Connect with us

College Sports

Rumors Abound of Pairwise Demise. Meet Its Potential Replacement: The NPI

There have been rumors swirling for a little while now that the NCAA might be moving away from its sometimes-appreciated, sometimes-loathed, always-misunderstood hockey tournament selection criteria, the Pairwise Rankings. Those rumors came to a head on Tuesday afternoon as one of college hockey’s most respected reporters put the scuttlebutt to print (or at least to […]

Published

on


There have been rumors swirling for a little while now that the NCAA might be moving away from its sometimes-appreciated, sometimes-loathed, always-misunderstood hockey tournament selection criteria, the Pairwise Rankings. Those rumors came to a head on Tuesday afternoon as one of college hockey’s most respected reporters put the scuttlebutt to print (or at least to screen):

There was initially some confusion as to whether the NPI would be replacing the Pairwise entirely, or just replacing the RPI in the Pairwise calculation like the women do, but we checked with a couple sources and it does appear that, if approved, the Pairwise would indeed be replaced entirely with the NPI in both men’s and women’s D-I hockey.

That got some people on Twitter searching for a more in-depth explanation to how the math works. And as a site that likes to stay on top of the nuances of college hockey rankings and indeed has run an NPI calculator for women’s hockey since their tweak to the Pairwise in the 2022-2023 season, we’re happy to oblige.

What is NPI?

It stands for “NCAA Percentage Index.” Some sites call it “NCAA Power Index,” but that seems to be unofficial and/or not the accurate name.

The first time we saw NPI mentioned was back in 2020 after the women’s hockey summer meetings. The oversimplified way to describe it is a love child of RPI and KRACH:

  • RPI uses a weighted combination of winning percentage (25%) and strength of schedule (75%). Strength of schedule is the complicated part here: It’s split into Opponents’ Winning Percentage (24%) and Opponents’ Opponents’ Winning Percentage (51%). That is — take a sum of the winning percentages of all your opponents, divide it by the number of games played, then do the same with the opponents’ winning percentage of your opponents, and weight those numbers accordingly. Don’t forget that you have to take out your opponents’ games against you from the calculation!

…Yeah, it’s messy. It’s certainly doable with a spreadsheet, but it’s unnecessarily mucky and the ratios feel pretty arbitrary.

  • KRACH is run entirely differently — first off, it’s recursive, which means you need to know everyone’s ratings in order to determine everyone else’s ratings. It’s defined such that if you take this formula: (Team A’s Rating) / ( Team A’s Rating + Team B’s Rating ), what you’ve done is calculated Team A’s odds of beating Team B. If you do that for every opponent, sum up the odds of Team A beating all of its opponents, and divide that number by how many games they played… then like magic, that equals the exact number of games Team A actually won (which will be true for every team in the rankings).

Officially, this is BCI’s Most Favorite Perfect Ranking System, partially because of its mathematical beauty with no arbitrary weights involved… but we think coaches are afraid of math. Sorry coaches; we said what we said.

  • NPI sprinkles in some aspects of both RPI and KRACH. It takes the familiar ratio of 25% winning percentage to 75% strength of schedule (though they could tweak this ratio; it’s been changed before), but the strength of schedule is defined as just “your opponent’s NPI rating,” making it a recursive calculation. Despite that recursiveness, it makes the math a lot cleaner.

Let’s say you won a game against a team with an NPI of 0.700. The strength of schedule factor for that game is just 0.700 — you don’t have to go through the nonsense of calculating all that team’s opponents’ records and their opponents’ opponents’ records. Your NPI for that game would simply be ( 1.000 x 25% ) + (0.700 x 75%) = 0.775. Do that simple calculation for every game you played and take the average, and there’s your team’s NPI rating.

But wait…how does that work if you need to know everyone’s NPI in order to calculate everyone’s NPI?

Easy: Just assume everyone has a rating of 0.500, run the calculation once, and everyone will get a new rating. Run the calculation again using those new ratings, and they’ll change again. Do that a couple hundred times, and eventually everyone’s ratings converge to numbers that stop changing meaningfully after each run. Those convergent numbers are your NPIs.

What about records against common opponents and head-to-head results?

