Per the NCAA Division I Manual (Bylaw 20.02.5.2, page 359 on the link below)

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...s/D119.pdf

Division I conferences are required to (among other things) sponsor a minimum of 12 Division I sports, including at least 6 mens and at least 6 womens sports. My question is, why is this still a requirement? Wouldn't it make far more fiscal (and logical) sense if conferences were allowed to be completely uncoupled?

This is probably more obvious in non revenue sports like volleyball, softball and such. It makes virtually no sense for, say, Houston and UConn to be forced to fly their volleyball or softball teams 1,700 miles to play one another when there are plenty of opponents who are much closer (meaning less class days missed, less travel costs, etc.).

Wouldn't it make more sense to let conferences decide if they want to sponsor a single sport? Imagine the chance to establish a football conference that had Boise State and UCF, for example, that didn't force them to be in the same conference for so many other sports that it makes it impractical? Isn't this notion of requiring a conference to compete in all sports pretty antiquated?

And that's not to say that conferences wouldn't be allowed to do it, just that they shouldn't be forced to do it. The SEC would be free to compete in every sport. But UConn shouldn't be forced to find a parking space for their football team if there's mutual interest between them and the Big East in having their hoops teams play there.

USFFan

I remember a Harry Minium article in the Virginia Pilot where a similar idea was floated. Allowing football only confrences would allow Olympic sports less travel. Better for the budget and the athletes. There are plenty of good Div 1 schools surrounding ODU that we could be in a conference with but none with FBS football.

The argument regarding mandatory affiliation could be placed on the NCAA but its their organization so whatever rules they want to apply is their decision. The argument regarding football isn't on the NCAA, it's on the conferences. The American doesn't have to force Connecticut to maintain all of their sports, including football, but that is their prerogative. There are single-sport conferences including some for football in FCS. That being said, Connecticut's value is not in their football program so it'd be foolish for the American to agree to such. Boise St's value is in their football program, so it'd be foolish for the Mountain West to allow Boise St to put their football program in another conference. The rules don't force the conferences to sponsor football as one of their required sport sponsorships. The gun behind it is the conference choosing to make playing football in the conference mandatory for conference members.

Conferences are required to sponsor a minimum number of sports. But there is nothing in NCAA rules that I am aware of that prevents a conference from allowing a school to participate only in football. If there were, Navy couldn't play in the AAC. Any conference would be free to allow BYU to be a football only member. Or Boise State.

The key is whether those schools have a conference to place their other sports. BYU and Navy do. Boise might, but they might not want to belong to the conference(s) that would have them.

Basketball is another matter. You may not have a basketball only conference if you want a berth in the NCAAT. Your basketball conference is your "home" conference. Even there, I believe the requirement to be "all in" is a conference decision, not an NCAA one. Most conferences want members that are in for all sports they sponsor if the school has a team in those sports.

(01-22-2019 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Conferences are required to sponsor a minimum number of sports. But there is nothing in NCAA rules that I am aware of that prevents a conference from allowing a school to participate only in football. If there were, Navy couldn't play in the AAC. Any conference would be free to allow BYU to be a football only member. Or Boise State.

The key is whether those schools have a conference to place their other sports. BYU and Navy do. Boise might, but they might not want to belong to the conference(s) that would have them.

Basketball is another matter. You may not have a basketball only conference if you want a berth in the NCAAT. Your basketball conference is your "home" conference. Even there, I believe the requirement to be "all in" is a conference decision, not an NCAA one. Most conferences want members that are in for all sports they sponsor if the school has a team in those sports.

The point is - why do conferences need to have a minimum number of sports? Why couldn't there be a "Southeastern Softball Conference" that included USF, UCF, FIU, FAU, FGCU and a few other schools? If this weren't a requirement, it wouldn't be so hard for, say, Boise to find another home for their other sports but align with an AAC-like school for football.

USFFan

Actually that is possible. You have 3 choices.

1. You can play the sport as an independent. Notre Dame is indy in FB and ACC in most other sports.
2. You can be in another conference if your primary conference does not sponsor that sport. The Patriot league sponsors FCS football so Navy FB can be in the AAC.
3. You can play the sport in a singles port conference if your primary conference does not sponsor that sport. There are several single-sport conferences.

I don't know the reason but I can think of a couple of issues. You could have a school go with a single sport and not field any other teams.

I think title IX would be an issue as well. You can't "provide equal opportunity" if football is D1 and womens basketball is DIII.

ND plays hockey in the Big Ten, football as an independent and fields 24 sports in the ACC.

