row2k
- Submit Results!
- Submit your races
- SPECIAL COVERAGE
- about | faq | search



row2k Newsletter

subscribe
unsubscribe
Support row2k!

DI rowing panel recommends AQs

July 8, 2009
source: Leilana McKindra, The NCAA News
Bookmark and Share


The Division I Women's Rowing Committee is recommending the establishment of automatic qualifiers to the championship.

The committee announced its decision after its annual meeting last month in Colorado Springs. If accepted by the Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet, the recommendation would become effective in 2011.

Tom Bold, associate athletics director at Brown and committee chair, said the group considered the move to automatic qualification as the final step in a three-step process that began with reclassification of rowing from an individual-team sport to a team sport and the expansion of the championship field, which occurred this past year. The 2009 championships field included 16 full teams.

Bold acknowledged opponents' fears that automatic qualification will water down the championship field, but he said the committee's decision is in line with other NCAA team sports.

"There are going to be some conferences that will be represented that traditionally haven't been represented, but we feel this is the same model the NCAA has for all of its team sports," he said. "Certainly within any championship, there are AQs that simply on merit probably wouldn't be there if there weren't AQs. I think this will be the same as any other championship."

However, Bold said the championship has been able to expand because of increased sponsorship. "You can't use the sponsorship numbers in rowing to have the ability to expand and not give conferences that sponsor the sport access to the championship," he said.

Ultimately, the committee believes that introducing automatic qualification won't change much about the championship.

"The championship is still going to have the top 12 or 13 teams in the country," said Bold. "We're still going to have great semifinal racing on Saturday and finals racing on Sunday. Just because we move to AQ, it's not going to be different than any other championship."

The committee recommended eliminating awards for individual boats at the championships. If the Championships/Sport Management Cabinet accepts the recommendation, only the top four teams overall will be recognized, unlike in previous years when the overall team champion was honored in addition to individual champions in the I Eights, II Eights and Fours.

Placement still matters, said Bold, but individual boats will be earning points only toward the team championship.

"We felt that recognizing individual performances was sending a mixed message with the team aspect," said Bold. "This was definitely a committee decision, but we also felt that it was something that may have been mandated down the road from the standpoint that no other team sport awards individual medals."

In other action at the Division I meeting, the committee chose Marshall Foley of the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference to succeed Bold as chair.

Divisions II and III actions

The Division I committee met concurrently with the Divisions II and III panels. All three agreed to adjust the way championships officials are chosen. The new process calls for the national committees to continue to select the head official, but now the regional advisory committees in each division will recommend officials for the remaining 19 slots. The national committees will compile a pool of qualified nominees from which the head official will chose the 19 officials. The national committees will have final approval of selected officials.

Previously, the head official was responsible for choosing the other 19 officials. Although additional steps have been introduced into the selection process, the national committees believe the enhancements ensure the best officials are selected for the championships.

The Division III Women's Rowing Committee decided to eliminate a requirement that every region be represented by at least one participating team. The decision halts a three-year trial aimed at spurring growth and increasing the level of competition in the division.

In two of the three years since the criteria was established, the committee has enforced the regional representation requirement.

The Division III committee also reviewed, but did not change, the championship format in response to a proposal for separate events for the I Eights and II Eights. Currently, I Eights and II Eights compete against each other in one event. The committee re-emphasized its commitment to the present format because it not only provides for exciting racing but also because it suits the championship at this point in its development.

The committee believes separating the I Eights and II Eights races would result in the elimination of some teams on the first day of competition and create smaller races, which are less spectator-friendly.

However, the committee did not rule out a format modification in the future. The group said it would be willing to entertain discussion to change the format should the field size increase, either by adding teams or by at-large boats being expanded into full teams.

Meanwhile, the Division II Women's Rowing Committee agreed to change the race progression for Fours to two heats of two boats. Previously, all four Four boats participated in one heat, with the winner advancing to the grand final. The other three boats participated in a repechage, in which the top two finishers also advanced to the grand final and the third boat was eliminated.

Under the newly proposed progression, the winners of each of the two heats automatically advance to the grand final, while the non-winning teams face off in a second race, in which the winner also advances to the grand final.

If approved by the Division II Championships Committee, the new progression would be effective in 2010.

In other action, the Division II committee selected John Gartin, head coach at Nova Southeastern, as its new chair.


Comments

Log in to comment
jcrist
07/10/2009  4:40:53 AM
What are the advatanges of being classified as a "full team" as opposed to the "team/individual"?

V8coach
07/09/2009  4:22:33 PM
I think both the quality and integrity of the national championship will be compromised, whereas it truly won't be the "top 16" teams in the country (I feel that you have to beat the best in order to call yourself the best)... and there could be questionable lineups. The time margins between V8 and JV8 will start to resemble something closer to even boats as coaches determine the best way to place all boats as high as possible. I for one, do not wish to stand on an NCAA shoreline wondering "is this actually their fastest 8 women?"

DtheB
07/08/2009  5:56:09 PM
I think it is also important to understand that the current design of the women's championships were created directly and indirectly by rowing coaches, not a bunch of 'suits' in some NCAA central office without an understanding of the sport. The best way to get as many people into the championship for a sport that simply is not widely sponsored compared to the main stream sports (in terms of number of programs) was to either create a 'team' or to create an "olympic style" regatta. The decision probably went towards the team concept because it would be easier to manage and was a format more visibly supported by college teams (i.e. a team of two eights and a four makes sense for programs that basically row eights and fours with the understanding that the NCAA does not sponsor sub-varsity athletics). But again the most important point that I want to make is these decisions were supported by college coaches as at the time it seemed the best way to promote college rowing (rather than consideration to the sport of rowing on the whole from juniors to masters from novice to Olympian - that is the responsibility of USRowing not NCAA!).

sidebyeach
07/08/2009  12:13:18 PM
DtheB makes a valid point noting the problems involved in choosing which bits of sponsorship to accept and which to ignore. NCAA has undeniably helped women's rowing, and the cost may include inviting slow conference champions and already does provide for the crowning of a champion who often doesn't win the I 8, and as old stroke notes could conceivably not win a single race. At least that allows for the crews potentially displaced by AQs (13-16th place, that nobody gives a crap about?) and the occasional boat at the "business end" of the I 8 final to get thrown under the same bus as rowing is molded to fit the basketball model. Maybe the deal women's rowing has made includes taking the bad with the good, but because of title IX issues it's ridiculous to assume men's rowing will enjoy the same benefits. Institutions aren't investing in men's rowing because it's a non-revenue producing men's sport at least as much as because of the lack of NCAA affiliation.

MsSaturdayNight
07/08/2009  11:35:29 AM
This is absolutely unacceptable on so many levels. I agree with many of the protests already posted here, and echo their sentiments that individual performance should never EVER be denied a National Championship award at a National Championship event. I cannot even imagine the uproar that would come of eliminating individual medals for National Champion track athletes, swimmers, gymnasts, et al. Encouraging the dilution of talent within college programs is just aggravating and has to make you wonder... *who cares* who wins the "V8" and "II 8" if they're no longer going to be the top tier and second tier athletes? Why even bother with two of the same boat class? This system does echo the elite level World Cup system in a sense with the team point total--and in that case, wouldn't it be much more interesting and rewarding to organize a regatta with more events (2-, 1x, 2x, 4x)? It would make for a much more interesting regatta both from a competitive and spectator's standpoint (and even increase participation and push sculling development, what a concept). Even so, the primary difference still remains that even under the point system the best athletes in the world go out there to win their World Cup races--but I guarantee they don't give a **** about their team point totals; they just want those yellow jerseys and a gold medal. That's tradition; that's our sport. It never has, and never should be a "feel good" sport at this level. It should reward those who are harder, stronger, faster, savvier, tougher, scrappier and more willing to push their limits than anyone else. Why anyone would want to take that away from these athletes is completely beyond me. Is there any way for anyone to voice their opinions to those who are making these decisions?

old stroke
07/08/2009  10:49:30 AM
I agree with the other folks that the elimination of recognition for winners of particular boat races shows that NCAA fundamentally misunderstands the sport. What NCAA has created is a system whereby a team can be called "NCAA champions" and not win a single race! Rowing is about who wins a boat race, and your "team" is -- primarily -- the other guys/gals with you in the boat who make that happen. Since time immemorial in rowing (viz the Henley Royal Regatta) trophies are awarded to winning boats, not winning "teams." Sure, when I rowed for Princeton in the stone age of wooden boats and male crews, we wanted our teammates in the other boats to win their races. But our focus was winning the race in our boat, whether it was frosh, JV or Varsity. I suppose someone who didn't think enough believes that, by doing this, NCAA can increase the numbers of participants, since the system rewards depth. But it also deprives a small, growing program of the recognition that it would otherwise get from winning one race. All athletes like to be part of winning teams, and the way to grow a winning crew is to have a boat win a big championship race. When my high school won the PE Cup at Henley in 1964, the next year we had rowers to fill eight 8s, two 4s and a quad! So, I join those in thinking that ending recognition of crews that win races is a big mistake.