These are just comparison points in the Pairwise Rankings and would no longer be used. The way the Pairwise worked was that each team would be compared against each other team one at a time, and you’d see who got the most number of points using this formula:

-Higher NPI got 1 point (and was the tiebreaker)
-Better record against common opponents got 1 point
-Each head to head win was worth 1 point

So, if Team A was 2-0 (2 points) against Team B, but Team B had a higher NPI (1 point) and a better record against common opponents (1 point), Team B would “win the comparison” 2-2 (with NPI being the tiebreaker) and get one “Comparison Point.” You’d compare Team A against every team and see how many Comparison Points they got, then do the same with Team B against everyone, and so on, and then you’d rank teams based on who won the most Comparisons against the most teams.

In practice, 99% of the time this would just result in a ranking identical to NPI, since most teams don’t play each other. The only way you could beat a team in a comparison while having a worse NPI was to have a better head to head record against them *and* have a better record against common opponents, or, have a whopping 3 head to head wins against that team and no losses. Since most teams don’t even play each other head to head, this rarely resulted in any real change to the rankings — which is why most people are fine with nixing these from the system entirely. It just complicated things without actually adding much benefit.

What about the “Quality Win Bonus”?

In women’s hockey, this didn’t go away, it was just calculated a little differently from the RPI days. Instead of a bonus based on the ranking of your opponent, you got a bonus based on the rating of your opponent. In women’s hockey, you get a quality win bonus if your opponent’s NPI was above 0.515. The higher your opponent’s NPI is above 0.515, the greater your quality win bonus.

I would expect this to stick around in men’s hockey with a similar calculation.

Home/Away Split?

Women’s hockey doesn’t use a home/away split in its NPI, but assuming it’s kept as a factor for men’s hockey, the home/away split calculation would presumably not need to change at all. When taking an average of each game’s NPI, each game would be given a higher or lower weight in the weighted average based on if you won or lost the game at home or on the road (80% for a home win or road loss, 120% for a road win or home loss). Mathematically, there would be no need to change this when moving from RPI to NPI.

Overtime/Shootout Results?

Same thing, there should be no real changes to this part (though they could tweak it if they want to). A game going to a shootout counts as a tie (50% of a win). An overtime win counts as 67% of a win, and an overtime loss counts as 33% of a win.

Does all this mean we can finally stop “removing bad wins”?

Lol. Lmao, even.

No. This is one of the biggest gripes people have with RPI, but no, this wouldn’t go away with a switch to NPI. It’s just as likely that a really good team beating a really bad one will see a drop in their NPI, and that game has to be ignored. Not only that, but women’s hockey started removing good losses the last couple seasons too, for when a really bad team loses to a really good team but still sees an increase in their rating. So now we have two band-aids on the same problem. Yay!

Who Does This Help?

A switch to NPI would have seen the Big 10 & Hockey East schools (the two top conferences in college hockey this season) drop a bit on average this year had NPI been in use, while the bottom conferences saw an average rise.

That makes some sense — this is oversimplifying things a little, but if you’re changing the basis for your SOS calculation from winning percentages (a stat with a huge range between the top and the bottom; this year in women’s hockey winning percentages ranged from 0.939 to 0.148) to NPI (in women’s hockey the range was 0.691 to 0.395), then you can see how consistently playing top teams won’t boost your SOS quite as much under NPI (and that playing bottom teams will).

But honestly, anyone with strong feelings that a swap to NPI will help or hurt the teams that play a better or worse strength of schedule is probably overthinking things. There’s a good bit of evidence that the Pairwise and NPI both undervalue teams from top conferences, and that KRACH does a better job than either of them at evaluating results against both top competition and weak competition. But we’re not moving to KRACH anytime soon, so you’re really splitting hairs comparing two imperfect systems.

Yeah, sorry; we love KRACH here at BCI.

Hopefully you enjoyed this deep dive into the numbers. The main takeaway here is that there isn’t a huge difference between what you’d get if you move from the Pairwise to NPI, so making the rankings easier to understand is a step in the right direction that I think both the coaches and fans would welcome.

It will never stop the annual complaints about certain teams getting in over others, but we wouldn’t want to lose that entirely, would we?





Link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

College Sports

How NCAA’s House settlement will affect UMass, Boston College

The football powerhouses in the Big Ten and SEC — and their massive television deals — have prompted much of the seismic shift in college athletics that resulted in this settlement. But the changes are felt throughout the NCAA, including in Massachusetts. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, […]

Published

on


The football powerhouses in the Big Ten and SEC — and their massive television deals — have prompted much of the seismic shift in college athletics that resulted in this settlement. But the changes are felt throughout the NCAA, including in Massachusetts.

It’s particularly significant for Boston College and UMass, the state’s two institutions that compete in FBS, the highest level of college football, each of which has spent several months preparing for sweeping change after the deal was initially approved in October before a lengthy hold-up.

“It’s been a little bit of what we would call, ‘Hurry up and wait,’ ” said UMass athletic director Ryan Bamford. “I think it’s in some ways relief that it’s here, that we can move forward, that we can meet this moment.”

While athletes will still be able to earn money through the NIL deals that have taken over collegiate athletics, the ability to pay athletes directly is a monumental shift.

How universities will handle payments is the first question on the agenda, particularly at the state’s flagship university, which has to contend with the added wrinkle of public funding and the scrutiny that comes with it.

“You’re building the systems, the policies, the procedures, working with campus infrastructure,” Bamford said. “Our student-athletes aren’t employees, so they don’t fit into the HR model. You can’t pay through financial aid, because — you can pay scholarships and room and board and tuition and fees and things like that — but anything that’s rev share is above and beyond. So you’ve got to get the tax people, the Treasury people, the general counsel, to look at your agreement.“

While college football’s powerhouses are certain to max out the $20.5 million they can dole out to athletes, that likely won’t be the case at UMass — that number would represent close to 40 percent of the total operating budget of an athletic department such as UMass’s.

Boston College athletic director Blake James wouldn’t get into specifics on how much the school expects to be paying athletes for the 2025-26 academic year, saying “it’s too early to really know,” while confirming BC’s participation in revenue sharing.

UMass, meanwhile, will be looking to spend between $6 million and $8 million in the first year and in the $10 million-$12 million range in the second, with the long-term goal to be spending around 60 percent of the cap.

“If we’re at 60 percent of whatever [the cap] continues to grow to, we’re probably in a really good, healthy Group of Five position,” Bamford said. “The MAC is not going to spend a ton of money, but we want to be where maybe some of the lower Big East, lower Power Fours are in basketball, and then in football.

“We want to be competitive with the Group of Five. I think we can be in the top, probably, 20 percent of the Group of Five in football with our number. So, you know, that’s certainly a goal.”

Another question is how schools will divide the money within their own department, with a lion’s share of the cash at FBS schools likely heading into football pockets. That’s an especially unique challenge at BC, which has to compete against some of college football’s best in the ACC, while its greatest success has come not on the field but on the ice.

The men’s hockey team boasts five national championships and reached the national title game again in 2024, while the women have made six Frozen Fours since 2010.

“We’re the only team in the ACC that has ice hockey,” James said. “So we’re going to continue to evolve under this new college athletics approach consistent with who we are as an institution, and part of that is recognizing the importance that ice hockey means to us at Boston College and as part of our athletic program.”

It’s possible the new rules could provide an opportunity to BC’s city rivals on the ice at Boston University and Northeastern — neither of which has a football team to fund — to gain some ground. The fourth member of the Beanpot quartet, Harvard, could be looking at a further slip among its rivals, as the Ivy League has opted out of revenue sharing, which Harvard confirmed to the Globe this week.

UMass, another Hockey East competitor, with its most recent national relevance coming through men’s hockey (a Frozen Four in 2019 and a national championship in 2021), will also skew more of its money toward hockey and what arguably remains the Minutemen’s biggest brand, men’s basketball.

The most common formula thrown around in recent months has been that schools will look to use around 75 percent of the money on football, 15 percent on men’s basketball, 5 percent on women’s basketball, and the remaining 5 percent elsewhere.

UMass, Bamford said, won’t be that high in football, with greater slices of the pie given to men’s and women’s basketball, as well as hockey.

“Over time, it’ll sort itself out,” Bamford said. “When you make the jump, the formula and the ratios and the percentages are a little bit skewed. But for instance, we’re going to fund, probably $2.5 million on our women’s sports just in scholarships alone.

