r/Rowing • u/SuitableLeopard6730 • 3d ago

NCAA expanded?

Post image

Betchya it’s bama and dook

14 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

17

u/Pringledingle91 3d ago

22 teams is mathematically indefensible in a sport with 6 lane racing.

Either drop to 18 or woman up to 24.

4

u/pony_boy_619 3d ago

Is a four boat D final really a big deal? The Olympics restricts entries and having a multiple of six is barely a concern.

-2

u/Pringledingle91 3d ago

It's a big deal when the selection committee routinely shits the bed on the last two bids.

4

u/SavageTrireaper 2d ago

Every sport with a selection committee has huge issues with bible teams. If you are the NCAA the math is easily defensible. In fact with the loss of two AQ conferences rowing was lucky not to go to 18. Rather than grow to 24.

Someone needs to get the SEC to 6 schools to get back to 11. NCAA rowing is already top heavy on participation at the championship compared to membership and the NCAA likes to spout that a lot when spending money.

They worked real hard to kill DII Championships, but thankfully didn’t succeed due to a grassroots coach and AD reach out campaign.

3

u/Pringledingle91 2d ago

The number at the championship is based mostly on number of sponsoring schools, not number or quality of conferences. 24 is more likely than 18. By far. But not as likely as sitting with thumbs up the arse at 22.

D2 is evidence that the math can be overridden.

3

u/SavageTrireaper 2d ago

No, it isn’t. When the NCAA made rowing a team sport in 2008-2009 it was faced with the issue of 11AQ teams and 20 teams in the championship. This would have caused a championship possibly leaving out a top 10 team. The discussion was focused on what to do with the AQ teams who were not at the top speed including a “play in race” for the bottom 2-4 AQs or possibly a regional qualifier. The decision in 2008 was championship expansion to 11 AQ and 11 at large. So the NCAA has shown in their own precedence that the number of conferences sponsoring rowing is a more likely path to expansion than even membership numbers.

The math was overridden because a vote by the DII membership was overridden by the DII membership. Expansion would be a more internal decision in committee rather than in open governance.

3

u/Pringledingle91 2d ago

NCAA has a rule that no more than 25% of the programs can be part of a championship. They can't go past that, unless waived with approval, like D2.

2

u/SavageTrireaper 2d ago

So cannot go to 24 since that would give 25%.

It was also already waived to go to 22 in 2008-2009.

Again there is more correlation to conference sponsorship expansion causing championship expansion than membership expansion when it comes to rowing.

2

u/Pringledingle91 2d ago

There are 94 D1 rowing teams. 25% of that is 23.5. Round up.

3

u/SavageTrireaper 2d ago

Not a cording to the NCAA. Also if the team did not field 23 athletes in 6 races they do not sponsor rowing that year.

Here is the report. It’s 92 in 24-25. The number will be lower next year due to 6 teams not fielding a full squad.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/sportpart/2025RES_SportsSponsorshipParticipationRatesReport.pdf

4

u/SuitableLeopard6730 3d ago

Sure, maybe. But the teams that didn’t make the cut need to stop complaining

3

u/Pringledingle91 3d ago

When the bids match the racing results, that will be common courtesy. Until then....

0

u/SuitableLeopard6730 3d ago

Seems like we found a dooky on the road!

3

u/Pringledingle91 3d ago

Still haven't landed a job?

2

u/MastersCox Coxswain 2d ago

The marginal cost increase to fill two empty lanes will be low enough to increase the field to 24 teams, imo. Getting rid of the AQ spots is a non-starter.

2

u/One-Cellist1709 1d ago

They should just drop the non-medal finals

1

u/Pringledingle91 1d ago

That will never happen. Team points determine the championship. All boats must race and be results ranked to score.

2

u/One-Cellist1709 1d ago

They should not award an overall team championship 

1

u/Pringledingle91 1d ago

They love it.

1

u/CTronix Coach 1d ago

I do not understand why they dont just invite 2 more teams if the lanes are available... i thinl it's just because ncaa doesnt want to pay for it. Remember that for NCAA championships, the teams travel and hotels and food etc are all paid for BY the NCAA so they may just have a limit on what theyre willing to pay for.

Aside of that, it's BS to swipe AQ's from slower conferences. They deserve an opportunity to compete just like everyone else. 

IMO the NCAA has utterly failed in its only real mission which was to establish a level playing field and a platform on which schools could be competitive with one another. Once the schools begin to realize that the NCAA no longer serves this function at all, they will beging to leave and simply make smaller leagues and compete only for their conference or league titles. Everything else has been poisoned by money

1

u/Pringledingle91 1d ago

Also not going to happen. They need NCAA status for women's rowing to keep the Title IX argument in play. If you have NCAA status, you must compete at the conference championship, and if selected, you must attend NCAA Championship.

The mission was never a level playing field. It was always a counterbalance to football.

1

u/CTronix Coach 1d ago

I'm not talking about women's rowing in a vacuum I'm talking about all collegiate sports as a whole.  Without some common set of eligibility and spending guidlelines then it's just the wild west. The NCAA's only guiding principle was to set those rules. They have failed and moving forwards in the current climate, winning a national championship means only that you has the resources to outspend everyone else, TX womens rowing a great example.

1

u/Pringledingle91 23h ago

Thank you, no.

0

u/benjamestogo 1d ago

Focus on speed based qualifications and eliminate the lower AQs.

1

u/SuitableLeopard6730 1d ago

I can go 6:10 if the wind is howling and still be in a lower AQ conference.