DtheB
07/08/2009  10:47:14 AM
Women's rowing can either get all the benefits of NCAA sponsorship or it can organize its own elite national championship without all the kudos that come with the NCAA. That's what the men do and well, look how much investment comes from schools in to men's rowing these days. Take out the rowing endowments that fund the biggest and most historic programs you're not left with much. Not until the NCAA came in to the equation did we get anywhere near the level of investment in the sport that we now enjoy. So all you big program haters of the small programs that you need in order to get 16 teams invited in the first place SUCK IT UP. Go win your conference or have great seasons to get one of the potential eight at-large bids. You can't just take the bits of sponsorship you want and ignore the rest. One of the central tenets of the NCAA is recognizing conferences and conference championships and therefore conference champions. The only people who have ever given a crap about the schools placing 13th/14th/15th/16th are those schools that have been lucky enough to have the opportunity to place 13th/14th/15th/16th. Whether that school is a mid-major conference champion or the 4th Ivy League/Pac-10/Big 10 makes no difference to the business end of the NCAA Championship. You still have to show strength and depth to win this team championship and winning does not become any less easy regardless of including the Big East, A-10. MAAC or Patriot League champions. If of course you just don't like the way NCAA handles the sport of rowing in general that is another issue altogether, but the benefits of rowing being molded into a fashion so it 'fits' the model of 'all' sports (i.e. basketball) absolutely has helped the sport of women's rowing and if given the chance could do the same for men's rowing with obvious teething problems based on people's love of the history of the sport at the college level.

Long&Low
07/08/2009  9:01:13 AM
This is all fantastic for rowing. Why so many haters? I for one cannot wait until men's rowing has an NCAA Championship just like this as well. Brilliant!

twoSeat
07/08/2009  8:39:37 AM
Dear NCAA Committee, Thank you for watering down the NCAA championships. I see that the liberal university atmosphere has affected your thought process to such an extent that you would rather see under represented teams at the national championships than teams that deserve to be there. Did anyone stop and think that the reason they are under represented is that they aren't good enough to be there? When did rowing cease to be a competition and start to be a feel good activity?

V8coach
07/08/2009  8:28:36 AM
Again, what was the reason not to use individual events? Why is it so important? The NCAA seems to have no problem crowning individual champions in vault and balance beam as they do entire gymnastic teams; They crown individual freestylers and butterfliers as well as entire swim teams. So why again, are they bothering our sport? Leave it alone! I find it hard to believe that (amateur status aside), if Michael Phelps had swum for Michigan and was undefeated in every race, that unless his entire team was strong, he would walk away empty-handed-- OR WORSE, maybe not even qualify for NCAA's. I do see the point, Sidebyeach, that the NCAA does not acknowledge sub-varsity, as no champions are announced for the best 2nd string in college football... (ew, do not get me started on football)... So if a team has a really good offense and never needs their punter in the championship game, should he not get a ring? C'MON!!!! Second string players still earn a team championship as they contribute to the entire team as a whole-- which is what, ironically, our sport of rowing uniquely demonstrates.

me111111
07/08/2009  8:08:23 AM
AQ's...well I can't wait to see the fastest crew from the MAAC conference appear at NCAA's....maybe they can have parents fill the 2V8 or 1V4 that they don't have athletes for!!! What are they going to do when...literally...an AQ can't fill two 8's and a 4?

daisy
07/16/2009  1:58:40 PM
if you feel so strongly about this topic, perhaps you should be a little better informed. obviously, teams that cannot fill the boat classes would not be able to win their conference championship (format is the same as NCAA's). do you really think they will hand out AQ's in that manner? the criteria will include a minimum number of schools in your athletic conference (i think 6), and being able to field boats in that category.


sidebyeach
07/08/2009  5:58:54 AM
Here is the problem: Roster size is important. It is difficult to justify 20 scholarships unless you field nearly that many athletes at the championship. NCAA does not provide championship opportunities to sub-varsity athletes in any other sport. So, by calling the JV and 3V4 "II 8" and "4" and making it impossible to win a championship without strong performances in all 3 boats, they've, well, snuck in a way to provide NCAA championship opportunities to the JV and 3V....I could be wrong, but I doubt there is anyone rowing in a II8 who doesn't realize she is in the JV, or very many athletes in that regatta who would rather win the team championship than their own race. Still, team performance is the nature of that event for a reason and coming up with a suitable alternative is tricky. Up until now, the problems with this format have been by tacitly acknowledged by awarding boat championships. Should those be eliminated, I'd argue that the real mixed message being sent by the NCAA is the one which tells the I 8 who wins their race that they, the fastest boat in the country, are not champions because their II8 and 4 didn't do very well.