”We’ve kind of let each coach determine how they want to do it and based on the budget. And I think our coaches are feeling like in talking to their peers, especially in the Group of Five, that we’re in a really strong spot.”

There are plenty of concerns to go around, from how new roster limits rules will affect walk-ons to the effects the settlement could have on Olympic sports, where collegiate athletic programs have long produced some of the nation’s best athletes without generating a lot of revenue in return.

For James, whose place as a Power Four AD means competing with the nation’s true powers, the primary concern is how schools are going to toe the line.

“I think my concerns would be … the enforcement,“ he said. “I think if everyone follows the rules of the settlement, I think it will put college athletics into a better place than it’s been in some time. With that said, I think there’s always opportunities for people to work around the intent of what has been put in place, whether it’s through the letter of the rule, or just something that they feel that they have to do in their best interest.

“And I would say that’s my biggest concern: How do we get everyone to support and embrace this and give college athletics a chance to grow in this whole new world?”


Amin Touri can be reached at amin.touri@globe.com.





Link

Continue Reading

College Sports

MLS NEXT Cup gearing up for kickoff with league titles on the line in Tennessee

NEW YORK – The 2024-25 MLS NEXT season culminates at 2025 MLS NEXT Cup in Nashville, TN as the best youth teams in the U.S. and Canada compete for an illustrious MLS NEXT championship. (VIEW BRACKETS) The single-elimination knockout tournaments will be held from June 14-22 at Richard Siegel Soccer Complex in Murfreesboro, TN with […]

Published

on

MLS NEXT Cup gearing up for kickoff with league titles on the line in Tennessee

NEW YORK – The 2024-25 MLS NEXT season culminates at 2025 MLS NEXT Cup in Nashville, TN as the best youth teams in the U.S. and Canada compete for an illustrious MLS NEXT championship. (VIEW BRACKETS)

The single-elimination knockout tournaments will be held from June 14-22 at Richard Siegel Soccer Complex in Murfreesboro, TN with two championship matches contested on Saturday, June 21 and the final four championship games on Sunday, June 22.

2025 MLS NEXT Cup is the conclusion of the 2024-25 MLS NEXT season, featuring 32 of the top teams in each of the four different age groups (U15, U16, U17, U19) that qualified for the competition based on results from league play or by winning their respective group at MLS NEXT Flex, a qualifying event that took place from May 9-13.

For the first time in the program’s history, MLS NEXT Cup will include championship brackets in the U13 and U14 age groups. Teams were invited to the competition based on the Quality of Play rankings – a groundbreaking initiative launched this season that ranks teams utilizing Taka’s analytical formula which evaluates game play by focusing on the caliber of a team’s offensive and defensive actions in a match. (U13-U14 Brackets)

The U13 and U14 age groups will each feature 24 teams competing in a single-elimination bracket to take home the title, with both championship matches on June 22. Each match will be 60 minutes with 30-minute halves and go straight to penalty kicks in the event of a tie.

MLS NEXT Cup Playoffs matches will be 80 minutes in the U15 age group and 90 minutes in the other three age groups. If the match is tied at the end of regulation, all games will head to penalty kicks, except for the four championship matches, which will feature two five-minute periods of extra time. If the championship matches are still tied after the extra time periods, they will then head to penalty kicks to decide a winner.

Nineteen MLS NEXT Cup games, including all four championship matches, will stream live on MLS’ YouTube page. Across the four age groups represented in the playoffs, five round of 32 matches, two round of 16 matches, four quarterfinal games, and four semifinal contests will also be available to watch on MLS’ YouTube page. Jalil Anibaba, Calen Carr, AJ Ricketts, and Evan Weston will be the broadcasters for the tournament from June 14-22 in Nashville.

