REPORT OF THE NCAA WOMEN’S BOWLING COMMITTEE JUNE 3-5, 2014, MEETING KEY ITEM. • Pace of Play. The NCAA Women’s Bowling Committee reviewed ideas to help speed up the pace of play during championship matches, which is a goal the coaches association supports. As this is a rules change year, the committee hopes adjusting a few rules will produce an acceptable pace of play. ACTION ITEMS. 1. Legislative Items. • 2. None. Nonlegislative Items. • None. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 1. National and Regional Advisory Committee Rosters. The committee reviewed rosters and noted vacancies for 2013-14 that need to be filled. 2. 2013 Committee Meeting Report. The committee approved the 2013 annual meeting report as written. 3. Divisional Championships Committee Actions. The committee reviewed actions the Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet and the Divisions II and III Championships Committees took in 2013-14 relevant to the work of the women’s bowling committee and took no action. 4. Sport Sponsorship. The committee reviewed the 2013-14 sport sponsorship list and noted four to five potential institutions adding bowling in the upcoming year and at least two schools that will be dropping the sport. Given the sport’s continued growth, the committee NCAA Women’s Bowling Committee Annual Meeting Report Page No. 2 __________ discussed the concept of developing a regional structure but agreed to take no action until further research is conducted. 5. Score Reporting. The committee reviewed the online score reporting system and expressed interest in exploring whether results submitted electronically via score sheets could automatically populate in the online score reporting system (thus reducing the need for schools to submit results twice). This continues to be something that the committee believes would benefit schools sponsoring the sport. The committee intends to emphasize to schools early in the season to report scores, and will note that a warning letter will be sent if scores are not reported properly. After the warning letter, the next offense would incur a fine. The committee also discussed defining a scrimmage for bowling, and possibly allowing for a number of scrimmages that do not count toward score reporting results. Committee members agreed to continue reviewing the idea. 6. Selections. The committee reviewed selection criteria and discussed adding tournament finish to the primary criteria but did not make any changes at this time. The committee believes that the right teams are being selected, and that adding tournament finish to the primary criteria may be difficult due to the varied number of teams in tournaments, among other factors. In regard to the selection announcement, the committee recommends that broadcast information be sent to all sponsoring schools a week in advance to encourage participation. 7. Review of 2014 Championship. The committee reviewed championship evaluations from student-athletes, coaches, administrators, hosts, officials and committee members. Despite a low response, feedback indicated favorable reviews for the host facility (Game of Wickliffe in Wickliffe, Ohio), and the hosts (Greater Cleveland Sports Commission/MidAmerican Conference). As for the way competition was conducted, the committee was pleased with the increase in interviews after matches but would still like to see more, along with continued use of social media to promote the event and annouce and results. The committee was pleased with the banquet and thought the student-athletes enjoyed the new team-based presentations more than having a keynote speaker, as was done previously. The committee also was pleased with the broadcast ratings, noting that they were at the same level as Division I wrestling. The committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of adjusting the format to a modified alternating shot for the television session. The committee noted that the championship finals would better fit the allotted broadcast slot if the student-athletes alternate shots (as they do throughout the season and in other championship rounds) instead of requiring them to complete each frame. The committee approved to move to the modified alternating shot for the television session. The NCAA Women’s Bowling Committee Annual Meeting Report Page No. 3 __________ committee also continued to encourage the use of female commentators when possible and would like to submit recommendations for both play-by-play and color analysts. Mr. Tressel will follow up with the proper people regarding this recommendation. Finally, the committee noted that the webcasts of the championship were very good. 8. Officials. The committee was pleased with the officials assigned to the finals. The committee met with Dan Calandro, NCAA director of playing rules and officiating, in regards to the Arbiter system that a number of other NCAA sports use to assign and administer officials. The system also helps train officials through web-based programing. Specifics of the program costs for officials were not available, but they could range from $25 to $100 per year. The committee initially supported the program as a way to enhance training. 9. Future Championships/Growth of Sport. The committee approved a schedule adjustment that allows for the number of matches to fall within the current rules on number of matches per day. This adjustment has no effect on the number of matches in total; only the number per day. The committee endorsed implementing automatic qualification effective with the 2016 championship, pending approval from the management council. 10. Playing Rules. The committee proposed several playing rules changes designed to address pace of play. The NCAA playing rules staff liaison informed the committee that a national search for the next secretary-rules editor would be conducted in early July through August 2014. The current secretary-rules editor’s term expires September 1, 2015. The liaison noted that the incoming secretary-rules editor is appointed one year in advance to allow him or her to shadow the current secretary-rules editor and become familiar with the role. The committee reviewed the position’s job description and noted a new provison that precludes future secretary-rules editors from being an active NCAA head coach or official. The committee reviewed the selection team and a tentative hiring timeline. The committee also reviewed a memorandum from PROP that provides guidance on the two-year rules change process and summarizes options the committee has in the event rules changes are proposed during the non-rules change year. The committee also reviewed the most recent PROP directive regarding the recommended one-year implementation delay for any rules change that has a financial or facility impact. NCAA Women’s Bowling Committee Annual Meeting Report Page No. 4 __________ 11. Championship Manuals. Committee members reviewed the pre-championship manual, host operations manual, participant manual and committee operations manual and submitted revisions as appropriate. 12. 2015 Annual Meeting. The committee identified Thursday-Friday, May 27-29, as dates for its 2015 annual meeting. Committee Chair: Amber Lemke, Stephen F. Austin State University Staff Liaison: Ryan Tressel, Championships and Alliances Meeting Date: June 3-5, 2014 Attendees Joe Ambrose, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania (portions of meeting via conference call) Absentees Keith Davidson, University of Maryland Eastern Shore Kevin Colon, Vanderbilt University (portions of meeting via conference call) Ron Holmes, University of Central Missouri Amber Lemke, Stephen F. Austin State University (Chair) Mike LoPresti, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Metropolitan Campus Bill Straub, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Other Participants Rick Barbera, Brunswick Gary Brown, United States Bowling Congress (via conference call) John Williamson, National Tenpin Coaches Association (via conference call) Brad Woodward, NCAA Ryan Tressel, NCAA Ali Teopas, NCAA Dan Calandro, NCAA NCAA Women’s Bowling Committee Annual Meeting Report Page No. 5 __________ Steve Mallonee, NCAA Juanita Sheeley, NCAA
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc