{"id":24669,"date":"2002-06-14T11:39:38","date_gmt":"2002-06-14T16:39:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.uscho.com\/2002\/06\/14\/committee-submits-report-to-ncaa-firmly-objects-to-continued-regionalization\/"},"modified":"2010-08-17T19:54:27","modified_gmt":"2010-08-18T00:54:27","slug":"committee-submits-report-to-ncaa-firmly-objects-to-continued-regionalization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wp-admin.uscho.com\/2002\/06\/14\/committee-submits-report-to-ncaa-firmly-objects-to-continued-regionalization\/","title":{"rendered":"Committee Submits Report to NCAA; Firmly Objects to Continued Regionalization"},"content":{"rendered":"
In a bold statement of its objection to regionalization, the Division I Men’s Ice Hockey Committee, along with the committees of 13 other sports, has submitted a report to the NCAA’s Championships and Competition Cabinet. In doing so, the committee also provided an outline to the Cabinet for how it believes the NCAA tournament should proceed under a 16-team, four-regional format.<\/p>\n
In the last week of June, the Cabinet will convene for its quarterly meeting with the important “regionalization” item on the agenda. In anticipation, it asked for official thoughts from all the sports that were affected.<\/p>\n
The ice hockey committee obliged with a detailed look into its vision for the future.<\/p>\n
Regionalization is a plan implemented by the Cabinet last year that eventually forced the men’s ice hockey committee to create NCAA tournament brackets that strictly adhered to geography. With only 12 teams and two regions to juggle, the tournament field ended up greatly imbalanced.<\/p>\n
The plan was defended as a reaction to the tragic terrorist actions of last Sept. 11. Even though regionalization of some form had previously been discussed by the NCAA as a way to save money, Sept. 11 was the catalyst to implementing a strict plan that was intended to limit teams from having to travel by air.<\/p>\n
The critics doubted the effectiveness of the plan, and lamented the affect it had on the tournament. The concern was that regionalization would continue as a cost-saving measure, even with air travel fears having subsided.<\/p>\n
The ice hockey committee’s report reiterates its belief in a “national” tournament. It also acknowledges the further complications that will arise with the creation of four four-team brackets, which will occur with the expected August rubber stamping by the NCAA’s Executive Committee of the tournament’s expansion to 16 teams.<\/p>\n
As a result, more than just opining that regionalization should be scrapped, the committee laid out a detailed proposal for how it believes the tournament should be arranged in the future.<\/p>\n
In the plan, the committee continues to acknowledge the importance of maximizing revenue by keeping high-draw and host schools in their home region, but also emphasizes the importance of a “national feel” to the tournament.<\/p>\n
Ice hockey has some clout, considering the 2002 men’s tournament netted over $1 million in revenue for the NCAA.<\/p>\n
Of the 17 NCAA sports affected by regionalization, 14 have submitted reports objecting to its continuation. However, two that supported it, men’s soccer and women’s soccer, have already been following a form of regionalization even before last season, and have much bigger tournament fields, making it easier to offset the affects of regionalized brackets.<\/p>\n
The final supporter, Division I-AA football, gave tepid support, saying there was “no significant negative impact” and “the participants understood the rationale,” but continuing to say, “… however, if given the option they would have preferred the previous format.”<\/p>\n