2025 MLS NEXT Cup Broadcast Schedule

Date Time (in CT Round Age Group Home Team Away Team
June 14 5:30 PM U16 Round of 32 NEFC Chicago Fire FC
June 14 8:15 PM U16 Round of 32 Austin FC Blau Weiss Gottschee Academy
June 15 2:45 PM U17 Round of 32 Weston FC FC Greater Boston Bolts
June 15 5:30 PM U19 Round of 32 Queen City Mutiny FC Houston Dynamo FC
June 15 8:15 PM U19 Round of 32 Cedar Stars Academy Bergen San Jose Earthquakes
June 16 3:30 PM U17 Round of 16 TBD TBD
June 16 6:15 PM U19 Round of 16 TBD TBD
June 17 8:30 AM U15 Quarterfinal TBD TBD
June 17 11:00 AM U16 Quarterfinal TBD TBD
June 18 8:30 AM U17 Quarterfinal TBD TBD
June 18 11:15 AM U19 Quarterfinal TBD TBD
June 19 8:30 AM U15 Semifinal TBD TBD
June 19 11:00 AM U16 Semifinal TBD TBD
June 20 8:30 AM U17 Semifinal TBD TBD
June 20 11:15 AM U19 Semifinal TBD TBD
June 21 8:30 AM U15 Final TBD TBD
June 21 11:30 AM U16 Final TBD TBD
June 22 8:30 AM U17 Final TBD TBD
June 22 11:30 AM U19 Final TBD TBD

The full schedule for MLS NEXT Cup Playoffs will be available HERE and the final 2024-25 final league standings are available HERE.

In 2024, two MLS clubs and two MLS NEXT Elite Academies took home the title in their respective age groups – U15 Chicago Fire FC, U16 FC DELCO, U17 LA Galaxy, and U19 Strikers FC. The LA Galaxy will look to become the first club to win three-straight championships with representation in the U15, U16, and U19 age group. Notable standout players at MLS NEXT Cup who have gone on to star in MLS include Benjamin Cremaschi (Inter Miami CF), Alex Freeman (Orlando City SC), Zavier Gozo (Real Salt Lake), Taha Habroune (Columbus Crew), Peyton Miller (New England Revolution), Sergio Oregel Jr. (Chicago Fire FC), and Andrew Rick (Philadelphia Union).

Teams that do not qualify for MLS NEXT Cup can also participate in the MLS NEXT Cup Showcase. The Showcase provides MLS NEXT players an opportunity to compete in front of hundreds of collegiate, international, and professional coaches and scouts. All clubs participating in the MLS NEXT Cup Showcase will play three matches over a four-day span. Clubs who are eliminated in the first two rounds of MLS NEXT Cup are also eligible to participate in the Showcase.

The event will also host two MLS NEXT ‘Best Of’ matches in which top players from MLS NEXT Cup Showcase teams will compete at the U18 age range. These players are selected based on their performance in league play, at MLS NEXT Fest, and at MLS NEXT Flex. The ‘Best Of’ matches provide a unique opportunity for players to compete against one another as top collegiate, international, and professional coaches evaluate their performances.

Continue Reading

College Sports

Ohio State launches ‘Buckeye Sports Group’ to support and enhance NIL opportunities

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! Ohio State is officially bringing its NIL collectives in-house. According to multiple reports, Ohio State’s athletic department is teaming up with Learfield’s Ohio State Sports Properties to form “Buckeye Sports Group,” an initiative designed to support and enhance NIL opportunities for Ohio State athletes. This news comes […]

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Ohio State is officially bringing its NIL collectives in-house.

According to multiple reports, Ohio State’s athletic department is teaming up with Learfield’s Ohio State Sports Properties to form “Buckeye Sports Group,” an initiative designed to support and enhance NIL opportunities for Ohio State athletes.

This news comes on the heels of the House v. NCAA settlement being formally approved, in return, paving the way for schools to now begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month. The terms of the House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years.

With the creation of the “Buckeye Sports Group,” Ohio State will now consolidate the school’s two existing NIL collectives, the 1870 Society and The Foundation. The partnership with Learfield will allow Buckeye athletes to access the sports marketing companies’ NIL technology, which will in return assist athletes with brand deals, corporate partnerships and personal brand development in a more organized manner.

“Ohio State has always been a leader in college athletics, and this initiative is another step forward to build upon our strong NIL foundation,” Ohio State’s Deputy Director of Athletics Carey Hoyt said in a release, announcing the NIL partnership. “By combining the power of our athletic brand with Learfield’s expansive network, we are creating an innovative, full-service approach to NIL that directly benefits our student-athletes.”