V8coach
07/07/2009  3:53:45 PM
Are any ROWING coaches part of the ncaa rowing committee? I don't understand how any current coaches would choose to support this motion. Seriously, think about what you're doing to our sport, guys-- and while you're at it, bring back the F/N8.

sidebyeach
07/07/2009  3:25:43 PM
...and not to worry, TheCoxGuide and Elioar, should Men's crew become an NCAA sport, rewarding the team over individual boats probably wont' be an issue: what incentive does NCAA have to reward the performance of a large men's team?

sidebyeach
07/07/2009  2:58:37 PM
For all the good the NCAA provides directly or at least encourages for rowing: scholarships, opportunity, championship funding, etc, they have never had any interest in determining the fastest women's 8 in the country. If they had, they wouldn't have created the euphemisms: II 8 and varsity 4, instead of the accurate JV and 3v4. This is all about roster numbers to balance football. The NCAA championship perpetuates the team sport farce by pretending, unlike any other racing sport, that individual contests matter only as they contribute to the team point total. Which member of any dominant 1V would volunteer to relinquish their seat to a lower performer and stroke the JV because it might help the team win an NCAA team title? Yet, her coach, whose second boat has modest speed and whose job depends on NCAA results would be foolish not to make that change, unless doing what is right happened to matter more than doing what is better for team results. Providing championship slots to automatic qualifiers is just more of the same: it rewards participation rather than excellence.

mylesbrown
07/07/2009  2:25:01 PM
The NCAA again demonstrates that they are completely out of touch with the sport of rowing. Rowing is not a team sport like basketball, but rather more like track where the team is made up of individuals and small groups participating in a variety of events. There is no more reason to eliminate the medals for the individual events in rowing than there would be for the relays in track.

TheCoxGuide
07/07/2009  12:16:39 PM
This is another dilution of the traditions of the sport of rowing by an organization that only wants to squash each sport into its own mold of what is correct.There is no mixed message being sent in rowing by awarding gold,silver, and bronze medals to the finishers, and a team trophy at the end. It is rowing. It causes no harm... frankly it provides motivation to those that did not place to try harder in the intervening months until the next championship. This is change is very unfortunate, and I would agree with elioar about Men's rowing and the NCAA: be careful what you wish for.

tigeroar
07/07/2009  1:09:02 PM
Agreed. At its most fundamental level, rowing is a boat vs boat sport, NOT a team vs team sport. While recognition of team efforts with team trophies is certainly appropriate, to the many athletes involved in this sport, it all comes down to lining up, bowball to bowball, and making your crew's shell cross the line first. By only acknowledging team efforts, the NCAA belittles the successes of crews that win without the support of a large and successful team.


row4life
07/07/2009  11:56:39 AM
Well...there go the NCAA's. AQ's take away opportunities from faster programs to make it to the NCAA's, and gives them to slower programs who race and win thier slower conferences. I would be curious to hear one example of a school that does not/did not have the "opportunity" to show thier speed and make it to the NCAA's. If a school wants to go to the NCAA's, all they have to do is race against schools that are going to the NCAA's and beat them at some point in the season, then they will get selected. I am sure if 'RowingU' went and beat a couple of crews like Stanford, Cal or Yale during the year....they would get selected even if they didn't normally race in the PAC 10's, Eastern Sprints or South Central regatta .

elioar
07/07/2009  11:55:31 AM
I hope everyone out there who thinks making Men's Rowing a NCAA sport reads this. To take away awards for individual boats is just ridiculous. Why not just run a time trial and add up the combined times of each team's boats and crown a champion. First they kill off Novice/Freshmen rowing, now this. The NCAA is a giant money making machine, no more.

mhcopa
07/08/2009  8:29:59 PM
I row for a DIII school and my first thoughts when I saw the link to this was "thank god mens rowing is not a DIII sport"

elioar
07/07/2009  12:41:40 PM
" . . . making Men's Rowing a NCAA sport is a good idea . . . " sorry.


Write row2k | row2k Home | Copyright © 1997-2009 row2k media. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy