Future of Division III

[Ralph Turner]

Great find by Li'l Giant concerning the "split" by VP from (CCIW) Augustana and a response by the President of Earlham (NCAC).

+1! 

A must read from insidehighered.com!

Please click on Li'l Giant's post.

[old ends]

I think that everyone who has read  past post and others, on this subject, have hit on part of that article and comments. It almost reads like those who wish to split would make all sports, club sports. Make everything on the same level.

I Think this would cause parents and the athlete's to wonder if:
School A- close to home great academics, but no sports teams to speak of
School B- Not close to home Lots of sports with playoffs, oh and good academics also.

An athlete, male or female, could make a choice based on these options. Will it balance out, time will tell.

[Ralph Turner]

Here is the link to the updated "packet" from the Membership Committee. (Dated 7 Dec 2007)

Click here

Notes on the presentation.

There are four "cuts" of the membership by different criteria.

1)  Sports sponsorship and enrollment is the first "cut".

2)  The second "cut" comprises the Division III conferences who are anticipated to remain in Division III  (240 schools) by the "Sports Sponsorship, Enrollment and Conference Affiliation" criteria.

On a competition basis, I like the chances of the ASC and the SCAC in what is left of Division III!  The NJAC, MAC and USA South, too.

The "New Grouping" (200 schools) includes the Centennial, the CCIW, the Empire 8, HCAC, IIAC, Landmark, Liberty LEC, MIAA, MWC, MIAC, NESCAC, NEWMAC, NCAC, NWC, ODAC, OAC, Pres AC, SCIAC, UAA, and WIAC.  (Slides 69 and 70.)

3)  The third "cut" involves Sports Sponsorship, Enrollment, and Voting Patterns.  There is no further elaboration of which teams comprise these groupings.

4)  Here is the fourth "cut".  Slides 89 and 90 seem to reflect the "cut" that was present in the previous reports.  This "cut" involves "Sports Sponsorship, Enrollment, Voting Patterns and Conference Affiliation". Of the 42 current D-III conferences, 29 remain in D-III, and 13 move to the New Grouping, e.g., Centennial, CCIW, IIAC, Liberty, MIAA, MWC, MIAC, NESCAC, NCAC, OAC, Pres AC, SCIAC and WIAC.

[smedindy]

Interesting that the SCAC and NCAC would be divergent, and that the NESCAC and WIAC would be left in D-4, which seems odd.

[Jonny Utah]

What is the #1 reason there needs to be a split here?

[old ends]

Great info Ralph.. As I read this it still points to a merge and a split as a done deal. Seems like all they need is the vote. Start planning a D4 or D3a. But then I hope not

[johnnie_esq]

The number one reason is that 400+ schools in one division makes for an unwieldy management structure.

While diversity can be the division's greatest strength, proponents of the split believe the diversity is beginning to attack the core philosophies of the division-- specifically, the emphasis placed upon athletics in the institutions.  For lack of better examples, the Macalester-type schools believe, and illustrate through their athletic programs, that athletics are a means of developing the student.  The St. John's-type schools seem to indicate through their athletic programs that athletics are a means of developing the school.

I know there are exceptions to this across the board at D-1 and D-2, and even moreso at the D-3 level, but the above philosophy struggle is an association wide issue.  Schools at the D-1 level are so dependent upon athletic revenues that many are afraid to rock the boat; but those at the D-3 level who don't have the same revenue luxuries as even their D-3 contemporaries have nothing to lose and everything to gain by this measure.

I hate to be a naysayer, RT, but I am not swayed at all by the article in the Higher Ed Journal.  The article argues against the split by focusing almost entirely about the "perception" of how D-IV would be seen.  This is completely unvconvincing to me; D-III has been battling perception issues from the start of its existence, and that won't be changed or affected by the split.  Indeed, the remaining D-III experience may be helped by a D-IV, as the "perception" of current D-III is the lowest division and therefore the "bottom of the barrel", so to speak.  As for D-IV, the schools leading the charge are seeming to advocate on a philosophy that being the "bottom of the barrel" is ok, since the intention is to provide some competition, but not the exclusive focus on the competition.  Or put another way, D-IV would be fine with D-III intramural participants-- individuals playing for health/friendship/love-- and thus "participation" is immaterial to "recruiting" those athletes whose choice is to go to SJU and sit on the bench or go to Macalester and play varsity.

