09-01-2010, 04:24 PM
The system places a BIG premium on winning in national sports. The Sears Directors\' cup had a very similar "core" type structure in the first few years. The year North Carolina won they pulled off the trick even though Stanford had 4 NCAA team titles.
I would certainly anticipate that such a scenario could happen again. And getting different schools into the "best in the land" mix would be better for sponsors. So great.
But the tiers are really not in with the spirit of the NCAA. Once down that path it becomes hard to balance popularity, Title IX, participation, etc.
Football is tier 1 - who could argue really? But is Softball really at the same level? Really?
Women\'s Volleyball is Tier 1 - Ummm, OK. But Men\'s Volleyball does not even make the tiers at all? Talk about gender inequity! A touch inconsistent, IMHO.
Lacrosse is Tier 2 for both genders. Seriously?? Men\'s Lacrosse has live ESPN coverage from the quarters on up. While on the Women\'s side I can\'t even remember seeing championship game highlights on ESPNU. One could say, the same sport needs to be at the same level for both genders, but that rule was thrashed in the Volleyball example.
So in some aspects the program attempts to balance across genders despite popularity differences. In other sports gender equity is tossed aside.
Major USA Olympic sports are given no weight, dangerous given 2012 is just around the corner, while a non-Olympic and non-revenue sport with minimal crowd appeal (softball) is elevated to Tier 1.
Is softball really more important than soccer, swimming or track? Even on the women\'s side, I suspect those three major global sports are all as important as softball. Â That\'s the problem with picking core sports and tiers.
Can\'t wait for the day that the best football team wins track and tennis titles (Florida). But then loses to a team that merely wins women\'s basketball and volleyball while finishing in the top four in softball (Stanford).
I would certainly anticipate that such a scenario could happen again. And getting different schools into the "best in the land" mix would be better for sponsors. So great.
But the tiers are really not in with the spirit of the NCAA. Once down that path it becomes hard to balance popularity, Title IX, participation, etc.
Football is tier 1 - who could argue really? But is Softball really at the same level? Really?
Women\'s Volleyball is Tier 1 - Ummm, OK. But Men\'s Volleyball does not even make the tiers at all? Talk about gender inequity! A touch inconsistent, IMHO.
Lacrosse is Tier 2 for both genders. Seriously?? Men\'s Lacrosse has live ESPN coverage from the quarters on up. While on the Women\'s side I can\'t even remember seeing championship game highlights on ESPNU. One could say, the same sport needs to be at the same level for both genders, but that rule was thrashed in the Volleyball example.
So in some aspects the program attempts to balance across genders despite popularity differences. In other sports gender equity is tossed aside.
Major USA Olympic sports are given no weight, dangerous given 2012 is just around the corner, while a non-Olympic and non-revenue sport with minimal crowd appeal (softball) is elevated to Tier 1.
Is softball really more important than soccer, swimming or track? Even on the women\'s side, I suspect those three major global sports are all as important as softball. Â That\'s the problem with picking core sports and tiers.
Can\'t wait for the day that the best football team wins track and tennis titles (Florida). But then loses to a team that merely wins women\'s basketball and volleyball while finishing in the top four in softball (Stanford).