SUPPLEMENT NO. 14

DI C/C Cabinet 6/08

REPORT OF THE

NCAA Division I WRESTLING Committee

1. ACTION ITEMS.

a. Selection Procedures.

(1) Recommendation. That the cabinet adopt a new qualifier allocation formula effective for the 2009 NCAA Division I Wrestling Championships (see Attachment B) that:

(a) Eliminates the use of historical data

(b) Eliminates the practice of selecting “wild-card” participants

(d) Allocates enough pre-conference and regional qualifying positions to maintain the importance of conference championships and regional qualifying tournaments

(e) Balances the goals selecting the most highly qualified individuals and achieving regional representation necessary for an endangered sport.

[Note: please see the attached supplementary information related to the Division I Wrestling selection criteria procedures (Attachments A and B).]

(2) Rationale. The committee believes that its recommendations are in the best interest of the sport and that the future qualifying formula and NCAA Championships field size will have a significant and lasting impact on the health and well being of collegiate wrestling. While the recommendations do not fit neatly into the standard NCAA model that works so well for many other sports, the committee believes that its recommendations are supported by sound rationale and legitimate data.

Per the cabinet’s request from February 2008, the committee evaluated alternate ways of selecting at-large or wild-card participants. The committee also discussed the philosophy of identifying the 33 best wrestlers in each weight class compared to the philosophy of identifying the 330 best wrestlers. Finally, the committee compared its preconference tournament allocation model versus a postconference selection model.

The committee conducted a mock selection for the 2008 NCAA Division I Wrestling Championships using this standard selection process with current year data (including individuals’ Division I winning percentage (Win %), rating percentage index (RPI) and coaches’ ranking (CR) – see Attachment B) and was frankly impressed by how well this process identified the best wrestlers in each weight class.

Furthermore, after going through the mock selection the committee is convinced that determining at-large selections from a national pool of candidates is a better process than the current wild card system where coaches determine at-large candidates from their respective conferences or regional qualifying tournaments. The committee also supports the philosophy of identifying an equal number of wrestlers in each weight class as there is no objective way to compare wrestlers from different weight classes.

Concern for an Endangered Sport

While the standard NCAA selection process is effective for many sports and is an improvement from wrestling’s current system, the committee believes that, if adopted without modifications, the process will have a long-term, detrimental impact on a sport that is struggling to keep Division I sponsorship at current levels.

At the center of the committee’s concerns is the inevitable side effect of the NCAA Championships model where a disproportionate amount of importance is placed on the postseason. The sport of wrestling needs more (quantity) important events each year, not just the NCAA Division I Wrestling Championships. Wrestling also needs to increase the importance of regular season dual meets to broaden and strengthen local fan bases. Unfortunately, the standard NCAA selection process further undermines both the importance of conference championships and regular season dual meets. There are many examples found in other sports that use the standard NCAA selection process that validates the committee’s concerns, including:

· Basketball – The NCAA Championships overshadows every other aspect of the sport. Conference tournaments have little meaning beyond seeding for the postseason. The value of basketball’s regular season can also be measured by television ratings and rights fees associated with games played in November through February and both measurements are miniscule compared with what is generated in the postseason.

· Track & Field – Qualification for the NCAA Championships, and scheduling strategies that coaches have developed to maximize their teams’ ability to meet qualifying standards, has impacted the regular season to a point where dual meets have all but disappeared. Current scheduling strategies may be effective in terms of preparing individuals to meet postseason qualifying standards, but the practice has isolated local fan bases and public support for the sport has dwindled.

· Soccer and Softball – The Big Ten Conference recently eliminated its conference tournaments in both women’s soccer and softball. Rationale included: 1) conference tournaments were no longer needed to maximize the number of teams qualifying for the NCAA Championships, and 2) conference tournaments were a competitive disadvantage for qualifiers due to the additional games played immediately preceding the first round of the NCAA Championships.

In efforts to prevent the certain erosion of the importance of wrestling’s conference championships, the committee believes that the standard selection process should be modified to allow the allocation of the majority of qualifiers prior to the conference championships and regional qualifying tournaments. By doing so, the committee believes that these events will be more meaningful to student-athletes, coaches and fans as many more individuals will determine their own postseason fate at these events. This has been a key element to the success conference and regional championships have enjoyed to date.

The committee is confident that the proposed modification will not unfairly disadvantage student-athletes under consideration for at-large selections as the committee compared Win % and RPI measurements taken immediately prior to and immediately after the conference championships and regional qualifying tournaments and found the differences to be statistically insignificant. There are no logistical issues associated with the proposed modification as the allocation of qualifiers prior to the conference championships and regional qualifying tournaments is the current practice.

