An Idea for the National Championship

With the announcement of the BCS match-ups come the annual calls for a I-A college football playoff system. Although this world of big-time sports seems far removed from lightweight rowing, it reminded me of a rowing championship format espoused by Mike Teti. Before I go farther, let me say that this idea comes from Mike, but I will no doubt not explain it quite the way he would and may get some key elements wrong. So, the idea is not mine, but any differences from the originator's actual concept are the result of my own faulty memory or misunderstanding.



In essence, the plan would work like this:





- The championship would include men's and women's heavyweights and lightweights, varsity eights only.



1) For each category there would be 12 entrants who would race in two qualifying heats (two 6 boat races)



2) Three top boats from each qualifier would move on to a quarterfinal (6 boat race)



3) The top three boats in the quarterfinal would race again in the semi-final (3 boat race)



4) The top two boats in the semi would race again in a match race to decide the national championship (2 boat race)





So, we have a tournament format, for V8s only, and all four collegiate rowing categories would have a NCAA championship. The idea is that the tournament format would create increasing excitement, building toward the last match race for the national championship (I may have added an extra race in there). By only allowing V8s we cut to the heart of the matter, avoid those silly team championships, and avoid the embarrassment of listening to the "national champion" 2V pair tell an interviewer how they just started rowing together last week. To make it a true championship event, all categories would need to be present and racing for a national championship.



That's the idea and, again, my apologies for any deviation from the original scheme. What do you think? Could this work? How would you improve it? Other ideas?







Technorati Tags: rowing

It Keeps Going...

There is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about Stanford's claim of East Coast bias at IRAs. I think Stanford has some legitimate compliants, but wow, do they not understand how to go about getting them addressed! Part of this is a CYA exercise by the coach. He was the one who apparently went merrily through the season never bothering to check on an issue that was plain for the rest of the world to see - his freshman sophomore. It was his responsibility to make sure the rower was eligible and if not, that he had enough time to work a replacement into the lineup. If he truly thought there would be no problem, that's a serious error in judgment for a head coach to make.

The real problem here is that these claims of bias are the type of issues the NCAA loves to "solve." I think the "federal case" strategy has a good chance of succeeding if there is no public counter to these claims. Whether he understands it himself or not, Craig Amerkhanian is quickly making it his mission in life to destroy lightweight rowing.

Freudian Slip

It really is all about an NCAA championship for heavy men. A Stanford Daily article titled "MURPHY’S LAW: CREW OUT OF NCAAs" discusses Stanford's decision to not race the number 4 heavy men's V8 in the country at IRAs because they have a freshman in the boat. I feel bad for the freshman, and I tend to think the rule is ill advised, but I do know it exists and everyone knew it in March. How could it have been a surprise to Stanford now? In fact, some have suggested the rule was originally put in place to help the West Coast crews who were less likely to have freshman with prior rowing experience. This is all about making a statement to further the NCAA cause. Maybe Stanford should work through the ECAC rather than trying to make a federal issue out of everything. The Stanford coach also takes a swipe at Harvard, suggesting that without Stanford racing, the Crimson might have a shot at a medal. Big talk when it's shouted from a four. I guess now we know why Stanford dropped the Indian as their mascot - Indians aren't crybabies.

(By the way, the Blogger spell checker flags NCAAs, and suggests Nazis as a replacement.)

IRA Heats

IRA heats are now listed on row2k. (Thanks to a reader for the notification.)

By the way, when looking at the heat sheets, one thing that jumps out is that the #4 men's heavyweight boat is not listed. That's right, Stanford is continuing it's NCAA temper tantrum by allegedly splitting its fourth ranked eight into fours for the IRA. I raise it here because it's more evidence that this push to make men's heavyweights an NCAA championship sport, and sending a death notice to lightweight rowing, will not die. What apparently prompted this act was the IRA rule barring freshmen from racing in varsity men's events. Stanford has a freshman in it's V8. While this looks like Stanford is cutting off its nose to spite its face, it must not be a big deal to the Cardinal because they don't consider the IRA to be a "legitimate national championship." It's also not a big deal to Stanford because this move shows they obviously had no thoughts of winning the eight. Like a zombie, the heavy men's NCAA championship proposal will continue to rise from the dead.

Beating a Dead (For Now) Horse

I think I've already spent too much time on the Pac-10's defeated proposal to create a men's NCAA rowing championship, but last week the Harvard Crimson published an article on it that's worth reading. A Harvard heavyweight speculates that the proposal is all about the location of IRAs, and the scholarship limit is never mentioned. I have some sympathy for the West Coast crews that have to travel across the country every year, but it seems to me that creating a NCAA championship is a rather drastic solution. Just the opposite of the Pac-10 coaches who love to talk about the Ivies' alleged under the table athletic scholarships, the Harvard rowers see NCAA sanctioned scholarships at non-Ivy rowing schools as a threat, not as equality. The article also quotes a male lightweight as worrying about the loss of the ability to bet shirts. Hopefully that's taken a bit out of context since he had much bigger things to worry about.

