advertisement

03conv d3 champs

50 %
50 %
advertisement
Information about 03conv d3 champs
Sports

Published on September 6, 2007

Author: Waldarrama

Source: authorstream.com

advertisement

DIVISION IIICHAMPIONSHIPS ISSUES:  DIVISION III CHAMPIONSHIPS ISSUES January 13, 2003 Slide2:  AGENDA ‣ INTRODUCTION ‣ TRAVEL POLICIES ‣ DIVISION III FUTURE HOST MANUAL ‣ SELECTION CRITERIA ‣ BUDGET UPDATE Slide3:  ‣ AUTOMATIC QUALIFICATION ‣ 2003 CONVENTION PROPOSALS - Proposal No. 53 - Proposal No. 43 - Proposal No. 42 ‣ Q andamp; A Slide4:  INTRODUCTION CHAMPIONSHIPS COMMITTEE Stephen Argo  Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference Brad Bankston  Old Dominion Athletic Conference, chair Susan Bassett  William Smith College (new) Amy Campbell  Bryn Mawr College Susan Chapman  Worcester State College (new) John Cochrane  Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (new) Suzanne Coffey  Bates College William Eng  Bernard M. Baruch College Jaime Fluker  Carthage College Mary Jo Gunning  Marywood University Christopher Walker  University of Redlands Steve Wallo  Lewis and Clark College Slide5:  ‣ TRAVEL POLICIES  Competition against institutions located within 200 miles would count as in-region competition. Slide6:   500 miles and airport-hub policy.  Maintain policy to January 2004 and evaluate at that time. Slide7:   Continued study of ground transportation at all championships. Slide8:  ‣ DIVISION III FUTURE HOST MANUAL Slide9:  ‣ SELECTION CRITERIA Principles Why were changes made? How were changes made? What changes were made? Slide10:  Summary of Changes  Pool A – (AQs).  Pool B – Independent and nonqualifying conferences.  Pool C – Remaining Pool A and Pool B schools.  Pools are selected in order. Slide11:  Selection Criteria Criteria evaluated individually. Criteria weighted equally. Slide12:  - Primary Criteria (for selection and ranking).  Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.  Strength-of-schedule index (only contests versus regional competition). Slide13:   In-region head-to-head competition.  In-region results versus common regional opponents.  In-region results versus regionally ranked teams. Slide14:  Secondary Criteria (for selection and ranking).  Out-of-region head-to- head competition.  Overall Division III win- loss percentage. Slide15:   Results versus common non-Division III opponents.  Results versus Division III teams ranked in other regions (Once ranked always ranked). Slide16:   Overall win-loss percentage.  Results versus common out-of-region opponents. - Optional final 25 percent of season comparison (win-loss percentage). Slide17:  Related Topics  Required ranking.  Pairings and site selection. ‣ BUDGET:  ‣ BUDGET Slide19:  Division III Championships Budget EXPENSES 2002-03 2003-04 CHAMPIONSHIPS $9,647,700 $10,483,523 4% Inflationary and Enhancement Increases $385,908 $419,341 Base Budget Adjustment $422,315 -- Travel/Officials Fees Adjustment $26,040 -- Overhead $1,560 -- CONTINGENCY $500,000 $500,000 CHAMPIONSHIPS BUDGET $10,983,523 $11,402,864 Slide20:  Division III Budget 2002-03 2003-04 Revenue $13,427,009 $14,455,040 Championships Expenses $10,983,523 $11,402,864 Initiatives Expenses $ 3,889,280 $ 4,772,280 Total Division III Expenses $14,872,803 $16,175,144 Excess Expenses over Revenues ($ 1,451,794) ($ 1,726,104) Previous year’s unallocated funds $ 4,897,539 $ 3,451,741 Revenue for Future Expenses $3,451,745 $1,731,641 Less: Mandated Reserve (15%) $2,014,051 $2,168,862 BALANCE $1,437,694 ($437,220) ‣ AUTOMATIC QUALIFICATION (AQ) REVIEW:  ‣ AUTOMATIC QUALIFICATION (AQ) REVIEW Slide22:  2002-03 DIVISION III CHAMPIONSHIP BERTHS Fall Sports Pool A Pool B Pool C Field Hockey (18) 11 5 2 Football (28) 18 7 3 M Soccer (44) 33 6 5 W Soccer (45) 33 7 5 W Volleyball (48) 35 6 7 Slide23:  Winter Sports Pool A Pool B Pool C M Basketball (48) 36 5 7 W Basketball (50) 37 6 7 M Ice Hockey (9) 6 1 2 W Ice Hockey (7) 4 1 2 Slide24:  Spring Sports Pool A Pool B Pool C Baseball (42) 32 7 3 M Lacrosse (17) 13 2 2 W Lacrosse (19) 12 5 2 W Rowing (6) 1 5 0 Softball (43) 33 8 2 Slide25:  Increase access in all sports (team and individual-team sports). - AQs for individual-team sports (cross country, tennis and golf). CONTINUED STUDY Slide26:  - Additional request from individual sports. Monitor site selection philosophy and process. ‣ 