D1 Transformation Committee Final Report

[taper]

https://images.saymedia-content.com/...0%94123022.pdf

As expected, not a lot here. Remember that all of this needs to pass a vote. Some highlights:

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.

The committee recommends that the Board of Directors direct appropriate
governance entities to review sports-sponsorship minimums in the future,
including consideration of a model in which institutions are not permitted to
count a sport toward meeting minimum sports-sponsorship requirements
unless it demonstrates a certain level of financial commitment to studentathlete scholarships in that sport.

The presidential subgroup of the Transformation Committee recommends the
elimination of the Presidential Forum. Adopt emergency legislation

The Transformation Committee recommends that the Board of Directors direct
appropriate governance entities to review legislation regarding professional
opportunities for student-athletes -- tryouts, practice and competition -- preenrollment and post-enrollment.

The Transformation Committee recommends further review of the concept of
eliminating the maximum institutional grant-in-aid limitations by sport and
allowing national rules in this area to focus on the number of student-athletes
participating in countable athletically related activities during an institution’s
playing season.

In acknowledgement and support of the NCAA Division I Competition
Oversight Committee’s ongoing work and pilot program, the Transformation
Committee recommends that Division I championships should be composed in
a manner that reflects the highest level of bracket composition and quality of
competition, including seeding at least 50% of teams.

To ensure that NCAA Division I championships provide national-level
competition among the best eligible student-athletes and teams, the
Transformation Committee recommends that the governing sport and
oversight committees for Division I Championship team sports sponsored by
more than 200 institutions should fully consider how to accommodate access
for 25% of active member institutions in good standing with Division I
membership requirements. Their considerations should account for impacts on
the timing of the postseason, the total length of the postseason, necessary
format changes, broadcast and other partners, budget resources, and host
entity event management.

[NDSU92]

https://images.saymedia-content.com/...0%94123022.pdf

As expected, not a lot here. Remember that all of this needs to pass a vote. Some highlights:

I thought we were expecting a lot? Am I mistaken or was this the reason we shouldn't be entertaining FBS ideas?

[taper]

I thought we were expecting a lot? Am I mistaken or was this the reason we shouldn't be entertaining FBS ideas?

Yes, you are mistaken.

[NDSU92]

Yes, you are mistaken.

Which is the one I'm thinking of? This report is talking about looking at the requirements for maintaining FBS status and efforts to provide more distinction between the subdivisions. Is that overlap from another committee?

[WhoRepsTheLurker]

"Hope" not "expect", but a little disappointing IMO and not really surprising
The first and last seem to be the most significant, but in the first, no specific criteria are championed, and the last one seems out of control to me. 25%? Obviously not going to happen in FBS, and I wouldn't want it in FCS either. 90 teams in the NCAA BB tournament?

They should have called themselves the "D1 Trying to Facilitate Transformation(al) Committee" ...

[NDSU92]

"Hope" not "expect", but a little disappointing IMO and not really surprising
The first and last seem to be the most significant, but in the first, no specific criteria are championed, and the last one seems out of control to me. 25%? Obviously not going to happen in FBS, and I wouldn't want it in FCS either. 90 teams in the NCAA BB tournament?

They should have called themselves the "D1 Trying to Facilitate Transformation(al) Committee" ...

Lol these guys come from UND or something? Committee finds that a Committee should be formed to set the rules for FBS. Brilliant, guys.

We're nearly at 25% participation in FCS at this point. NCAA doesn't control the CFP. Not sure that even applies to football.

90 teams in tournament in every sport? Methinks the college presidents won't go for that. 64-ish in all other sports is already a ton of bloat. Going to have power conference teams with losing records getting in at that point.

[NDSU92]

Honestly the more I think about it, if they were literally serious about the "providing distinction between the subdivisions"... you could read that as there are teams that are FBS that should be FCS and there are teams that are FCS that should be FBS. Are they willing to partition teams both directions to where they belong? The XDSU's would be competitive in any G5 conference tomorrow, while any FCS conference is much less competitive with their existence...

Good luck on partitioning teams. $ is the only thing I can think of that might work. They stopped enforcing attendance because the bottom quarter of the G5 would get bumped if they didn't.

[BigHorns]

Honestly the more I think about it, if they were literally serious about the "providing distinction between the subdivisions"... you could read that as there are teams that are FBS that should be FCS and there are teams that are FCS that should be FBS. Are they willing to partition teams both directions to where they belong? The XDSU's would be competitive in any G5 conference tomorrow, while any FCS conference is much less competitive with their existence...

Good luck on partitioning teams. $ is the only thing I can think of that might work. They stopped enforcing attendance because the bottom quarter of the G5 would get bumped if they didn't.

This was the entire D1 committee setting D1 standards. Part of the changes are that they are going to have more Sport specific committees that can independently set the rules and standards for each sport. Eg: baseball, volleyball, soccer, hockey committees. It gives the sports more independence (because sport specific changes don't have to be blessed by all of NCAA). FBS gets more independence/autonomy out of this. FCS likely does also.

While this sounds like just more bureaucrats, what they are really doing is decentralizing control. Its a slightly less radical approach than having FBS leave the NCAA umbrella entirely.

What they've really said here is that the FBS committee (made up of FBS ADs) will decide the standards for FBS.
The timeline suggested for this is around June 2023. I think they will make it more expensive to keep some schools out (eg ASun/WAC)

[BigHorns]

Lol these guys come from UND or something? Committee finds that a Committee should be formed to set the rules for FBS. Brilliant, guys.

We're nearly at 25% participation in FCS at this point. NCAA doesn't control the CFP. Not sure that even applies to football.

90 teams in tournament in every sport? Methinks the college presidents won't go for that. 64-ish in all other sports is already a ton of bloat. Going to have power conference teams with losing records getting in at that point.

25% won't apply to football for a few reasons:

1) this guideline was only made for Sports with 200+ members (FBS and FCS are separate)
2) the decision to expand playoffs is still made by each independent sport. Basketball going to 90 isn't a given.
3) I don't see FCS having enough money to run a 32 team playoff. If we are lucky, maybe we can seed 16 teams going forward. The guideline suggests at least 12 (50%) should be seeded.