NCAA noise rule for sports (drums)- What the hey?

FANatic wrote:Anything else is just convoluted B.S. by the NCAA. They have their reasons and rules. But they're very misguided in my opinion. I've simply never heard of anything like this in any sport I've ever followed.

Well... I might play devil's advocate with you for a bit. The thing is, honestly, limiting the travel expenses DOES make sense for the NCAA. Yes, it's a minor injustice for the teams that are forced to travel, but it happens in every single "non-revenue" sport... baseball, softball, soccer, field hockey, ice hockey, lacrosse, tennis, etc. The NCAA puts on tons of championships, and I do understand the need to limit costs. This happens in high school as well... I remember when I was in high school our #1 ranked soccer team was sent to Brookings to play in like the first or second round. Yeah, it sucks, but I think for the most part I understand. Portland isn't the only team that is affected by this. Yes, because we are on the West Coast and are in a part of the country where there aren't many D1 teams we are affected more regularly, but I can't think of a time we haven't hosted when another NW team makes the tournament. So I wouldn't say that the NCAA is purposefully screwing Portland over. They are just following the policy.

What makes the case with NCAA and Portland so interesting is that fact that Portland is so above and beyond every other program in the country in its ability to generate revenue. I mean, there are only like 10-12 programs in the country that even average over 1000 a game, and many places don't even charge admission. For almost every other school in the country, it makes "sense" to make them travel in that it actually does save the NCAA money. But Portland is an almost unique case study. The NCAA wouldn't save money by shipping Portland out... it would make money by shipping teams in. This was plainly evident in 2005, when we went to Nebraska.

But think for a minute... getting the NCAA to change its policy based on this is a very tall order. They would basically have to create "The Portland Rule" and add it to the by-laws. And given just the bereaucratic nature of the NCAA and the fact that BCS conferences carry the big sticks, it's just unlikely that something like that will ever happen, especially since it would involve a special exception for a non-BCS team.

Now, could they totally revamp their criterea to include potential profits? Sure. That would seem to make sense. But think what that might end up meaning... if potential profit becomes the new definition instead of geography, does that mean that every year only Portland, Texas A&M, North Carolina, UCLA, etc get to host? What if, say, Washington State earns a #2 seed next year but only averages 50 fans. Have the earned the right to host? I would say yes. But what if Portland also makes it and is unseeded? The NCAA could make a lot more money hosting at Portland. So should seed trump profit?

The answer, of course, is in the gray area. It should be something like, "Seeded teams should always host, unless no schools within a 400 miles qualify and that school doesn't average X number of dollars per game in revenue. Unseeded teams should never host, unless 1) a seeded team doesn't fit the bill and is forced to travel and 2) the school can guarantee X number of dollars, etc etc." But then it can quickly get into fuzziness and lots of "what ifs"... I think we all can agree that it would be messy. I'm sure they could hire some lawyers and create a panel and get it all hammered out, but come on... we're talking about women's soccer. It's just not a priority for the NCAA to go to a lot of expense and trouble to try and rectify an injustice that truly only really applies to one school.

Unfortunately, Portland happens to be that one school.

It's just our lot in life right now. Believe me, I 100% agree that we should host every year we earn a seed. It just makes so much sense... not only have the players earned it, but we can generate profit. It's as simple as that.

But... I also understand that getting the NCAA to adapt its rules is like turning a supertanker... it doesn't happen instantaneously. The best we can do is hope and trust that our athletics administration and president (who is on the NCAA Presidential Advisory Group, remember) are making UP's plight known and trying to make it better. Well, that and send nasty emails the day after we get shipped out. (Done that three or four times as well!)

I agree, Fanatic. There is must be something wrong with NCAA's rules if a consistently top-shelf team like Portland is not granted the privelege of hosting the opening rounds year after year. I think that the rulemaking committee has outsmarted themselves with their rules and, in doing so, has overlooked the obvious. I have no doubt that the NCAA is trying to be fair, but in light of what has happened to the Pilots, they might want to revise the rules so that the athletes at schools like Portland get rewarded for their hard work during the season: the opportunity to host the opening rounds.

[quote="Stonehouse"]

FANatic wrote:A
Well... I might play devil's advocate with you for a bit. The thing is, honestly, limiting the travel expenses DOES make sense for the NCAA. Yes, it's a minor injustice for the teams that are forced to travel, but it happens in every single "non-revenue" sport... baseball, softball, soccer, field hockey, ice hockey, lacrosse, tennis, etc. The NCAA puts on tons of championships, and I do understand the need to limit costs. This happens in high school as well... I remember when I was in high school our #1 ranked soccer team was sent to Brookings to play in like the first or second round. Yeah, it sucks, but I think for the most part I understand. Portland isn't the only team that is affected by this. Yes, because we are on the West Coast and are in a part of the country where there aren't many D1 teams we are affected more regularly, but I can't think of a time we haven't hosted when another NW team makes the tournament. So I wouldn't say that the NCAA is purposefully screwing Portland over. They are just following the policy.

Stoney, It would be a bit easier to handle how Portland gets treated if they were indeed following their policy. The fact is, every time we travel because we don't get a hosting partner, it ignores the NCAA's own bylaws.