The most difficult thing is that we don't know how many schools would actually sign onto this D-4 option.  While the MIAC has been mentioned as one, for example, we have seen a letter from the conference telling the group to slow down.  So they may not go.  The WIAC, as mentioned, seems an odd fit given their public status and size of their schools.  The SCIAC is geographically isolated under those proposals (again!).  So it is tough to talk about the D-IV without knowing who really is leading the charge and who is actually following it.

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks for the comments, all!

I wonder how many follow the NCAC's lead.  And, if the NCAC cannot get enough teams/conferences to follow, what is their alternative?  To table the motion and send it back to committee?  That is why I thought that the juxtaposition of Earlahm and Augustana was so interesting.  (Thanks again to Li'l Giant for posting the linl.)

I thought there was some merit to the second proposal and to the third.  Those seem to focus on statistical truisms about size and number of sports sponsored.

If the D-IV's take off and create their own division, and we in D-III can keep the 1:6.5  ratio in access to the playoffs, then it probably works out for all.

Are there economies of scale to having the D-III and the D-IV playoffs in the same location?  Yes, I can see that. 

I think that the uncertainty amongst the "wannabe D-IV's" and the wording of the "escape clause" is what keeps D-IV in turmoil for however long it takes for the bigger sociological issues that Mr Barnds raises to settle out.

Johnnie, you captured the Macalester/SJU contrast succinctly!

Karma to all! 

[Ralph Turner]

Interesting that the SCAC and NCAC would be divergent, and that the NESCAC and WIAC would be left in D-4, which seems odd.

smed, the SCAC has some schools with sports sponsorship issues, some with voting issues, and I think that the southern schools are facing a different sociological/ cultural emphasis on sports in society.

[Jonny Utah]

But is this going to mean a team like Keynon Swimming can choose to stay d3 but the rest of their sports go d4?

[Pirat]

I heard the NCAA when they said it would not be their intent to fracture the individual conferences.  But being from my part of the world, that might be unavoidable. Fracturing of individual conferences scares me and I can see the NWC starting the good fight all over again.

[frank uible]

What if self-selection results in 50 colleges going to Division A and 450 going to Division B?

[Ralph Turner]

What if self-selection results in 50 colleges going to Division A and 450 going to Division B?

The Working Group identified 150 as the minimum number of schools to have a viable "new grouping".

There are four core conferences that align themselves most consistently on the most restrictive issues.  I remember the Centennial and the NCAC as being 2 of them.

But is this going to mean a team like Keynon Swimming can choose to stay d3 but the rest of their sports go d4?

I understand that D-IV will establish its own legislation and guidelines.

Who knows?  D-III might require that all participants in their championships be D-III members, unless they have a "grandfathered" sport like Colorado College Ice Hockey!

If one looks at the Directors Cup data, there is cause to believe that the remaining D-3's will say "good riddance", unless there are funding implications.

As I reviewed the Directors Cup data that is presented about the ASC, were the ASC to split into 2 conferences, that would add another 25 points to the totals in about 12 team sports, and it would add the next increment of points (~15 points per sport) for roughly half of the sports for the victors of those playoff games involving what is now the "American Southwest Conference Inter-divisional Championships" for the AQ!  Also the ASC does not have championships in M&W Lacrosse, Field Hockey, Rowing, M&W Indoor Track and Field, M&W Swimming and M&W Ice Hockey.  Many of the "D-IV's" accumulate large point totals in the Directors Cups in those sports.  (As I have pointed out before, the Champion in Women's Rowing, which has defeated 42 opponents, gets the same 100 Directors' Cup points as the winner of Women's Basketball which has defeated more than 420 opponents to win the championship.)

[smedindy]

Interesting that the SCAC and NCAC would be divergent, and that the NESCAC and WIAC would be left in D-4, which seems odd.

smed, the SCAC has some schools with sports sponsorship issues, some with voting issues, and I think that the southern schools are facing a different sociological/ cultural emphasis on sports in society.

I guess I was thinking in terms of like institutions, where the SCAC and NCAC are peas in a pods, and far from the WIAC.

[frank uible]

But the Director's Cup is independent of the NCAA. If one doesn't approve of the Director's Cup scoring, one can always create an XYZ Cup with a different and acceptable scoring system but without the difficulties of changing the NCAA.