Goes to the NCCS to cover expenses
58% is used as operational funds for the tournament. If there is additional revenue here, the host keeps it.
Additionally, the NIRSA stipend of $2000 would go to the host as support for the regional. And insurance wouldn't be taken out because the entry fee has covered it (7%). And last year, Powerade provided an additional $1000 for schools that could implement their sponsorship at their regional tournament.
Breaking this down to dollars -- in a $300 entry fee -- $30/team goes to the school. $21/team goes for insurance. $75/team goes to support the national program. And $174/team goes to support the operational costs of the tournament.
The $75/team is used to fund travel stipends or the national tournament operations costs or the regional stipends, or t-shirts for regionals or whatever other expense comes with running the national/regional program.
Please give me your perspective on "fairness" for each party. Again, fairness is not defined. Does it seem right? Is it unbalanced? What's the best formula?
Thank you.
As you should know, part of our plan for addressing revenue generation is to increase the entry fee for teams and to share the revenue between the regional hosts and the national program budget (by national I mean all expenses at the regional and national level).
Our basic formula was this (for football):
10% goes straight to the regional host as revenue.
7% goes to cover costs of insurance
25% Goes to the NCCS to cover expenses
58% is used as operational funds for the tournament. If there is additional revenue here, the host keeps it.
Additionally, the NIRSA stipend of $2000 would go to the host as support for the regional. And insurance wouldn't be taken out because the entry fee has covered it (7%). And last year, Powerade provided an additional $1000 for schools that could implement their sponsorship at their regional tournament.
Breaking this down to dollars -- in a $300 entry fee -- $30/team goes to the school. $21/team goes for insurance. $75/team goes to support the national program. And $174/team goes to support the operational costs of the tournament.
The $75/team is used to fund travel stipends or the national tournament operations costs or the regional stipends, or t-shirts for regionals or whatever other expense comes with running the national/regional program.
Please give me your perspective on "fairness" for each party. Again, fairness is not defined. Does it seem right? Is it unbalanced? What's the best formula?
Thank you.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Possible National Flag Football Tournament Formats
Historically, our national flag football tournaments have been open tournaments in which any team meeting our eligibility criteria could participate. At this moment, that's the plan for Fall 2009 at the University of South Florida.
Let's discuss some alternative possibilities to the open format.
Championship Format has been adopted by the NSC and NCCS as the tournament format we will employ in future tournaments. What does that mean? Very simply, it means that we use our regional tournament structure to determine our national tournament field. That definition provides us quite a bit of flexibility to "shape" the national tournament.
Why do we need to "shape" the tournament? Primarily because we have to control costs for these tournaments. Determining the number of qualifying teams allows us to set our expenditures, and therefore, our target revenue for that event.
Here are some options.
1) Regional Champions Only are invited to the National Championship.
2) Regional Champions are invited, along with a select number of invited teams who have participated in an NCCS regional tournament. This could be additional teams from larger tournaments, it could be historically strong IM teams that didn't win their tournament, or it could be other criteria to draw good teams from our national pool.
3) Establish a number of teams in each Championship Tournament (this keeps cost predictable), plus a collegiate open division for teams that did not qualify.
Let's discuss some alternative possibilities to the open format.
Championship Format has been adopted by the NSC and NCCS as the tournament format we will employ in future tournaments. What does that mean? Very simply, it means that we use our regional tournament structure to determine our national tournament field. That definition provides us quite a bit of flexibility to "shape" the national tournament.
Why do we need to "shape" the tournament? Primarily because we have to control costs for these tournaments. Determining the number of qualifying teams allows us to set our expenditures, and therefore, our target revenue for that event.
Here are some options.
1) Regional Champions Only are invited to the National Championship.
2) Regional Champions are invited, along with a select number of invited teams who have participated in an NCCS regional tournament. This could be additional teams from larger tournaments, it could be historically strong IM teams that didn't win their tournament, or it could be other criteria to draw good teams from our national pool.
3) Establish a number of teams in each Championship Tournament (this keeps cost predictable), plus a collegiate open division for teams that did not qualify.
- 16 Men's Championship + 16 Men's Open
- 12 Women's Championship + 12 Women's Open
- 12 Co-rec Championship + 12 Co-Rec Open
In a recent survey of NIRSA professionals, the Championship with Concurrent Open Format was the most popular of these tournament formats, followed closely by the second option -- a weighted invitational tournament.
I like these concepts, but how do we account for the additional financial burden these teams place on the tournament (i.e. more staff hotel rooms, meals, apparel -- more player awards, etc.)?
If we can answer this question, we are much closer to implementation than one might think. Please feel free to provide input on your format of choice and an suggestions on financial structure.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Regional Fairness in a National System
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?
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?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
2009 NCCS Regional and National Basketball
Basketball season is upon us and I wanted to make you aware of some of the new developments in the NCCS Basketball Regional and National Tournaments this year. I'll try to lay out how basketball will happen this year as we incorporate a Championship Format and push forward with standardization.
First of all, most of you are aware that the National Championship will be played at the NCAA Final Four site in Detroit, Michigan . Our intramural sports teams must qualify for the National Tournament by winning one of eight regional tournaments held throughout the country. For a list of those regional tournaments, go to http://www.nirsa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Sports/Basketball/basketball.htm on the NIRSA web page.
Each of these eight regional tournaments is an open tournament, meaning any of our intramural teams can sign up and compete. They don't have to be our campus champions. ANY team that meets our eligibility criteria can enter and play. The cost to enter each of these tournaments is set at $300. Each of these eight tournaments will send a men's team and a women's team to the national tournament.