As stated above, Navy is in the Patriot League for all but football, plays football only in the AAC.

So, you don't have to have all sports in the same, single conference.

(01-22-2019 02:46 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Conferences are required to sponsor a minimum number of sports. But there is nothing in NCAA rules that I am aware of that prevents a conference from allowing a school to participate only in football. If there were, Navy couldn't play in the AAC. Any conference would be free to allow BYU to be a football only member. Or Boise State.

The key is whether those schools have a conference to place their other sports. BYU and Navy do. Boise might, but they might not want to belong to the conference(s) that would have them.

Basketball is another matter. You may not have a basketball only conference if you want a berth in the NCAAT. Your basketball conference is your "home" conference. Even there, I believe the requirement to be "all in" is a conference decision, not an NCAA one. Most conferences want members that are in for all sports they sponsor if the school has a team in those sports.

The point is - why do conferences need to have a minimum number of sports? Why couldn't there be a "Southeastern Softball Conference" that included USF, UCF, FIU, FAU, FGCU and a few other schools? If this weren't a requirement, it wouldn't be so hard for, say, Boise to find another home for their other sports but align with an AAC-like school for football.

USFFan

Its about qualification for the NCAA basketball tournament as well as voting rights.

(01-22-2019 01:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I remember a Harry Minium article in the Virginia Pilot where a similar idea was floated. Allowing football only confrences would allow Olympic sports less travel. Better for the budget and the athletes. There are plenty of good Div 1 schools surrounding ODU that we could be in a conference with but none with FBS football.

Most non-revenue sports have few conference games.

Cincinnati's women's tennis team has 40 games scheduled this year. There's only 4 conference games, plus the conference tourney. And even that's deceiving because the 3 conference away games are all part of back-to-back doubleheaders (Wichita and Kansas State in Kansas; Memphis and Marshall in Memphis; ECU and UConn in Greenville).

(01-22-2019 03:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:46 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Conferences are required to sponsor a minimum number of sports. But there is nothing in NCAA rules that I am aware of that prevents a conference from allowing a school to participate only in football. If there were, Navy couldn't play in the AAC. Any conference would be free to allow BYU to be a football only member. Or Boise State.

The key is whether those schools have a conference to place their other sports. BYU and Navy do. Boise might, but they might not want to belong to the conference(s) that would have them.

Basketball is another matter. You may not have a basketball only conference if you want a berth in the NCAAT. Your basketball conference is your "home" conference. Even there, I believe the requirement to be "all in" is a conference decision, not an NCAA one. Most conferences want members that are in for all sports they sponsor if the school has a team in those sports.

The point is - why do conferences need to have a minimum number of sports? Why couldn't there be a "Southeastern Softball Conference" that included USF, UCF, FIU, FAU, FGCU and a few other schools? If this weren't a requirement, it wouldn't be so hard for, say, Boise to find another home for their other sports but align with an AAC-like school for football.

USFFan

Its about qualification for the NCAA basketball tournament as well as voting rights.

Qualification for the NCAA basketball tournament (for a conference champion) shouldn't have anything to do with sponsoring 11 additional sports.

USFFan

Single sport leagues are permitted but you don't get access to the key voting parts of the NCAA structure without having a conference that meets the criteria for the group you want to vote in.

Single sport leagues make a great deal of theoretical sense when no one league has enough members to service a sport (ie. the Southland Bowling League).

In theory it makes sense that a group of elite schools spread across the country form their own league for football or just for men's and women's hoops and put other Olympic sports in more compact leagues.

But the voting structure makes the multi-sport league almost a necessity.

If you went to some form of one school one vote. Maybe all schools one vote, some schools more votes (ie. a P5 has 6 votes, G5 3, everyone else 1 to basically reflect the current structure) you can eliminate the need for the multi-sport conference, though from a stance of practicality, single sports would likely remain a rarity.

As pointed out above, any school that wants to can have a football-only conference for FBS teams if they want to, or a scheduling agreement among independent football teams. They just have to live with a "primary conference" that is a no-football D-I conference with lesser NCAA voting rights than an FBS conference. Which probably matters very little in the big picture.

A possibility that I have suggested on this board previously: Rather than having college sports under the NCAA umbrella, each college sport (except football) could be administered by that sport's U.S. national governing body. USA Volleyball runs college volleyball including national championship tournaments, US Soccer does the same for college soccer, US Track and Field runs college track and field, etc., etc. Each school would pay an annual administration fee to the national governing body to cover all necessary expenses.

(01-22-2019 02:46 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Conferences are required to sponsor a minimum number of sports. But there is nothing in NCAA rules that I am aware of that prevents a conference from allowing a school to participate only in football. If there were, Navy couldn't play in the AAC. Any conference would be free to allow BYU to be a football only member. Or Boise State.

The key is whether those schools have a conference to place their other sports. BYU and Navy do. Boise might, but they might not want to belong to the conference(s) that would have them.

Basketball is another matter. You may not have a basketball only conference if you want a berth in the NCAAT. Your basketball conference is your "home" conference. Even there, I believe the requirement to be "all in" is a conference decision, not an NCAA one. Most conferences want members that are in for all sports they sponsor if the school has a team in those sports.

The point is - why do conferences need to have a minimum number of sports? Why couldn't there be a "Southeastern Softball Conference" that included USF, UCF, FIU, FAU, FGCU and a few other schools? If this weren't a requirement, it wouldn't be so hard for, say, Boise to find another home for their other sports but align with an AAC-like school for football.

USFFan

Conferences must meet the requirement, not schools. Satisfying the requirements is a minimum standard that a conference must meet to participate in NCAA governance and to participate in certain NCAA championships, primarily the NCAA's men's and women's basketball tournaments.

Individual schools must comply with the requirements of the conference to remain a member of the conference. A conference needs each of its members to compete in some number of sports in order to satisfy the conference's requirements to maintain its status as a qualified conference. At least seven members must participate in men's basketball, and six members must participate in five men's others sports, one of which has to be football or two of which have to be other team sports. At least seven members must participate in women's basketball, and six members must participate in five women's others sports, two of which have to be other team sports. NCAA Manual, Section 20.02.5.2.

Individual schools must meet their own requirements to be members of D1. They must sponsor teams in 14 sports, 6 of which have to be men's sports and 7 of which have to be women's sports, and sponsor two team sports each for men an women. NCAA Manual, Figure 20-1.

This means, in a conference of ten schools, to qualify, a conference could have ten men's and women's basketball members, six baseball members, six softball members, and six men's and women's soccer member, along with six schools participating in each of men's and women's cross country, indoor track and outdoor track.

There is no limitation on special sport conferences except, I believe, for basketball and FBS football. For instance, I believe all ice hockey conferences except the Big Ten are single sports conferences. There are specialty gymnastics conferences as well. I'm sure there must be others.

Under NCAA rules, the conference in which a school plays basketball is its home conference. However, I believe a school could make a special arrangement to play only basketball in one conference and play all other sports in another conference. Since the both conferences would need to satisfy the conference requirements without this school, I would think it would have to be a particularly good fit in order for the conferences to accept such an arrangement.

(01-22-2019 04:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  As pointed out above, any school that wants to can have a football-only conference for FBS teams if they want to, or a scheduling agreement among independent football teams. They just have to live with a "primary conference" that is a no-football D-I conference with lesser NCAA voting rights than an FBS conference. Which probably matters very little in the big picture.

A possibility that I have suggested on this board previously: Rather than having college sports under the NCAA umbrella, each college sport (except football) could be administered by that sport's U.S. national governing body. USA Volleyball runs college volleyball including national championship tournaments, US Soccer does the same for college soccer, US Track and Field runs college track and field, etc., etc. Each school would pay an annual administration fee to the national governing body to cover all necessary expenses.

And I think you are right that each sport should be administered by its own federation. If Northeastsouthwest Tech wants to sponsor men's and women's basketball, men's rugby and women's gymnastics at the highest level, wants men's and women's tennis at a lower cost level and have non-scholarship golf, baseball and softball, so be it.

Each sport has its own unique features when it comes to professionalism and one size doesn't fit all sports. What is normal is skiing is pretty much scorned in basketball.

No NCAA sport NEEDS to be independent of the NCAA more than men's soccer. In the past few years MLS has had less and less interest in NCAA players. The professionalism rules are a mess. You can play on an amateur team that faces professionals in league play but you can't be on a team that includes a professional.

Men's soccer would be well served moving out from the NCAA and under the USSF umbrella, maybe in a system administered by NPSL or USL.

Downside is that the compliance potentially becomes a real pain dealing with the nuances of 20 different federations.

(01-22-2019 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Single sport leagues are permitted but you don't get access to the key voting parts of the NCAA structure without having a conference that meets the criteria for the group you want to vote in.

Single sport leagues make a great deal of theoretical sense when no one league has enough members to service a sport (ie. the Southland Bowling League).

In theory it makes sense that a group of elite schools spread across the country form their own league for football or just for men's and women's hoops and put other Olympic sports in more compact leagues.

But the voting structure makes the multi-sport league almost a necessity.

If you went to some form of one school one vote. Maybe all schools one vote, some schools more votes (ie. a P5 has 6 votes, G5 3, everyone else 1 to basically reflect the current structure) you can eliminate the need for the multi-sport conference, though from a stance of practicality, single sports would likely remain a rarity.

Thanks, arkstfan. I think this gets to the bottom of what I was trying to ask.

USFFan

(01-22-2019 04:45 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Single sport leagues are permitted but you don't get access to the key voting parts of the NCAA structure without having a conference that meets the criteria for the group you want to vote in.

Single sport leagues make a great deal of theoretical sense when no one league has enough members to service a sport (ie. the Southland Bowling League).

In theory it makes sense that a group of elite schools spread across the country form their own league for football or just for men's and women's hoops and put other Olympic sports in more compact leagues.

But the voting structure makes the multi-sport league almost a necessity.

If you went to some form of one school one vote. Maybe all schools one vote, some schools more votes (ie. a P5 has 6 votes, G5 3, everyone else 1 to basically reflect the current structure) you can eliminate the need for the multi-sport conference, though from a stance of practicality, single sports would likely remain a rarity.

Thanks, arkstfan. I think this gets to the bottom of what I was trying to ask.

USFFan

Not likely that a Big Ten would want a single sport set-up except certain situations like hockey but around the edges they could do some serious good.

Sun Belt and CUSA football might look a good bit different today had there not been a need to have eight full FBS members. Some of the straggling leagues just hanging on in Division I might align differently if they didn't have the multi-sport requirement to deal with, you end up making decisions based on who offers the Olympic sport that only five of your members sponsor and you need another to get to six.

(01-22-2019 04:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 04:45 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Single sport leagues are permitted but you don't get access to the key voting parts of the NCAA structure without having a conference that meets the criteria for the group you want to vote in.

Single sport leagues make a great deal of theoretical sense when no one league has enough members to service a sport (ie. the Southland Bowling League).

In theory it makes sense that a group of elite schools spread across the country form their own league for football or just for men's and women's hoops and put other Olympic sports in more compact leagues.

But the voting structure makes the multi-sport league almost a necessity.

If you went to some form of one school one vote. Maybe all schools one vote, some schools more votes (ie. a P5 has 6 votes, G5 3, everyone else 1 to basically reflect the current structure) you can eliminate the need for the multi-sport conference, though from a stance of practicality, single sports would likely remain a rarity.

Thanks, arkstfan. I think this gets to the bottom of what I was trying to ask.

USFFan

Not likely that a Big Ten would want a single sport set-up except certain situations like hockey but around the edges they could do some serious good.

Sun Belt and CUSA football might look a good bit different today had there not been a need to have eight full FBS members. Some of the straggling leagues just hanging on in Division I might align differently if they didn't have the multi-sport requirement to deal with, you end up making decisions based on who offers the Olympic sport that only five of your members sponsor and you need another to get to six.

This is pretty much my point. I think it's silly to essentially force a large number of institutions to waste money on travel for sports that are money losers just so they can have a seat at the table with respect to voting rights.

USFFan

This seems primarily like a problem created by football, more specifically FBS football, more specifically it's an AAC/CUSA problem. Most Division 1 conferences are pretty geographically coherent - the Horizon League makes perfect sense, America East makes perfect sense, the Missouri Valley makes perfect sense, etc. Football is just, at times, an enormous mess that spills over and creates problems for a few select schools.

(01-22-2019 07:02 PM)Bogg Wrote:  This seems primarily like a problem created by football, more specifically FBS football, more specifically it's an AAC/CUSA problem. Most Division 1 conferences are pretty geographically coherent - the Horizon League makes perfect sense, America East makes perfect sense, the Missouri Valley makes perfect sense, etc. Football is just, at times, an enormous mess that spills over and creates problems for a few select schools.

The irony of it is the 8 FBS playing all sports rule was intended to kill the Sun Belt. It forced Utah State and Idaho to agree to join all sports then they got raided by the WAC. Sun Belt had to admit ULM all sports and FIU and FAU had to accelerate their FBS plans to join. Then it ended up killing WAC football.

Similar question, but slightly different: since both football & men’s basketball are both $$ makers (and even women’s basketball)would it be possible to have a league consist of just football & men & women”s basketball?? I have never seen a conference look like that before, and I could see it helping out schools like UConn & Temple. Just think if you get all of a team’s strongest sports, but teams like UCONN’s track team would be able to join the Big East & Temple”s baseball team could play in the A10.