Divisions

[DGlass]

It seems like there is at least one team in ever region that is "playing up" or "playing down" a division in order to be competitive. I find this interesting because, as I often state, the NCRHA divisional structure has absolutely nothing to do with talent of a school. It is entirely focused on size of school:

If your enrollment is above 18,000 students, you should be Division I.
If your enrollment is below 18,000 students, you should be Division II.
JuCo and Community Colleges are DIII.
Secondary and tertiary teams play in the B Division.

Lindenwood is a Division II school and should be playing against other Division II schools, not blurring the lines and playing against the larger, Division I schools.

[MAmato]

I'm an ignorant guy, what teams are playing out of position in the ECRHA? The only ones I can think of are Temple and maybe Cornell in a year or two (if you're including grad student population).

[DGlass]

Enrollements according to Petersons.com:

Division I
Rhode Island - 11,875
Connecticut - 16,347
Boston - 18,521
Rutgers - 26,691
Stony Brook - 14,847
Army - 4,231
Hofstra - 8,498
Towson - 16,219
Penn State - 36,815
Delaware - 16,296
Buffalo - 18,165
Pittsburgh - 17,246
RIT - 13,140

Division II
Maine - 9,179
Vermont - 10,082
Ramapo - 5,188
Briarcliffe - 2,343
Albany - 12,457
Cornell - 13,562
Binghamton - 11,523
Brockport - 6,916
Shippensburg - 6,423
Temple - 24,674
Slippery Rock - 7,545
Scranton - 3,999
Neumann - 2,418
West Chester - 10,821
Millersville - 7,206
Drexel - 12,908


Even using common sense to adjust for inaccuracies (such as not including graduate school, which I am fairly certain these numbers do not). The following ECRHA schools are probably playing out of division:

Army
Hofstra
Rhode Island
RIT
Temple


Remember that Drexel and Binghamton have recently moved to Division II, and Stony Brook and Hofstra recently moved to Division I.

[missionhockey33]

it doesn't matter if lindenwood's enrollment is lower, it goes by Talent and thats exactly what lindenwoods has had for the years they've been winning. so until there program plans to take a deep plunge in the near future i can't see them leaving d1. for example neumann and wcu they both should move up to division 1 to make the level of play even more competitive. Them smoking teams every weekend really isn't a defeat, its a waste of time on there part and the teams that play them. At least two team has forfeited to neumann this season probably because they agree with me. It's a waste of time and energy.

[Drexel63]

Actually, read the League's rules and regulations sometime...

Divisions are NOT STRUCTURED BASED ON TALENT, or organizational strength, or any other NON QUANTIFIABLE STANDARD! They are SUPPOSED to be divided based on enrollment strength, because that was determined as the biggest clue as to how competitive a school could ultimately become.

Basically, it's based on odds... Odds are that Penn State, regardless of senior turnover, will not be a terrible roller hockey team two years in a row. They proved that very well in the past 4 years.

Regarding schools like Neumann and West Chester, these are teams full of groups of friends, from before they went to school. The majority of the players on these teams knew and/or played with each other before enrolling in college. There are exceptions to every rule, and this fact explains these exceptions.... When all of thes guys are out of school at Neumann, a new crop might rise there, but it isn't as LIKELY (keyword here) as it would be at a school with larger undergraduate enrollment numbers such as Penn State.

Anyone who knows PSUs history of talent level and graduating classes can attest to this... there was no recruiting going on here...

This is COLLEGE SPORTS people... college sports are designed to group like colleges, based on size and region, together into divisions...

Drexel's Ice Hockey team was well organized, especially by our roller hockey standards, but the NCAA isn't going to have them playing Neumann, RIT, or BC any time soon, just based on their organizational level, or talent level....



I understand why there are exceptions in College Roller Hockey. I understand why a team like Lindenwood (an exception to the rule based on their recruiting edge) should be allowed to play D1. I was on a team that thought we fit the same mold. Drexel played D1 (from the time of the original split into two divisions, 8 years ago under the CRHL) until about 3 years ago, under the NCRHA. Drexel, under current NCRHA guidlines, is a division 2 school. Talent and Organization Levels aside, Division 2 is where Drexel belongs, as well as Neumann and West Chester.

**Note: I'm not comparing Drexel to Lindenwood in any manner here, I'm saying we thought we had a good reason (a talented group of Freshman who all came through the club at the same time) to stay in D1 for the higher level of competition. Division 1 had a higher level of competition at the time, and we were given the choice. I'm looking back in hindsight, and fully regretting that choice. We should have played in the division our school belonged in, regardless of our chances to win or be competitive in any division.**

I say I understand why the exceptions are allowed to appeal and move divisions, however, I would much rather see all schools forced to strictly adhere to these divisional guidelines, and play in the division their enrollment dictates, then force all schools into play against schools their enrollment cannot match, based on the guise of organization and talent.

Narch Divisions are grouped by talent. But we are playing for something more than a cheap little metal award and the experience of spending a summer vacation at a hockey rink... You represent your school...

[The Stiff]

Yes, we should all read the rules. And in the League Operations Manual from the NCRHA Web site, it clearly states the following:

"If a program normally classified as Division II wishes to participate in Division I, no appeal is required, but both the Member Organization and NCRHA Director of League Operations must be notified in writing no later than the September 15th preceding the season."

There is similar wording for teams wishing to play down.

So, everyone is playing where they belong. Which means that divisions ARE structured based on talent, which is the way it should be. As you said, this is college sports. That's why small schools like DePaul can win a NCAA basketball championship or Santa Clara can win an NCAA soccer championship. You play in the division in which you logically belong.

[DGlass]

Ha...you are ridiculously incorrect.

Divisions in the NCRHA have nothing to do with talent. As I stated in my first post, the official NCRHA policy is that that the current divisional structure is based on school enrollment (the mythical 18,000 line).

Most people know my personal opinion on this subject but I think it is important for each and every player to think about why the perception of our league is so different from the rules that govern it.

So rather than going on a rant about Neumann and WCU wasting time and energy, perhaps you could offer a constructive way to better define the rules. If Division I is to be reflective of the greatest collegiate roller hockey talent, the league needs to be operated in a way that delivers that. If Division I is to be reflective of the collegiate roller hockey available at the largest schools in the country, the league needs to be operated to achieve that goal.

[Drexel63]

Dave,

I'm not sure if you were responding to me, or TheStiff, but I think maybe both...

It is my perception that the provisions for changing divisions were installed at first to give member clubs (from before the split) a chance to still compete. For example, Virginia Tech. While boasting one of the most talented freshman in the league in Chris Harrell, VTech could not compete with teams like Penn State, Pitt, and PSU Altoona ever, let alone on a regular basis. Almost a decade, College Roller Hockey did not have the basis it has now, and losing clubs like VTech would have set the league back miles from the progress it had made in a few short years...

Now, some clubs have been around for a decade (such as Drexel and Pitt) or more, and the division they play in will not have as much of a say in their survival in the future. These clubs have survived two full personnel changes. The newer teams have the benefit of the older clubs to lead their way, and stabilize the waters, and for that their survival is more certain, given that the club leadership wants it to be.

I believe that it is now a much better time to move towards National splits in division based on school size...I also believe that this change would be fough whole heartedly, and I believe that is based on the premise created by the organizations which have carried Roller Hockey through it's youth as a sport... such as Narch... who are based on talent, and where talent rushes towards a high level of organization (Parents take their kids to play for the club which has its act together).

Regardless of my beliefs, if this were to succeed, changes would need to be made... I would institue 4 divisions... Using this year's ECRHA field as an example

Division 1 would include all schools over 15,000 undergrad enrollment...
Penn State - 36,815
Rutgers - 26,691
Temple - 24,674
Boston - 18,521
Buffalo - 18,165
Connecticut - 16,347
Towson - 16,219
Delaware - 16,296
Pittsburgh - 17,246

Division 2 would encompass schools from 10 to 15,0000
Vermont - 10,082
Albany - 12,457
Cornell - 13,562
Binghamton - 11,523
West Chester - 10,821
Drexel - 12,908
Rhode Island - 11,875
Stony Brook - 14,847
RIT - 13,140