31.1.3.2.1 Criteria for Site Determination. The following criteria are to be used in the evaluation of
sites for all competition in NCAA championships:
(a) Quality and availability of the facility and other necessary accommodations;
(b) Revenue potential (e.g., a financial guarantee or guideline that ensures fiscal responsibility and is ap-
propriate for the particular event, as recommended by the governing sports committee and approved
by the Championships/Sports Management Cabinet); (Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08 )
(c) Attendance history and potential;
(d) Geographical location; and
(e) Championships operating costs. (Revised: 11/1/01)

The decision to emphasize (d) for alleged cost saving is a purely political decision. It favors the big Eastern conferences which have 60% of the voting.

Sigh............. so true. Just when maybe I start to drink the NCAA snake oil, Geezer is there to bring my back.

Do you think anyone from the NCAA actually bothers reading their own bylaws when determining seeding for women's soccer??

I suppose it wouldn't be financially feasible, but the NCAA could kind of use the system they use for basketball having pre-determined sites for hosting and whatnot... Then they would have less complaining from the louts up in Portland, Maine...

I'll also point out that the NCAA can bend its own policies when it wants. This year BYU is hosting without a local partner.

I'm going to keep my mouth shut on that one...

Geez- You continue to amaze.....me... Trenchcoat, a simple ointment salesman.

I'm with Decrink; If every fan brings their personal cowbell it would overwhelm the blue coated ushers. They would be so busy with checking tickets that the cowbell blitz would be too much to handle. We are flying these guys in to set the stage.

Bottom line: Based on Geez's NCAA bylaws info and the BYU exception, etc., it's clearer than ever we should have hosted in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

The top 16 seeds host Rounds 1 and 2. What's the big deal? NCAA going bankrupt form its football and men's basketball revenue? Just implement the policy, make bracket decisions based on it and it should be a pretty fair deal. Although there will always be borderline teams that have reason to complain.

BTW - Geez insisted to the end, that Notre Dame was behind us in the RPI. Then how can they possibly be a #1 seed? Maybe some rule bending by the NCAA committee?

Latest RPI Through Games 11-2-2008

FANatic --- I think 19-0-0 is the big reason why.... Albeit they played a softer schedule, undefeated is undefeated...

I'm beginning to think it would have been better if we didn't host. Then we would have a thread about the injustice of that. Twice as long as this one. Oh, and I have two GA tics if any of you all need them. Ticketmaster snafu. Send a note if you're interested. Cowbell not included.

DaTruRochin wrote:
FANatic --- I think 19-0-0 is the big reason why.... Albeit they played a softer schedule, undefeated is undefeated...

I can buy that logic Roch.

But.......Next season, using that logic, (and exagerating to make a point), that means if Kennesaw State goes 19-0-0, and everyone else has at least a loss or tie, then K.State is the top seed in the country. And they are so because using your well meaning logic, "Albeit they played a softer schedule, undefeated is undefeated...", they MUST be the top seed in the country. Or else the system is patently unfair. You can't have it both ways.

Oh OK if you want to get into semantics.... But Notre Dame going 19-0 is a little bit more impressive than K. State (Unless of course K state plays a monster schedule mowing down contenders in the process...) Plus ND does have to deal with all of the Big East schools... Not to diss the Atlantic Sun conference, but uh....

Roch - I understand the decisions in this world lie in the gray areas. My feelings, which were badly burned Monday night based on the Pilots not getting a #1 seed, (and therefore foresaking the almighty porkchop), were simply black and white. (I based all my hopes on the hard work of mostly UPSF and Geez.)

Black and white are our ideals...gray is where reality plays out. I am not dumb enough to really think Notre Dame is going anywhere but to the top. But in the end, if I understand my NCAA bylaws and RPI as discussed rigorously by Geez and UPSF as well as others, Notre Dame leapfrogging the RPI from #6 to #1 rings up as a political chess move, rather than a direct reading form the Committee's own criteria.

Bottom line: After a good night's sleep, I realized we were hosting potentially 3 or 4 rounds at Merlo! That I like a lot. And I believe if the Pilots and N. Dame win out through the Quarters, they would face each other in a showdown in the Semi's. There is nothing I would like more than that.

Back to the drumming...

I vote for a cowbell smiley:

I think you should sneak a drum in anyway

Morning Geez, its Gameday!

Geez, that drum in my avatar is...um...a little large. Not easy to sneak in under a jacket.

well, then maybe you just need more cowbell.

Alert! Trenchcoats sources have received a report that an outdated metal detector is being raced over to Merlo from PDX International to scan fans for potential cowbell smuggling. "Shhhh, If I beep, I'm going to tell them that it's the plate in my head that beeped" Trenchcoat.

Or you could hide it under that trenchcoat. Nobody in their right minds would ask to see whats in there.

Seriously drummers behind the Maple? trees on Willamette if public safety comes retreat to Chiles and vice versa. Stay mobile and alert men.

I hope we can do this drum thing in the next 3 hours!!

tunnel to the Purple Pride Section. Is that the quirky reference Dennis Miller? haha.