The NCCS – A 5-Year Plan for Flag Football and Basketball
What will these National Sports Programs look like in 5 years?
This was the question I asked the NCCS committee at our annual summit just a few weeks ago. It touched off what I might describe as a colorful debate. Our task was to forge a vision of what these programs might look like in 2013-14. This is a summary of our vision.
· Flag Football and Basketball will employ a Championship format. Teams will qualify for this tournament at one of up to 12 regional tournaments throughout the country. Two teams from each of these regional tournaments will advance to a national tournament site to compete in the national championship tournament. An open collegiate tournament would take place alongside this championship tournament, balancing our dual missions of participation and championship play.
· Qualifying teams will receive support from a number of agencies, including the NSC and their corporate partners, the NCCS through the regional tournament structure, and from the team’s own college, university or military institution.
· These tournaments will be run by NIRSA professionals selected by the NCCS committee. These selections will be based upon the stated interest of the candidate and his/her qualifications relative to the standards established by the NCCS (these standards can be viewed on-line at http://www.nirsa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Sports/NationalCampusChampionshipSeries/nccs_staff.htm )
· The professional development experience that NIRSA members take part in will be grounded in learning outcomes and professional development goals consistent with the NIRSA mission and NCCS guiding principles.
· These tournaments will be both affordable to students/institutions and fiscally responsible in their operation. We will partner with corporate sponsors when that partnership advances the interests of our programs and adds value to the student and professional experience. We will operate these tournaments regardless of partners in the business world.
· The student experience will be outstanding. By creating a financial infrastructure that reduces barriers to participation; by selecting time frames that minimize conflicts with school; and by selecting host sites that offer a broad recreational and social experience with a variety of exciting ancillary activities, students will identify the NCCS brand as being synonymous with high quality competitive sports activities.
From this point forward our goal will be to fulfill this vision. Our decision making process will be shaped by it. At the same time, we will be alert to opportunities that can enhance this vision; we extend our hand to all students and professionals who share this vision – and those who do not.
Steps to achieving this vision have already begun. The NCCS committee and its various work teams have already partnered with many other NIRSA committees and professional and student members to start this process. Please join us as we chart this new path together.
Future Hot Seat Articles will touch upon the critical decisions necessary to fulfill this vision. If you have input regarding this vision (pro or con), or the steps necessary to achieve it, visit the NCCS Blog site at http://nirsa-nccs.blogspot.com/ and share your thoughts.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Permanent Regional Sites: A Regional Structure….what if?
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Standards and Qualifications for NCCS Tournament Staff
The 3rd annual NCCS Summit took place last week, July 28-30 in Phoenix, AZ. The group addressed a number of important issues regarding NCCS events.
The NCCS committee approved job descriptions and qualifications for tournament staff, including the Director of Officials and Director of Competition positions at the national tournaments. Flag Football nationals will be the first tournament effected and then move into full effect with basketball regionals in the spring.
For those wishing to apply to work at the NCCS Flag Football National Tournament, more details will be forthcoming via eFASTNEWS and NIRSA KNOW. In the meantime, click on the following link to check out the minimum qualifications:
http://www.nirsa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Sports/FlagFootball/flag_football.htm -- located in the box on the right hand side.
A special "Thank You" to Jacob Tingle and the entire professional development work team and the many other NIRSA professionals who contributed to the development of these standards.
If you have comments or concerns about these standards, please post them here.
The NCCS committee approved job descriptions and qualifications for tournament staff, including the Director of Officials and Director of Competition positions at the national tournaments. Flag Football nationals will be the first tournament effected and then move into full effect with basketball regionals in the spring.
For those wishing to apply to work at the NCCS Flag Football National Tournament, more details will be forthcoming via eFASTNEWS and NIRSA KNOW. In the meantime, click on the following link to check out the minimum qualifications:
http://www.nirsa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Sports/FlagFootball/flag_football.htm -- located in the box on the right hand side.
A special "Thank You" to Jacob Tingle and the entire professional development work team and the many other NIRSA professionals who contributed to the development of these standards.
If you have comments or concerns about these standards, please post them here.
Monday, July 14, 2008
What would make a Championship Model Successful?
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)