Moving forward, financial agreements reached between athletes and third parties won’t count toward an athletic department’s annual cap, though any deal greater than $600 is now subject to approval by NIL Go, an online clearinghouse within the College Sports Commission, a freshly formed regulatory body created in response to the House v. NCAA lawsuit. 

Ohio State has already been at the forefront when it comes to success in the NIL space. Sophomore wide receiver Jeremiah Smith has a reported NIL valuation of $4.2 million according to On3, which ranks third-highest among all college athletes, and he’s inked notable deals with Nintendo, Red Bull and Lulelemon. Smith was recently unveiled as a co-cover star athlete for “College Football 26.”

Fellow Buckeye football standout Caleb Downs has already had remarkable NIL success as well, carrying an NIL valuation of $2.4 million, which also ranks among the top valuations in college athletics. Downs, who transferred to Ohio State from Alabama following Nick Saban’s retirement in 2024, has partnerships with Panini, Beats by Dre and American Eagle.

“As we enter a new era for college athletics, we’re excited to build on our past successes and create even more meaningful NIL opportunities for Ohio State student-athletes,” Vice President & General Manager of Learfield’s Ohio State Sports Properties Todd Knisley said in the release. “With the strength of Buckeye Nation behind us, we’re able to unlock incremental opportunities for partnerships on a local, regional, and national scale.”

Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily.



Link

Continue Reading

College Sports

Multiple viewership milestones for Women’s College World Series

Featuring a full three-game final for the first time in four years, the NCAA Women’s College World Series hit multiple viewership highs on ESPN. The three-game Texas-Texas Tech NCAA Women’s College World Series Final averaged 2.2 million viewers across ESPN and ESPNU, the highest average on record for the event and up 13% from the […]

Published

on


Featuring a full three-game final for the first time in four years, the NCAA Women’s College World Series hit multiple viewership highs on ESPN.

The three-game Texas-Texas Tech NCAA Women’s College World Series Final averaged 2.2 million viewers across ESPN and ESPNU, the highest average on record for the event and up 13% from the previous high set by last year’s two-game Oklahoma-Texas series.

Friday’s winner-take-all Game 3 averaged 2.41 million viewers, marking the largest college softball audience on record — surpassing the previous mark of 2.33 million for Tennessee-Arizona Game 3 in 2007. All three games of this year’s series rank among the top ten, with Game 2 ranking sixth (2.13M) and Game 1 seventh (2.11M). (Keep in mind out-of-home viewing was not tracked in Nielsen’s estimates prior to 2020.)

Compared to the previous Game 3 — Oklahoma-Florida State in 2021, which aired in a Thursday afternoon window due to rain — viewership jumped 54% from 1.57 million.

Overall, four games of this year’s WCWS rank among the top ten, with a UCLA-Tennessee game on ABC earlier in the tournament placing fifth (2.19M).

Most-Watched Women’s College World Series Games

wcws top gameswcws top games


The full, 15-game WCWS averaged 1.3 million — up 24% from last year and a new record for the event, surpassing the previous high set in 2021. The complete NCAA softball tournament averaged 591,000, up 3% from last year and the highest in four years.



Link

Continue Reading

College Sports

Fisk University’s gymnastics team to disband in 2026

Being the first is one thing. Being the only one is something else, something even more challenging. Fisk University came to understand that difference in the three years since it launched its women’s gymnastics program, the first at an HBCU. During that time, the GymDogs, as the team was known, produced a bona fide star, […]

Published

on


Being the first is one thing. Being the only one is something else, something even more challenging.

Fisk University came to understand that difference in the three years since it launched its women’s gymnastics program, the first at an HBCU. During that time, the GymDogs, as the team was known, produced a bona fide star, gained a measure of pop culture notoriety and added to the school’s trophy case. Administrators, however, also wrestled with the financial realities of the sport and endeavored to find the proper level of competition for a program that was an outlier even within the school’s own athletics department.

Thus, the 2026 season will be the last for Fisk gymnastics.

In a release last Friday, the university noted that “(t)he decision to halt the program comes after a comprehensive review of the gymnastics program and its alignment with the HBCU Athletic Conference (HBUAC). … Currently, gymnastics is not an HBCUAC-sanctioned sport, resulting in considerable challenges for the university to schedule competitions and build a robust recruiting pipeline.”

