|
|
     
|
Palin takes issue with DII policy - Feb 17, 2009 | 11:38:46
posted by: Marta Lawrence
This post was written by Director of the NCAA News Gary Brown. It isn't often that a Division II policy change attracts attention from politicos, but a recent contingency plan adopted by the Division II Championships Committee has caught a pretty big fish. Gov. Sarah Palin has written the NCAA to complain about the contingency plan that could affect the way regionals for this year's Division II basketball championships are staged. The plan would be triggered when seven of the eight teams in the current eight-team regional format would be required to fly to the No. 1 seed's campus. Palin has a dog in the hunt this year, since Alaska Anchorage's women's team currently is the top seed in the West region and would earn the right to host the regional if that seeding holds up for the rest of the regular season. Since seeds two through eight would have to fly to Anchorage, the Division II Women's Basketball Committee could implement the contingency plan that would divide the eight-team regional into two, four-team subregionals, one hosted by Alaska Anchorage and the other hosted by the No. 2 seed. The Anchorage Daily News reports that in her letter, Palin claims the plan "creates two classes of membership - institutions that are allowed to host an eight-team regional and those that are not allowed to host, based on geography." Palin seems to be alluding to the same concern broached during Championships Committee discussions about the contingency plan, which was whether it gives an undue advantage to the No. 2 seed by paving a clearer path to the regional final than it would have in an eight-team format. While that's certainly a debatable point, the Championships Committee felt that the contingency plan was the proper compromise in that it protects the right of the No. 1 seed to host, but in a responsible way that could save tens of thousands of dollars in the Division II championship budget (it also reduces the burden on institutional budgets of the participating teams since per diem almost certainly would fall well short of the actual cost of competing in a remote location). Palin, though, calls the plan "inappropriate" and "unfair." For example, the current regional rankings in men's basketball would position BYU Hawaii as a No. 1 seed and Western Washington as the No. 2 seed. But the rest of the seedings would have Central Washington flying to BYU Hawaii and Chaminade flying to Western Washington. In that case, the two four-team subregionals don't make much sense logistically and probably is not worth implementing even if it saves a few thousand dollars. It's also important to note that the contingency plan was adopted on a trial basis for the rest of the academic year. The Championships Committee will review whether it needs to be carried forth, tweaked or scrapped when it meets in June. Sometimes competitive equity and fiscal responsibility clash. While that might be the case here, the Championships Committee took the steps it considered prudent to protect the championship experience for student-athletes and provide a more fiscally responsible model for championship travel. The Championships Committee understands that it manages all Division II championships expenses under a preset budget per allocations from the Association's media agreements with CBS and ESPN. The committee is mindful that reasonable accommodations and adjustments in travel policies that the group implements now might help strengthen the division's financial position so difficult cost cutting measures (for example, reduction in bracket sizes) will not need to be offered as solutions down the road. In this particular case, then, the committee struck a balance between fiscal and competitive concerns, which is a point Palin might be missing. 
CommentsI feel the NCAA decision to change the regional format at such a late date is in poor form. A decision of this magnitude is something that should make it's way through the legislative process. While the adjustment made by the NCAA effects the entire Division II population, the fact is that the Hawaii and Alaska schools are being discriminated against based on location. No amount of political spin will change the actual purpose of the decision made, which in my opinion, is to save money at the expense of the Hawaii or Alaska schools. As hard as it is to earn the privilege to host a regional, I feel for the eight schools who may get a cheapened version and am disappointed by the NCAA decision in this area. I think this would never have been an issue if the leading teams were not from Alaska and Hawaii. I guess we will all have to wait and see the hypocrisy of the NCAA when a team like Montana State Billings or Northwest Nazarene Chico State or Dixie State end up hosting in the future. I don't know if either UAA or BYU Hawaii will end up being the #1 seed - but even if they are not, this shows that these teams are not treated equally as the other teams in the west by the NCAA. Since the NCAA obviously sees the cost discrepancies of being in Alaska and Hawaii, maybe the NCAA should implement specific rules to help these schools (that are members of the NCAA) out with recruiting and travel costs. Oh, and by the way... If the NCAA is short on money than I own ocean front property in Arizona. With all the costs and fees that the NCAA charges every student-athlete through the clearinghouse... please give us all a break. The article written by Director of NCAA News, Gary Brown, is a cheap shot at Gov. Palin and an attempt to distract from the unconscionable act of changing the regional site selection long after the season started. I empathize with a committee making difficult decisions, but changing the "rules of the game" at this time of the year, is a dangerous precedent. I have to agree with Palin. I can't believe I'm saying that. UAA worked hard to get where they are. The state of Alaska worked hard to support the University and to take half of the competition away because of the price tag is unfair to schools that work hard but may be off the beaten track. The NCAA knew the costs when they allowed UAA and BYU Hawaii into the association. The institutions have been baring the costs of travel from their locales for years and now that they are on top it is time for the NCAA to put up or ... First time I ever thought I'd say this... she has a good point. However, this is far too late in the year to make such a change. Tell her to "hold back on her soccer mom attitude". NCAA needs proper time for processing this idea. Not this year Sarah! I don't agree with the NCAA. The big part of the regional is having all the teams at one site & get to feel that idea of how big the event is. I also feel that the extra travel is not fair for the team that has to travel. I think many of these comments are losing site of the fiscal reality of the situation. Of course the NCAA should treat Alaska and Hawaii as the members they are, but the NCAA also pays for teams to travel to these sites. What good is a regional that appeases Alaska and Hawaii, but bankrupts a division? Yes, this is the same division that has funding problems yet was able to It's interesting to see that something that causes a firestorm in Division II -- NCAA penny-pinching -- has been a fact of life in Division III for as long as I can remember. If it is apparent that the plan would be "inappropriate" or "unfair," as Palin says, the committees wouldn't do it. That is, until the NCAA liaison steps in and overrules them. At least, that's how it's worked in Division III in football AND basketball the past two years. Do the coaches and ADs on the D-II committees really get to overrule the NCAA beancounters? I find that unlikely. The Division II Presidents Council voted to provide the money to Katrina victims, making it a membership-based action in response to one of the worst disasters in American history. Also, the Katrina funding occurred in 2005 and not during the biggest global fiscal collapse in 80 years. Regarding the championship bracket, I'll bet you see many more of these types of modifications throughout the membership in the weeks and months to come. Look at the Southern Conference, which recently cut back on the number of teams that are going to be permitted to compete in its postseason tournaments. That's a much more drastic action than what is being done in Division II. These sacrifices are tiny compared to the pain that millions of Americans are enduring at this moment. How about some perspective? Post a Comment |
  
It means that two very good teams with very good coaches made it to the final game.
- Marie
   
|