Each qualifying team will receive a $3000 stipend to cover costs of hotel, travel, and other expenses (except for the four closest teams from Miami and Western Michigan -- which will receive $2500 each) . Since hotel reservations for teams needed to be made in advance, the NNC has committed part of this $3000 to each qualifying team's hotel expense. One less thing for teams to worry about, right? The remaining balance of their stipend can be used for travel, food or other expenses incurred.
The regional tournament directors will determine which teams advance. Of course, winning teams will be offered the first right of refusal to attend. If the winning team can not attend, the regional tournament director will offer the "bid" to the runners-up. We will have 16 teams present at our championship, each of which will have qualified through competition.
POWERade is the title sponsor of our national basketball program. They were instrumental in getting the NCCS access to the Final Four and have accepted a substanital financial burden to make it happen. Additional partners in this event include Champion, who will be providing apparel for teams and staff at the national tournament. CBS College Sports will be televising parts of the men's and women's tournaments, and will televise, in their entirety, the championship games for each division. These games will be televised live nationally on CBS College Sports. These partners provide significant enhancement to the student experience and provide substantial value to our regional and national tournaments.
First of all, most of you are aware that the National Championship will be played at the NCAA Final Four site in Detroit, Michigan . Our intramural sports teams must qualify for the National Tournament by winning one of eight regional tournaments held throughout the country. For a list of those regional tournaments, go to http://www.nirsa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Sports/Basketball/basketball.htm on the NIRSA web page.
Each of these eight regional tournaments is an open tournament, meaning any of our intramural teams can sign up and compete. They don't have to be our campus champions. ANY team that meets our eligibility criteria can enter and play. The cost to enter each of these tournaments is set at $300. Each of these eight tournaments will send a men's team and a women's team to the national tournament.
Each qualifying team will receive a $3000 stipend to cover costs of hotel, travel, and other expenses (except for the four closest teams from Miami and Western Michigan -- which will receive $2500 each) . Since hotel reservations for teams needed to be made in advance, the NNC has committed part of this $3000 to each qualifying team's hotel expense. One less thing for teams to worry about, right? The remaining balance of their stipend can be used for travel, food or other expenses incurred.
The regional tournament directors will determine which teams advance. Of course, winning teams will be offered the first right of refusal to attend. If the winning team can not attend, the regional tournament director will offer the "bid" to the runners-up. We will have 16 teams present at our championship, each of which will have qualified through competition.
POWERade is the title sponsor of our national basketball program. They were instrumental in getting the NCCS access to the Final Four and have accepted a substanital financial burden to make it happen. Additional partners in this event include Champion, who will be providing apparel for teams and staff at the national tournament. CBS College Sports will be televising parts of the men's and women's tournaments, and will televise, in their entirety, the championship games for each division. These games will be televised live nationally on CBS College Sports. These partners provide significant enhancement to the student experience and provide substantial value to our regional and national tournaments.
Now, I know the current economic environment is pretty dismal. But, because of our business partners and thier support of our championship format, we are in a very good position to continue to provide a very high quality experience at our National Basketball Tournament. Our students should see enhanced quality and access. To provide that, in these times, is pretty darn good.
So, please do what you can to (1) inform your intramural teams about the opportunities at your region's NCCS tournament(s), and (2) support your intramural teams if they show interest in attending.
Moving forward on Standardization
Hello all, thank you for your patience as I worked through some "technical" issues with the blog. This series of blog topics will focus on the two newest of the NCCS charges.
Those charges are:
Those charges are:
- (1) creating and implementing a self-sustaining funding model for basketball and flag football regional and national championships, and
- (2) standardizing, to the extent possible, our regional tournaments in basketball and flag football.
Whether or not you have noticed, the NCCS has actually tried to make progress in that regard this year. In flag football regionals, we tried to use a decentralized approach to financially support the national tournament. In this model, which had mixed success, regional hosts were asked to provide entry fees for winning teams ($400/team), travel stipends for officials (4 @ $150) and cover the cost of their insurance. The cost of these expenses to the regional host could have been as high as about $3000, depending on the number of divisions that actually occurred at their tournament. Multiplying that by 8 regionals comes to $24,000, which is a decent percentage of what it costs to run the tournament. Due to a number of factors, we didn't actually generate that much revenue. Regional hosts did receive the $2000 NIRSA stipend (minus insurance) and the $1000 POWERade stipend, for a total of $3000 of financial support from the NSC/NNC. Fees were not standardized. Each regional tournament set their own entry fees.
Now, in basketball, we are attempting to do the same thing through a centralized model. In this model, fees are standardized at $300 for every regional tournament. Of that $300, $90 of it flows back to the NSC to financially support the national tournament. That's it. In theory, it relieves the host's burden of having to deal with regional travel stipends, regional officials and their stipends, entry fees and so forth. It simplifies the process. Critics might say it takes away the professional development aspects of running a tournament like this. That might be true, but the host still has to do everything they did before, including developing a budget (to run on $210/team, plus the NSC and POWERade stipends), recruiting teams, finding local sponsorship, all of the operational elements of the tournament; I could go on and on. In the end, a centralized approach seems to be more efficient administratively, with less financial risk, for the host institution.
The other difference between basketball and flag football this year is that in basketball, we employed a championship format. Championship format means that the only way a team gets to play in the National Championship is by winning a regional championship. Teams must participate in and win a regional championship to advance to the national. Flag football employed open regional tournaments and an open national tournament. What difference does this make? Well, financially, it makes it much easier to determine expenditures and staffing levels if you know the number of teams you are going to have. From a budgetary perspective, championship format makes life easier.
Let me know which model -- centralized or decentralized -- you would prefer. And, of course, let me know why you feel one is more appropriate than the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