This past season, Fisk was one of 85 women’s college gymnastics programs in the U.S. The other 84 were at schools where athletics are a part of NCAA Division I (62), Division II (four) or Division III (18). Fisk’s other varsity programs, on the other hand, compete in the NAIA, which has its own set of rules and financial limitations.

Fisk’s 2025 campaign ended at the Women’s Collegiate Gymnastics National Invitation Championship, an event for non-Division I programs, where seven team members earned the right to compete and one, Morgan Price, stole the show. Price won her second individual all-around national championship and then finished first in all four individual events – vault, balance beam, uneven parallel bars and floor exercise — an unprecedented sweep.

Along the way, the GymDogs beat NCAA Division I and Division II opponents, including two D-Is in a single meet. Price scored a perfect 10 on the uneven bars and was ranked among the top 35 in the country, regardless of classification, in the all-around. She and three of her teammates earned first-team All-American recognition.

Ultimately, though, no other HBCU wanted to, or thought it could do what Fisk had done. The first college gymnastics national championship was contested in 1982, and over more than four decades, no HBCU had — or has — its own gymnastics team.

Price was a highly recruited athlete from Texas who had originally committed to the University of Arkansas, where her family had close ties to the gymnastics program. Yet, she changed her mind and chose Fisk, where she immediately became the face of the program.

“Growing up in gymnastics, I rarely had teammates who looked like me,” she said when she enrolled at Fisk. “I wanted to be a part of history and inspire younger girls who want to attend a HBCU as well.”

In 2024, she was named the HBCU Sports Female Athlete of the Year. This year, College Gymnastics News named her its 2025 Women’s College Gymnast of the Year.

Now, however, she will have to inspire others in a different manner. Early last month, Price announced that she planned to transfer out of Fisk for her senior season, and the school wished her well. Eight days later, she officially signed with Arkansas, where she will compete alongside her older sister.

From a talent perspective, replacing Price seems impossible: She is an elite college gymnast who can compete with the best in the sport. To convince another like her to come to Fisk for just one year is improbable, to say the least.

Yet from a roster standpoint, it is imperative. Fisk’s 2025 lineup included five seniors and one grad student, and it’s likely that at least some remaining team members will decide to transfer out, as Price did.

If Fisk can’t field a whole team or something close to it — remember, school officials already have publicly acknowledged the challenges associated with recruiting for the program under normal circumstances — the 2025 season will stand as the last.

“While we are tremendously proud of the history our gymnastics team has made in just three years, we look forward to focusing on our conference-affiliated teams to strengthen our impact in the HBCU Athletic Conference,” Valencia Jordan, Director of Fisk Athletics, said in last week’s release. “Fisk is grateful for the hard work, dedication and tenacity of its gymnasts, staff members, and coaches who made this program possible.”



Link

Continue Reading

College Sports

Federal budget bill could strip Pennsylvanians of Medicaid coverage, push rural hospitals to the brink

This story was produced by the State College regional bureau of Spotlight PA, an independent, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to investigative and public-service journalism for Pennsylvania. Sign up for Talk of the Town, a weekly newsletter of local stories that dig deep, events, and more from north-central PA, at spotlightpa.org/newsletters/talkofthetown. HARRISBURG — President Donald Trump’s […]

Published

on


This story was produced by the State College regional bureau of Spotlight PA, an independent, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to investigative and public-service journalism for Pennsylvania. Sign up for Talk of the Town, a weekly newsletter of local stories that dig deep, events, and more from north-central PA, at spotlightpa.org/newsletters/talkofthetown.

HARRISBURG — President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget bill could have a disastrous effect on the health of rural Pennsylvanians and the operations of the hospitals and other medical centers that care for them.

The federal budget proposal, which passed the U.S. House by a one-vote margin in May, calls for nearly $800 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade. It also includes a new 80-hour-per-month work or service requirement for Medicaid recipients between the ages of 19 and 64 who aren’t caregivers or who have disabilities. Among other changes, the bill would require verification of coverage eligibility every six months rather than annually.

While supporters of the budget bill argue that it will slow spending and safeguard government programs, critics say the cuts and new requirements will create more paperwork for states and make it harder to access essential care. Opponents also argue the changes would push struggling rural hospitals and other providers to the brink, and force them to scale back services or close entirely.

