But it's better than NCFCA's current structure, IMO (no offense).
To me, it seems like a way of saying that we've moved past the disagreements between the two leagues.
It's been 6 years now, and both leagues are still going strong, and we're not bitter enemies.
Most recent information I have (2011), you are still required to have a letter from your parents written to the dean authorizing an interracial relationship.
No such letter is required for an intra-racial relationship. s-catholic Most recent information I have (2011), you are still required to have a letter from your parents written to the dean authorizing an interracial relationship.
Before that there were years of wrangling over how much control and transparency the NCFCA board used.
It's an interesting story and one better told by those that were there.
So California, a state with dozens of national-caliber competitors, only got two slots, while a smaller state (which had good competitors but admittedly was not as good) also got two slots. Since Stoa did work, we stayed out and mobilized to make a full-fledged league.
Not to imply Stoa is perfect; I think NITOC qualification needs to be changed.
2009 nationals was just the last straw, and it seemed like everyone from California at that nationals could just tell this was the last nationals we'd compete in with NCFCA.
As far as the choice to use BJU for NITOC this year, I'm rather curious to see if there was a particular motive on the part of the Stoa board.
I was only 12 going on 13 at the time of the split, but I do remember that much of the controversy was also about NCFCA's poor structure for both representation in influencing the board as well as nationals qualification. Of course, it came at the price of California breaking away...that's what took them to institute much-needed reforms to their qualification system.