Division 3 would encompass schools from 0 to 10,000
Maine - 9,179
Ramapo - 5,188
Briarcliffe - 2,343
Brockport - 6,916
Shippensburg - 6,423
Slippery Rock - 7,545
Scranton - 3,999
Neumann - 2,418
Millersville - 7,206
Army - 4,231
Hofstra - 8,498

and Division 4 would encompass Junior and Community Colleges (schools which do not adhere to the more strict enrollment classifications that Division1-3 schools have.
Suffolk County Community College
Nassau County Community College

The B Division would remain a collection of all D1-4 schools, as not enough programs are advanced or popular enough to have a B team, and there simply aren't the numbers needed to divide this further. Eventually, however, there should be B-1 through B-4 divisions.

This Divisional alignment structure, obviously, is worthless if it isn't done Nationally... making the change in one region and not in the others offers more problems than the change is fixing... But that is another conversation...

[SPORTSPLEXJEFF]

Dave,

I'm not sure if you were responding to me, or TheStiff, but I think maybe both...

It is my perception that the provisions for changing divisions were installed at first to give member clubs (from before the split) a chance to still compete. For example, Virginia Tech. While boasting one of the most talented freshman in the league in Chris Harrell, VTech could not compete with teams like Penn State, Pitt, and PSU Altoona ever, let alone on a regular basis. Almost a decade, College Roller Hockey did not have the basis it has now, and losing clubs like VTech would have set the league back miles from the progress it had made in a few short years...

Now, some clubs have been around for a decade (such as Drexel and Pitt) or more, and the division they play in will not have as much of a say in their survival in the future. These clubs have survived two full personnel changes. The newer teams have the benefit of the older clubs to lead their way, and stabilize the waters, and for that their survival is more certain, given that the club leadership wants it to be.

I believe that it is now a much better time to move towards National splits in division based on school size...I also believe that this change would be fough whole heartedly, and I believe that is based on the premise created by the organizations which have carried Roller Hockey through it's youth as a sport... such as Narch... who are based on talent, and where talent rushes towards a high level of organization (Parents take their kids to play for the club which has its act together).

Regardless of my beliefs, if this were to succeed, changes would need to be made... I would institue 4 divisions... Using this year's ECRHA field as an example

Division 1 would include all schools over 15,000 undergrad enrollment...
Penn State - 36,815
Rutgers - 26,691
Temple - 24,674
Boston - 18,521
Buffalo - 18,165
Connecticut - 16,347
Towson - 16,219
Delaware - 16,296
Pittsburgh - 17,246

Division 2 would encompass schools from 10 to 15,0000
Vermont - 10,082
Albany - 12,457
Cornell - 13,562
Binghamton - 11,523
West Chester - 10,821
Drexel - 12,908
Rhode Island - 11,875
Stony Brook - 14,847
RIT - 13,140


Division 3 would encompass schools from 0 to 10,000
Maine - 9,179
Ramapo - 5,188
Briarcliffe - 2,343
Brockport - 6,916
Shippensburg - 6,423
Slippery Rock - 7,545
Scranton - 3,999
Neumann - 2,418
Millersville - 7,206
Army - 4,231
Hofstra - 8,498

and Division 4 would encompass Junior and Community Colleges (schools which do not adhere to the more strict enrollment classifications that Division1-3 schools have.
Suffolk County Community College
Nassau County Community College

The B Division would remain a collection of all D1-4 schools, as not enough programs are advanced or popular enough to have a B team, and there simply aren't the numbers needed to divide this further. Eventually, however, there should be B-1 through B-4 divisions.

This Divisional alignment structure, obviously, is worthless if it isn't done Nationally... making the change in one region and not in the others offers more problems than the change is fixing... But that is another conversation...


Mr. Sherwood, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Sorry Billy had to get you just for the hell of it.

On a serious note he does bring up interesting points.

[William Bourque]

For comparisons sake, this is how the Division are created for all NCAA sports.


