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.

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.

• 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.

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?

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.

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:

• (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.

What's an appropriate entry fee for extramural tournaments?

OK. Easy question here.

What would you consider more important --

(1) a low entry fee for a regional basketball tournament, or
(2) a higher entry fee with enhanced quality, like entry into the national tournament?

Please provide a rationale so we can follow your thinking (and create some debate).

What about Volleyball?

I've had several committee members and colleagues ask me recently, "Why all the focus on basketball and flag football? What about soccer and volleyball?"

Okay -- let's talk about them.

What should we do about the Volleyball Championships? In their current form, the volleyball championships attract approximately 250 collegiate teams each year. This tournament is easily the largest and most representative of our national championship tournaments. So what's the problem?

Well, here are a few of the concerns that surround the volleyball championships.

1) Size and Format of the Tournament
The size of the tournament requires us to rent convention centers to hold our tournaments. This has both positive and negative outcomes. There are those that suggest we should return to campuses to host regional qualifying events -- consistent with our National Championship format adopted by the NCCS. The NCCS Committee has taken this stance. The question is, "What would this look like and how will it impact the existing championship?" Do we truly understand what it will take to accomplish this and are we, the NCCS and the NIRSA membership, willing to commit what it takes to see that through? Regional qualifying events require regional hosts. They require professionals willing to run tournaments. They require teams willing to attend and pay entry fees that can support the tournament and the winning teams qualifying expenses. Are we prepared for that? Are students?

2) Behavioral Issues
When you have 250 collegiate teams in one or more hotels surrounding the convention center, there will inevitably be behavioral issues that lead to increased expenditures -- we call it security. This has proven true for the NCCS. These behavioral issues are not uncommon when you get 2500 college students together in the same place. Issues of concern include alcohol use and abuse, sexual health, safety and security, among others. The question is, what does the NCCS do about it? Are we doing enough to safeguard the students that attend? Is that our role? The problem -- and yes there has been a problem -- hasn't been in the convention center or competitive venues. The problems occur in the hotel rooms that are reserved by these students. Noise violations, property damage, alcohol and alcohol related behaviors do pose a reputational risk to the NCCS. So we must address it in some way -- and we have. Is what we have done enough?

3) Cost
There are inherent costs involved when you rent out a large convention center -- costs that increase the amount of money a team must pay to attend. Facility rental, maintenance and custodial services, set-up and take down, staff meals, security and a host of other expenses are incurred at a higher rate than at a college or university (generally speaking). Moving these same expenses back to campus might create lower teams costs, but you then would be adding an additional level of play required for qualification to the national championship. Add these costs up -- which is better for students or institutions that foot the bill?

That's all for now. I know I haven't covered all of the issues, but I hope there are those of you who will help drive this conversation. Let me hear your feedback.