2003 CONVENTION PROPOSALS:  ‣ 2003 CONVENTION PROPOSALS  PROPOSAL NO. 53:   PROPOSAL NO. 53 - National Collegiate Women’s Bowling Championship. Championship Expansion Proposal Nos. 43 and 42:  Championship Expansion Proposal Nos. 43 and 42 Proposals based on 2000-01 sponsorship numbers. Cost estimates based on 2000-01 expenses. No inflation included. - Football bracket is capped at 32 teams. Slide30:   PROPOSAL NO. 43 - Adds more Pool C berths in response to the number of AQ conferences. Responds slowly to sponsorship growth alone; helps control future costs. Slide31:  - Beneficial if future growth comes from the addition of new members that are independents or join existing conferences. Slide32:  - Establish initial field using 1:8 ratio. - Reserve half initial field for at-large (B + C). - Add number of AQs to get field size. Slide33:  Example: Women’s Basketball. 2000-01 sponsorship 386(36 AQ’s). Initial field: Divide 386 by 8  (386/8=48). Reserve half initial field for At-Large  (48/2=24). Add AQ champions to get final field  (24+36=60). Resulting bracket size: 60 teams.  PROPOSAL NO. 42:   PROPOSAL NO. 42 - Bracket size is dependent on sport sponsorship in each sport. Slide35:  - Provides a formula that reacts quickly to membership growth. - Provides equitable access for Pools A, B andamp; C. Slide36:  - Pool C access would not fall below two berths unless compelling situations mandate otherwise. - Provides a method to accommodate any change in the divisional structure (i.e., subdivisions). Slide37:  - Consistent with original AQ principles. - Applies consistent bracket ratio for all sports. Slide38:  - Field size determined by dividing number of competing teams by 6.5. Slide39:  Example: Women’s Basketball. 2000-01 sponsorship 386(36 AQ’s). Divide 386 by 6.5  (386/6.5 = 59.38). Resulting bracket size: 59 teams. Differences:  Differences Proposal No. 43 Yields larger brackets in sports with higher sport sponsorship and more AQ conferences. Proposal No. 42 Yields larger brackets in sports with lower sponsorship and fewer AQ conferences. Response to Growth:  Response to Growth Proposal No. 43 Responds slower to sponsorship growth. Responds to conference formation by adding one berth for each new conference over 50 percent of field. Proposal No. 42 Responds quicker to sponsorship growth. Responds to conference formation with equitable pool allocations. Slide42:  Proposal No. 43 Resulting bracket ratios range from 1:6.2 to 1:7.25. Proposal No. 42 Consistent bracket ratio of 1:6.5 for all sports. Slide43:  Baseline Proposal Expanded Bracket Size A B C Proposal No. 42 M Basketball 55 35 5 15 Proposal No. 43 57 35 5 17 Proposal No. 42 W Lacrosse 22 11 5 6 Proposal No. 43 20 11 5 4 Proposal No. 42 W Ice Hockey 6 3 1 2 Proposal No. 43 6 3 1 2 Slide44:  Expanded Bracket Size A B C Proposal No. 42 M Basketball 55 37 3 15 Proposal No. 43 59 37 3 19 Proposal No. 42 W Lacrosse 22 13 3 6 Proposal No. 43 22 13 3 6 Proposal No. 42 W Ice Hockey 6 5 0 1 Proposal No. 43 7 5 0 2 Scenario 1 – Two new 8-team conferences formed from Pool B. Slide45:  Expanded Bracket Size A B C Proposal No. 42 M Basketball 58 37 5 16 Proposal No. 43 60 37 5 18 Proposal No. 42 W Lacrosse 25 13 5 7 Proposal No. 43 23 13 5 5 Proposal No. 42 W Ice Hockey 8 5 1 2 Proposal No. 43 8 5 1 2 Scenario 2 – Two new 8-team conferences formed from new members (minimum 5 years). Slide46:  Expanded Bracket Size A B C Proposal No. 42 M Basketball 56 37 4 15 Proposal No. 43 59 37 4 18 Proposal No. 42 W Lacrosse 24 13 4 7 Proposal No. 43 22 13 4 6 Proposal No. 42 W Ice Hockey 7 5 0 2 Proposal No. 43 7 5 0 2 Scenario 3 – One new 8-team conference formed from new members and one new 8-team conference from Pool B (minimum 4 years). Slide47:  Expanded Bracket Size A B C Proposal No. 42 M Basketball 56 35 6 15 Proposal No. 43 57 35 6 16 Proposal No. 42 W Lacrosse 24 11 6 7 Proposal No. 43 20 11 6 3 Proposal No. 42 W Ice Hockey 7 3 2 2 Proposal No. 43 6 3 1 2 Scenario 4 – Increase of 8 new independent members, no new conferences formed (minimum 2 years). Costs Estimates(Baseline Scenario):  Costs Estimates (Baseline Scenario) Proposal No. 42 Total cost: $7,621,594 Division III Budget Increase: $1,275,067 Proposal No. 43 Total cost: $7,615,157 Division III Budget Increase: $1,268,630 Slide49:  ‣ Q andamp; A

Add a comment

Related presentations