More than 3 million people in Pennsylvania — 23% — are covered by Medicaid, according to data from the state Department of Human Services, which administers the program. The agency estimates that more than 300,000 would lose Medicaid coverage under the proposal.

Val Arkoosh, secretary of the department, said the bill would not only hurt those losing coverage but “all of us who would face the real-life consequences of crowded emergency departments, increases in the cost of health insurance, and the catastrophic effects on economies and health systems in rural areas.”

More than 737,000 Medicaid recipients live in rural counties, where residents are typically older and more reliant on government-funded insurance programs. Such programs reimburse at lower rates compared to private insurance companies and haven’t kept up with inflation.

Cameron County Commissioner James Moate, a Republican, said the Medicaid reimbursement rate should have never been less than 100%.

“That’s why we have struggling hospitals,” he told Spotlight PA.

On average, Pennsylvania hospitals absorb a loss of 18 cents on the dollar for care provided to Medicaid patients, said Nicole Stallings, president and CEO of the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania, which represents more than 230 hospitals statewide. In rural communities, the average loss is 26 cents on the dollar, she added in a May statement.

“Medicaid plays a vital role in the health of rural residents, and it is important to preserve this funding so that families can continue to access the care they need for healthier lives,” said Douglas Winner, chief financial officer for Penn Highlands Healthcare, a nonprofit system with nine hospitals in rural counties.

Penn Highlands President and CEO Steve Fontaine has told lawmakers that consolidating with other health systems and expanding into new areas has helped facilities survive. This strategy, which has helped Penn Highlands diversify its patient and insurance bases, is why the system expanded into Centre County, where resident numbers are expected to grow, he told lawmakers last year.

Still, the health system has shuttered services and reported operating losses over the past year.

Winner said Penn Highlands is “greatly concerned” about the proposed Medicaid cuts.

“Rural hospitals have experienced substantial cost increases for labor, drugs, and supplies,” he said in a statement. “Coupled with decreasing volumes, inadequate reimbursement rates, and ongoing staffing shortages — recruitment and retention — we are struggling financially.”

Advocates worry the cuts in the federal budget will force rural hospitals to slash services even more or close altogether. And once facilities end a service or shut down, they rarely reopen, Stallings told Spotlight PA.

Community health centers could also be strained. These facilities, also known as federally qualified health centers, provide services regardless of someone’s ability to pay and primarily see patients who use Medicaid and PENNIE, the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace.

More uninsured people will likely lead to an increase in uncompensated care, said Eric Kiehl, director of policy and partnership for the Pennsylvania Association of Community Health Centers. And these facilities are already strapped for resources, he told Spotlight PA.

A surge in demand could cause these health centers to shutter core services — such as medical, dental, or behavioral health — reduce hours, or close, Kiehl said.

Pennsylvania’s U.S. House delegation voted along party lines on the federal budget bill, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing the proposal.

Medicaid spending totaled roughly $44 billion in fiscal year 2023. The federal government provided almost $28 billion of those dollars.

Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has said the state won’t be able to make up those dollars to support the Medicaid program. In a statement, Shapiro said he hopes “common sense and a concern for the people of Pennsylvania” will prevail in the U.S. Senate, where Democratic U.S. Sen. John Fetterman and Republican U.S. Sen. Dave McCormick disagree on aspects of the bill.

McCormick did not respond to a request for comment for this story. He has expressed support for the budget bill, which he says will reduce and slow government spending. During a Fox News forum, McCormick said he isn’t advocating for taking benefits from “vulnerable people” but is trying to ensure “people for whom the program was designed” benefit.

Fetterman called the plan “a bad bill,” telling Spotlight PA in a statement: “Republicans want to put more money in the pockets of the ultra-rich at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians who will lose access to Medicaid if this disastrous bill is passed.”

SUPPORT THIS JOURNALISM and help us reinvigorate local news in north-central Pennsylvania at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability and public-service journalism that gets results.

SUPPORT THIS JOURNALISM and help us reinvigorate local news in north-central Pennsylvania at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability and public-service journalism that gets results.



Link

Continue Reading

Most Viewed Posts

Trending