Division I

Division I member institutions have to sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two team sports for each gender. Each playing season has to be represented by each gender as well. There are contest and participant minimums for each sport, as well as scheduling criteria. For sports other than football and basketball, Division I schools must play 100 percent of the minimum number of contests against Division I opponents -- anything over the minimum number of games has to be 50 percent Division I. Men's and women's basketball teams have to play all but two games against Division I teams; for men, they must play one-third of all their contests in the home arena. Schools that have football are classified as Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) or NCAA Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA). Football Bowl Subdivision schools are usually fairly elaborate programs. Football Bowl Subdivision teams have to meet minimum attendance requirements (average 15,000 people in actual or paid attendance per home game), which must be met once in a rolling two-year period. NCAA Football Championship Subdivision teams do not need to meet minimum attendance requirements. Division I schools must meet minimum financial aid awards for their athletics program, and there are maximum financial aid awards for each sport that a Division I school cannot exceed.
Division II

Division II institutions have to sponsor at least five sports for men and five for women, (or four for men and six for women), with two team sports for each gender, and each playing season represented by each gender. There are contest and participant minimums for each sport, as well as scheduling criteria -- football and men's and women's basketball teams must play at least 50 percent of their games against Division II or Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) or Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA) opponents. For sports other than football and basketball there are no scheduling requirements. There are not attendance requirements for football, or arena game requirements for basketball. There are maximum financial aid awards for each sport that a Division II school must not exceed. Division II teams usually feature a number of local or in-state student-athletes. Many Division II student-athletes pay for school through a combination of scholarship money, grants, student loans and employment earnings. Division II athletics programs are financed in the institution's budget like other academic departments on campus. Traditional rivalries with regional institutions dominate schedules of many Division II athletics programs.
Division III

Division III institutions have to sponsor at least five sports for men and five for women, with two team sports for each gender, and each playing season represented by each gender. There are minimum contest and participant minimums for each sport. Division III athletics features student-athletes who receive no financial aid related to their athletic ability and athletic departments are staffed and funded like any other department in the university. Division III athletics departments place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators. The student-athlete's experience is of paramount concern. Division III athletics encourages participation by maximizing the number and variety of athletics opportunities available to students, placing primary emphasis on regional in-season and conference competition.

[DGlass]

I was referring to missionhockey33 who incorrectly stated that NCRHA divisions were based on talent.

Sherwood - Unfortunately there are only a handful of people (you, Burke and I come to mind as players) who were around when the divisional structure based on school enrollment actually made some sense.

The point I want to make is that the NCRHA rulebook says divisions are based on school size...but if you want, you can move up/down. Nowhere does it explicitly state why a club might want to be in one division over another. This is precisely why the ECRHA has experimented with minor divisional changes. Clubs deserve a choice as to who they play against.

I believe that most players share the sentiment of missionhockey33 and believe that the divisions are (or should be) based on talent. While I only somewhat agree, I would rather have players speak up and ask their club presidents, regional directors and NCRHA staff members why things are the way they are and, more importantly, what can be done to improve the league.

[MBurke]

Unfortunately, arbitrarily basing it on school size seems to be a lose-lose situation, as we lose teams every year due to the fact that they are not competitive in ANY division.

In the NCAA, the divisions are mostly based on commitment of the school. Much of that plays into school size, but we're also talking about a situation where schools of differing size willing to make the SAME commitment to their teams (usually, that means monetary investment) have exactly the same number of scholarships to award. That lends a lot to competitive parity.

I think what you would see if we went to a very strict school size rule is that we would quickly fold into a regionalized sport, much like lacrosse. Roller Hockey is not popular in states like Kansas, and forcing Kansas State (who has a large student body) into Division I against schools with large student bodies AND large hockey player populations (Michigan, Michigan State, Rhode Island, etc.) is neither fair nor lends to competitive parity.

In the NCAA, schools are footing the bill to participate. In the NCRHA, with a few exceptions, players bear the brunt of the participation costs - even if the school covers league fees, most teams are stuck paying equipment, travel, hotel and practice costs on their own. Few if any games are held near campus, and the norm is a 4-6 hour trip to play a few games in a weekend at a neutral site.

With that in mind, just looking back at the records of any team in NCRHA history shows that any team that is not competitive in any given division will not survive very long.

As an example, here are some past ECRHA teams that no longer play in the league: Bucknell, Colgate, Liberty, LIU - Southampton, PSU - New Kensington. All of these were small schools playing in Division II - but they were getting trounced week in and week out. Also consider that Duquesne and the University of Maryland are not participating this year after having played last year. Both of those are directly attributable to no one stepping up to run the club.

