(01-03-2023 02:17 PM)unalions Wrote:  From D1.ticker:

The DI Transformation Committee has delivered its wide-ranging final report to the DI Board of Directors ahead of next week's NCAA Convention. On the topic of "Elevating support for student-athletes' mental, physical, and academic wellbeing," the committee's extensive recommendations include requiring a minimum of two years of medical coverage following graduation or completing one's athletic experience for athletic-related injuries, a requirement for a "direct pathway for full-time clinical services of a licensed mental health professional exclusively dedicated to serving student-athletes," provide 10 years of graduation completion funds for full scholarship student-athletes, a new DI governance structure with greater student-athlete participation and more. Related to enhancing the championship experience, the committee is recommending to "Accommodate access for 25% of active Division I members in good standing in team sports sponsored by more than 200 schools," and alter the DI revenue distribution model to "reflect contemporary Division I values and account for athletic performance in more sports than men’s basketball," among other recommendations. Finally on "Building a faster, fairer, and more equitable Division I," the committee is recommending the BoD be the highest governing body in the NCAA and consider revising its composition while maintaining its size, and eliminate the volunteer coach designation and alter official and unofficial visits and much more. Tons more.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committ...Report.pdf

Membership Expectations — Football Attendance Requirements

The Transformation Committee recommends a reconsideration and update of
FBS membership requirements to determine appropriateness of maintaining the
current attendance standard while focusing on other elements that more
directly link the student-athlete experience to expectations for FBS membership
criteria. This review should be established by the Division I Board of Directors,
involve experts and key leaders from the FBS membership and focus on
establishing more effective distinctions between the football subdivision.

Approve in concept.

Refer to the Division I Council and Football Oversight Committee the exploration of any new subdivisional commitment expectations.

Legislative action to be finalized by June 2023.

.

90 teams would be awesome if it meant more seats at the table for the "little" guys. Unfortunately I just foresee more seats for the overbloated, overrated P6.

(01-04-2023 09:28 AM)Keswick_Crusaders_Forever51 Wrote:  90 teams would be awesome if it meant more seats at the table for the "little" guys. Unfortunately I just foresee more seats for the overbloated, overrated P6.

I have multiple and conflicting thoughts about this.

1. For me, that six-round 64 team format will always be perfect. The NCAA tournament is, for me, the greatest three weeks in sports, and I feel like if you stretch it out any more it could ruin that.

2. But...there are a lot more D1 schools than their used to be. As a percentage of the whole, maybe 90 teams isn't insane. It's still a more complicated event and it could ruin it as a product, but I get what they're saying.

3. I know some people hate on it, but I love the NIT, and I feel like this could ruin what I still think is a great event. The NIT is now operated directly by the NCAA, and if you include it then there are already 100 teams in the post-season.

4. Is the P6 actually overrated? I know we're fond of saying that, but it really is where most of the best teams are, and most accurate computer models back that up.

So, I'm not arguing one way or the other. These are just my all-over-the-place thoughts about it.

(01-04-2023 09:50 AM)eku05 Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 09:28 AM)Keswick_Crusaders_Forever51 Wrote:  90 teams would be awesome if it meant more seats at the table for the "little" guys. Unfortunately I just foresee more seats for the overbloated, overrated P6.

I have multiple and conflicting thoughts about this.

1. For me, that six-round 64 team format will always be perfect. The NCAA tournament is, for me, the greatest three weeks in sports, and I feel like if you stretch it out any more it could ruin that.

2. But...there are a lot more D1 schools than their used to be. As a percentage of the whole, maybe 90 teams isn't insane. It's still a more complicated event and it could ruin it as a product, but I get what they're saying.

3. I know some people hate on it, but I love the NIT, and I feel like this could ruin what I still think is a great event. The NIT is now operated directly by the NCAA, and if you include it then there are already 100 teams in the post-season.

4. Is the P6 actually overrated? I know we're fond of saying that, but it really is where most of the best teams are, and most accurate computer models back that up.

So, I'm not arguing one way or the other. These are just my all-over-the-place thoughts about it.

I don't disagree with you on the 64 team format being the ideal. I say awesome about the 90 team format if - & only if - this meant more spots for non-P6 conferences deserving of more seeds. Thinking back on teams like the 18-19 Lipscomb & UNCG teams who should have gotten in to the tourney over teams like my own Gators.

Now, this absolutely would be detrimental to the NIT, which I would not be a fan of.

My comment about the P6 mostly has to do w the number of teams who make it in the tourney now from those conferences seemingly without deserving it, outside of just being in a P6. Certainly the very top teams deserve it, but there are some who get passes bc of the name, & I have a feeling we'd have an even greater number of those making it w/o an equal number of actual deserving non-P6s making it.