The second major concern the committee has with the standard NCAA selection process is the application of NCAA Bylaw 31.3.5 – selecting the most highly qualified individuals to complete the championships field. The committee supports the intent of the regulation but after conducting the 2008 mock selection, the committee’s predictions were confirmed as even more qualifiers were allocated to the Big Ten Conference and the Big 12 Conference. Conversely, programs that struggle to maintain sponsorship received fewer qualifiers.

The standard NCAA selection process limits the minimum level of regional representation to conference and regional champions only. Having only one representative from every conference and regional tournament may be an acceptable level of regional representation for basketball and perhaps other sports, but this level is inadequate for an endangered sport such as wrestling. It is critical for as many programs as possible, especially those programs struggling to maintain sponsorship, to receive exposure that only the NCAA Championships can provide.

The committee believes that it must strike a balance between selecting the best wrestlers for the NCAA Championships and providing optimal regional representation for an endangered sport. Ignoring this need for balance would be short-sighted and irresponsible. Based on the 2008 mock selection where the NCAA Championships field size was 330, the only way to achieve optimal regional representation would have been to place caps on how many wrestlers could qualify from any one conference. However, the adoption of caps directly conflicts with the philosophy of selecting the most highly qualified individuals and the committee is not supportive of denying postseason opportunities to individuals that have legitimately earned qualifying positions.

During the 2008 mock selection the committee decided to identify an additional three wrestlers per weight class that would have received at-large selections by virtue of being the next three most highly qualified individuals if the NCAA Championships field size was increased to 36 per weight class. What the committee found was that 27 of the 30 additional selections would have gone to conferences other than the Big Ten Conference and Big 12 Conference. In 2008, these additional qualifiers would have been awarded to the following institutions: Appalachian State University (3), Boston University (1), Brown University (1), Bucknell University (2), California State University at Bakersfield (1), Cleveland State University (1), Columbia University (1), Cornell University (2), Gardner-Webb University (1), Harvard University (1), Lock Haven University (2), Old Dominion University (2), Stanford University (1), University of North Carolina at Greensboro (1), University of Maryland (1), University of Pennsylvania (1), U.S. Air Force Academy (1), U.S. Military Academy (1), U.S. Naval Academy (1), and West Virginia University (1).

With support of the 2008 mock selection data, the committee believes that adding an additional 30 qualifying positions to the NCAA Championships is the best option to balance the equally important priorities of selecting the most deserving wrestlers and achieving optimal regional representation for the sport. As noted in the committee’s previous report, there would be a financial impact of approximately $45,000 with no significant impact on the event format. The committee recognizes that the cabinet also monitors postseason opportunities for men and women and respectfully believes that the relatively small number of additional qualifiers (30) is an acceptable increase in light of the urgent need the sport of wrestling has to assist programs that are struggling to maintain sponsorship.

(3) Estimated Budget Impact. $45,000.

(4) Student-Athlete Impact. Every student-athlete would have the same opportunity to qualify for the NCAA championships.

(f) 2009 Regional Sites.

(1) Recommendation. That Boiling Springs, North Carolina be designated as the site for the 2009 Division I Wrestling East regional. Gardner-Webb University will serve as the host for the competition to be conducted on March 7, 2009 at the Lutz-Yelton Convocation Center. In addition, Greeley, Colorado should be designated as the site for the 2009 Division I Wrestling West regional. The University of Northern Colorado will serve as the host for the competition to be conducted on March 7, 2009 at the Butler-Hancock Athletic Center.

(2) Rationale. Bids were solicited at the national championships from all member institutions. Gardner-Webb University was the only prospective host institution to submit a bid for the East regional. Also, Northern Colorado was the only prospective host institution to submit a bid for the West regional.

(3) Estimated Budget Impact. The guarantee amounts for the recommended sites are as follows:

Gardner-Webb University (Guarantee: $52.50)

University of Northern Colorado (Guarantee: $487.50)

(4) Student-Athlete Impact. None.

2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.

a. Strategic Plan. As stated in the committee’s previous report to the cabinet, revising the qualifier allocation formula is an important first step in addressing the challenges facing collegiate wrestling, however, there is more work to be done to strengthen the sport.

The National Wrestling Coaches Association (NWCA) assembled a blue-ribbon panel comprised of coaches and administrators to evaluate wrestling’s low Academic Progress Rate (APR). The committee has been in communication with the NWCA and expects to receive the panel’s recommendations in the near future.

The committee continues to believe that the best way to develop strong, local fan support is through dual meet competition and the committee is evaluating different ways to increase opportunities for more regular season dual meets without having a significant academic or financial impact. The committee is also mindful that with the introduction of an RPI into the NCAA Championships selection process, coaches’ scheduling strategies will likely change and may make dual meets less attractive. The committee plans to monitor scheduling practices and in the future may need to propose scheduling-specific legislation to emphasize the regular season.

The committee is continuing its feasibility study of an NCAA sanctioned dual meet championships event that would reinforce the legitimacy of the dual meet format and also serve as another marquee event the sport could use to gain promotional benefits.