One thing overlooked in a NCAA takeover, is what it does to the composition of crews. Heavyweight women have no incentive to develop a strong freshman boat. Sure, it can win Sprints, but there is no freshman race at NCAAs. Take what is probably the fastest heavyweight freshmen boat in the country this year - Princeton. What will they be doing on NCAA championship weekend? (Of course, the lightweight freshmen suffer the same fate at IRAs.) Although the big T9 schools still race novice boats, good incoming freshmen are immediately moved to the varsity. For heavyweight programs, only three boats matter - 1V8, 2V8, and V4 - and other boats are afterthoughts.

It's interesting that the article misses the 5 scholarship limit included in the proposal. As I've said before, that is a self imposed limit in the Pac-10 and coaches there saw this proposal as a way to limit their competition too. Here is an article on the USC web site discussing that limit. I have to admit that I don't understand why Stanford and Oregon State wanted it, although the USC coach seems to believe it's to make sure no one offers more scholarships than they.

Wisconsin's men's head coach Chris Clark also weighed in on the proposal at a recent press conference. Clark believed that if the proposal passed it would be "the greatest thing that could ever happen in the history of the sport." He then rambles on about a New York Times article on the NCAA tennis tournament and how rowing has the same sort of problems. (He never tells us what those problems are.) The problem is, tennis IS an NCAA sport, so that obviously didn't help. He also laments the fact that rowing is being "outsourced." This story hit the big time when Dowling beat Temple at Dad Vails several years ago with a boatload of Eastern Europeans. This definitely happens, but I hardly think that makes rowing lawless. He also says that unlike tennis, "you're not dealing with people who've won prize money just because that'’s few and far between in our sport, but it's very similar." Huh? What in rowing is similar to prize money? The only thing I can think of are scholarships, which the NCAA sanctions. Of course, he really laments the unlimited scholarships he imagines his competition offers. He doesn't mention the Ivies, but he doesn't have to. I wonder if he offered his sympathies to the club teams he beat up on at the Midwest Rowing Championships and earlier at the Head of the Iowa.

The real problem here is that Clark coaches at a school with a varsity lightweight women's crew program. One of the best in the country. What he calls "the greatest thing that could ever happen in the history of the sport," would be a giant step toward putting a Wisconsin crew, that is far more successful than his own crews, out of business. Another big supporter is Stanford. Don't these coaches care about their own programs? Maybe they should care about something in the sport other than themselves.

Anyway, you can read the rest yourself; I'm getting tired of it all. Unfortunately, we'll see this proposal on a regular basis and it will need to be beaten back on a regular basis.

NCAA Championships for Men - Dead?!

A look at the Pac-10 proposal to create NCAA rowing championships for heavyweight men shows that its status is "Defeated - Final." My understanding is that this proposal is now dead unless it is reintroduced (not sure what that takes). It looks like lightweight rowing dodged a bullet. My feelings on this proposal are well known to readers of FITD so I'll let a (hopefully) dead dog lie.

NCAA Championships For Men (Still) Must Die

This is the month that the NCAA will close out comments on the Pac-10's proposal to make men's heavyweight rowing an NCAA sport and hold a vote. This, then, could be the month that ends IRAs and a lightweight national championship. A reader, Emily (the long suffering coach's wife), said in a comment that "Rowing as a whole seems not to fit into the rules of NCAA very well." I agree with this statement. When I asked Tina Krah of the NCAA what the NCAA's sponsorship of women's heavyweight rowing has done for that category, she said that it's given them a chance to win an NCAA championship (circular argument) and has aided in continuing to grow the sport at all levels (absolutely true, but for women's heavyweights ONLY; in fact it may be helping to shrink it at other levels). She then says, "The fact we have a championship in all three divisions shows there has been growth in the sport." Well, we always had championships at different levels - Dad Vail, ECAC, IRA - so that seems to be no change to me. There was nothing in this answer that would suggest NCAA sponsorship is good for rowing except growth, but given that it's come at the expense of the other segments, I would say that growth has been bad for rowing. In fact, it cheapened women's heavyweight rowing as evidenced by how it's been the butt of jokes made by student newspaper editorial writers about how easy rowing scholarships are to come by.

The Pac-10 previously voted to limit men's heavyweight scholarships to 5, and the NCAA proposal seemed to be somehow tied to that, since the proposal calls for only 5 scholarships as an NCAA sport (heavy women have 20). This article from USC discusses the proposal. Of course, I'm only interested in this proposal because it's a potential IRA killer and therefore a women's lightweight championship killer. It seems to be a big to-do because a few Pac-10 coaches are angry that their conference limited their scholarships. Because of that limit, all Pac-10 coaches support the proposal, even though not all supported the Pac-10 scholarship limits. There is a lot of whinging about the Ivies hiding scholarships as grants-in-aid. Well, that's overblown, and because of the academic requirements the Ivy recruiting pool is much smaller than everyone else's. The only way I can explain this proposal is that the Pac-10 wants everyone else to follow their self-imposed scholarship limit. That's a poor reason.

Whatever the heavyweight motivations, this is bad, bad, bad, for lightweights. When things like this happen and exclude a segment of the sport (in this case men's and women's lightweights) it splits the sport apart. The NCAA doesn't understand the sport, doesn't understand how it operates, doesn't understand that it's a strength sport, doesn't understand it's traditions, and certainly doesn't understand lightweights. Either everyone goes NCAA or no one should go NCAA. The Pac-10 worries that the ECAC won't want to relinquish control of rowing. I say please, ECAC, don't relinquish control. The ECAC seems to be no particular friend of lightweights, but at least rowers are in control.

Petition against this proposal, vote against this proposal. This proposal will give the NCAA more power and a greater opportunity to marginalize lightweight rowing. The vote will soon be held and, as this article implies, the NCAA seems to be in favor of it. I know there are many coaches opposed, and there are many who haven't decided to do anything about it yet. Well, now is the time.

"Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me" - Stanford Men

The Stanford men continue to whinge about how their competition has more scholarships to give so the playing field isn't even. Why should women's lightweights care? Because Stanford's, and the Pac-10's, solution is a NCAA championship for the heavyweight men which would undoubtedly end the IRAs and leave the light men and light women without a national championship regatta. I've written about this several times before and suggested that you (or your coach) take a position against this proposal. We're in the comment period now but I believe it ends soon. Many heavyweight coaches, as well as lightweight coaches, are against this proposal, but the NCAA seems to be favorably disposed. Now is the time to act against it!

NCAA Championships for Men Must Die!

While poking around the NCAA web site the other day (I need a life!), I came across the proposal sponsored by the PAC-10 to make men's rowing an NCAA sport with an NCAA championship. I've posted about this before, once here and once here. My first post was in September so I've been ringing the alarm bell about this one for quite a while. Just to remind you, the problem with this proposal is that it would most likely end the IRA regatta and with it, the lightweight women's and men's national championship races. Lightweights would be pushed to the fringe and the NCAA's separate but equal doctrine would continue to take hold of rowing. Think about it yourself, but I have a hard time coming up with one reason why this would be a good thing.

If you look at the proposal, you can see its history. The Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet recommended defeat, but the Championships/Competition Cabinet and the Management Council's 1st Review recommended approval. It looks to me like it's closer to approval than defeat. We are currently in the Comment Period and I suggest you ask your coaches about this. Now is the time for them to let the NCAA know where they stand. First ask your own coach if she or he has registered her opposition with the NCAA, then ask your men's lightweight coach if he's registered his opposition. You also want to know where your heavyweight coaches stand on the matter, since opposition from a men's heavyweight coach ought to carry some special weight. How about it Stanford lightweights, it was your conference that brought the proposal, ask your coaches to explain their position to you. Now is the time to act. You don't want to find yourself standing on the deserted banks of the Cooper River in June 2007 asking yourself why you didn't do more today.

Will the NCAA Continue to Tear Rowing Apart?

In one of my earlier scoops (you heard it here first), I discussed the Pac-10's proposal to make men's rowing an NCAA sport with an NCAA championship. Well, here's the proposal.

This is all about some Pac-10 men worrying that their competition has more scholarships. The proposal does not mention lightweight men (or women, of course) so it's not clear what happens to them. If there is a NCAA championship regatta for heavyweight men, lightweight women would not be able to race there. According to the NCAA's separate but equal doctrine, the sexes and weights may not mix. The potential for damage to lightweight rowing is great here - I wonder if lightweight coaches have focused on it?

If the NCAA wants a model for a sport that treats women and men the same, maybe they should look at rowing. Both sexes compete in exactly the same manner, using exactly the same equipment, and train exactly the same way. In some events, they even compete together (mixed boats). What is more equal than that? Why does the NCAA (and now the Pac-10 men) want to tear this apart?

NCAA Championships for Men?

The same article on the Trojan Navy web site (see previous post) states that "the PAC-10 has proposed legislation to make Men’s Rowing an NCAA sport with a championship." If this were to pass, what would happen to the women's lightweight national championship which is now part of the IRAs? If the IRAs essentially became the men's NCAA championships, women would not be allowed to race there. Would there have to be a separate regatta? In its great quest for inclusiveness, the NCAA just seems to tear rowing apart. Championship regattas should be a celebration of rowing that includes men and women. We train together, we race together, and on occasion we even race together in the same boats. The NCAA wants none of that. Separate but equal is the watchword for NCAA rowing, you can bet your shirt on that.