Realistically there are only three major ways to divide divisions:
1) Talent
2) Organization Level (school support + club leadership + ability of club to conform to guidelines set by the league)
3) School Size or other stats that are easily measured.

Each has its problems. Talent is both subjective and variable - as stated earlier, a team may have a bunch of friends who are talented and then drop off the map the following year. Org level is less variable and less subjective, but doesn't necessarily point to competitive balance. School size is completely objective but unfairly punishes schools that aren't located in hockey hotbeds - more often than not leading them to disband their team after several years.

Therefore, what we've tried in the ECRHA this year is a hybrid of 1) and 2).

Teams can play where they want and feel most competitive, but teams that choose Division I have additional responsibilities:
- Longer season with higher cost
- Mandatory presence of head coach on bench
- Additional uniform requirements (matching pants, helmets)
- Less leeway on organizational responsibilities

On the flip side, teams in Division II seem to be benefiting from a shorter season, lower league fees and slightly relaxed rules.

Teams still ultimately have the choice of where to play, but what we've been able to go back to is allowing the teams within each division to set their own guidelines as a group. This is an extreme example, but if Division I wanted to move to a 40-game season next year and the teams voted to accept the responsibility of paying that additional cost, we would provide for that. No one has been FORCED to play in Division I and no one is locked in here, so they are free to move to another division if they don't like what the division decides upon as a group.

[ACCCT2]

Actually, if I might comment here, I think that Mike Burke's explanation of how the NCRHA has delinated the qualifying criteria between D1 and D2 levels of subscribed-for competition hits the nail squarely and sensibly on the head. To whit --



Realistically there are only three major ways to divide divisions:
1) Talent
2) Organization Level (school support + club leadership + ability of club to conform to guidelines set by the league)
3) School Size or other stats that are easily measured.

Each has its problems. Talent is both subjective and variable - as stated earlier, a team may have a bunch of friends who are talented and then drop off the map the following year. Org level is less variable and less subjective, but doesn't necessarily point to competitive balance. School size is completely objective but unfairly punishes schools that aren't located in hockey hotbeds - more often than not leading them to disband their team after several years.

Therefore, what we've tried in the ECRHA this year is a hybrid of 1) and 2).

Teams can play where they want and feel most competitive, but teams that choose Division I have additional responsibilities:
- Longer season with higher cost
- Mandatory presence of head coach on bench
- Additional uniform requirements (matching pants, helmets)
- Less leeway on organizational responsibilities

On the flip side, teams in Division II seem to be benefiting from a shorter season, lower league fees and slightly relaxed rules.

Ultimately, option #2 is the only one that really addresses the BEST of all issues at play --

In a situation where there is virtually no meaningful (read: CASH) scholarship, sponsorship or administrative $upport of most NCRHA teams, the line of demarcation should really be about "commitment": if you're demonstratedly committed (financially, time & presentation-wise) to competing at the highest, most disciplined, polished and competitive levels of the collegiate game, then D1 should be based (and apparently is) upon this team participation criteria.

The required extra 'polish' and financial commitment clearly allows the NCRHA to put its "BEST face forward", so to speak, and I believe that this is a sensible and wise tack to take with the collegiate game marketing-wise. And in the long-term objectives and goals that I assume the NCRHA surely has set for itself, "BEST face forward" is the ONLY way that the NCRHA (and the sport in general) can attract the kind of $upport that is out there to be won for the collegiate game.

[Army Defense]

i would love to play a 40 game season :D:D

[MBurke]

i would love to play a 40 game season :D:D

What's that, 10 games every time they let you off campus? :)

[Army Defense]

What's that, 10 games every time they let you off campus? :)

of course, just get the whole division together in feasterville and keep us on rink 1 all day saturday playing everyone back to back.. it cant be that bad if we bring the whole 32 man roster and only dress 12 or so each game :p

[MBurke]

of course, just get the whole division together in feasterville and keep us on rink 1 all day saturday playing everyone back to back.. it cant be that bad if we bring the whole 32 man roster and only dress 12 or so each game :p

Geez, you're US Army, not French Legionnaires. :eek:

[ACCCT2]

LOL!:) That's a really good one, Mike! Actually, it would be kinda' neat to see OUR "Army" do an inline hockey reenactment of the Battle of Camerone...and win it (as OUR "Army" is always "committed" to, right!) -- you could even play the entire season on the 30th of April each year (at the "Hacienda Feasterville"?) in honor of OUR "Army's" re-writing/re-interpreting history!;)

FYI:

On the 30th of April, at 1 a.m., the 3rd company — 62 soldiers and 3 officers — was en route. At 7 a.m., after a 15-mile march, they stopped at Palo Verde to rest. Soon after, a Mexican Army force of 2,000 soldiers (800 cavalry & 1,200 infantry) was sighted. The French Foreign Legion officer in command, Captain Danjou, ordered the company take up a square formation (interesting...:)), and, though retreating, he rebuffed several cavalry charges, inflicting the first heavy losses on the Mexican enemy.

Seeking a more defensible position, Danjou made a stand at the nearby Hacienda Camarón, an inn protected by a 3-metre-high-wall (hmmm...:)). His plan was to occupy Mexican forces to prevent attacks against the nearby convoy. While his legionnaires prepared to defend the inn, the Mexican commander, Colonel Milan, demanded that Danjou and soldiers surrender, noting the Mexican Army's numeric superiority. Danjou replied: "We have munitions. We will not surrender." (a true inline hockey fight-mantra if there ever was one!;)) He then swore to fight to the death, and all his men seconded the oath (as every good teammate would do, right!;)).

At noon, Captain Danjou was shot in the chest and died; his soldiers continued fighting despite overwhelming odds under the command of an inspired Lt. Vilain, who held for four hours before falling during an assault. With ammunition exhausted, the last of Danjou's soldiers, numbering only five (:eek:) under the command of Lt. Maudet, desperately mounted a bayonet charge (hmmm, a "breakout"?;)). Two men died outright, while the rest continued the assault. The tiny group was surrounded and literally beaten to the earth. Colonel Milan, commander of the Mexicans, managed to prevent his men from ripping the surviving legionnaires to pieces. When the last two survivors were asked to surrender, they insisted that Mexican soldiers allow them safe passage home, to keep their flag, and to escort the body of Captain Danjou. To that, the Mexican commander commented, "What can I do with such men? No, these are not men, they are devils," ("Army" owes me if they use this as a team slogan!:)) and, out of respect, agreed to these terms.

[Army Defense]

thank you MR. Wikipedia.. that is exactly what we shall do. We shall form up a square in the goalie crease so that no puck shall penetrate the goal line, and when the opportunity arrises to take to the offensive, lead a lone forward onto a 1 on 1 with the rival goaltenders and emerge victorious w/o any shots againts us :D

[ACCCT2]

LOL!:) Who says history HAS to repeat itself, right...!?!;) You have munitions. You will not surrender. Sounds like a plan to me!:)

[MBurke]

thank you MR. Wikipedia.. that is exactly what we shall do. We shall form up a square in the goalie crease so that no puck shall penetrate the goal line, and when the opportunity arrises to take to the offensive, lead a lone forward onto a 1 on 1 with the rival goaltenders and emerge victorious w/o any shots againts us :D

Isn't that basically RIT's defensive system?

[Army Defense]

Isn't that basically RIT's defensive system?

no, their stratigy is more of a vaubanian fortification code-named Brett Campbell.. the only way to get past the walls are through many, many barrages and vaubanian attack lines

[ACCCT2]

Nice, umm, 'angle' on the use of Vauban (of course, you're an "Army" guy!) -- trust a thread called "Divisions" to bring (roll?) out the "Army" and a bit of military history!:) Who says you can't learn anything academically meaningful on IHC...!?! Does this make Mike or Richard the Minister of Propaganda?:confused:

[MBurke]

Nice, umm, 'angle' on the use of Vauban (of course, you're an "Army" guy!) -- trust a thread called "Divisions" to bring (roll?) out the "Army" and a bit of military history!:) Who says you can't learn anything academically meaningful on IHC...!?! Does this make Mike or Richard the Minister of Propoganda?:confused:

Yeah.... Leni Riefenstahl and I :eek: