Future of Division III

[frank uible]

Do I properly sense that some have a hint of punitive attitude in this matter?

[johnnie_esq]

The MIAC is a very influential conference!

I don't know about influential, but it is very much in a critical role, as (1.) most of its members were 1973 D-III originals; (2.) their sizes and philosophies are similar to the D-IV proponents (as opposed to the state-school/big enrollment WIAC next door); (3.) its members are well known for their academic programs (Carleton and Macalester are top notch; St. Thomas is approaching Marquette/Creighton status; SJU/STO/GAC/BU/CORD have very strong alumni bases); and (4.) its members have done pretty well athletically on the national stage (SJU/BU/Cord football; UST hockey/baseball/softball; Augsburg wrestling; GAC basketball, to name a few).   This provides a lot of diversity that other conferences that can relate to some or all of these characteristics.

So it seems like the MIAC is the swing vote more than an influential one. 

I find the statement that "we like D-III as it sits today" interesting.  Does that insinuate that the MIAC would only look at D-IV if D-III rescinded its reform movement?  Would it be alone in doing so then?

[Ralph Turner]

The Convention is only 2 weeks away now.

The link that Johnnie Esq provided has some interesting points.  I have quoted the features that the press release suggests that might occur.  Let's look at the practical aspects of the "code words".

Division III

• No athletics aid
• Current sport-sponsorship requirements
• Student body recruiting base
• Current or less restriction on athletics activities
• Financial commitment to support institution's purpose for athletics (for example, programs that attract students or emphasize particular sports)
• Institutionally integrated programs that serve student body (consistent with current philosophy statement)



New Division
• No athletics aid  Ditto
• Increased sport-sponsorship requirements
• Student body recruiting base  Ditto
• Increased restriction on athletics activities
• Financial commitment to support institution's purpose for athletics (for example, support broad range of sports)  Is this a code-word for de-emphasizing D-III athletics as we know it?  This almost has "Swarthmorian" overtones.  Here are the D3football.com archives on Swarthmore's decision to discontinue football after 120 seasons:  Here, here, and here.
• Institutionally integrated programs that serve student body (emphasizing proposed distinguishing characteristics listed below)



A new division or subdivision would distinguish itself by...
• Encouraging student-athletes to pursue a more broad-based educational experience and participate in a full range of available co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. Athletics activities would be more limited in scope and duration.  (I have spoken with three former student-athletes about the way that they achieved their goals in what they wanted to do in college.  They could not imagine shortening the season by 1-2 weeks and the non-traditional season having an impact their decision to pledge a fraternity or run for student- government or other extra-curricular activities.)

• Holding institutions more accountable to philosophical priorities, through reporting or review processes in areas including financial aid, academic performance, special admissions, diversity, gender equity and sport equity. (How much more accountability do the schools want over the present accountability systems?  Please give us substantive examples.)

• Empowering presidents with greater authority and responsibility for athletics programs, in consultation with appropriate campus constituencies, to ensure full integration of the athletics program with the institution's educational mission.  (Can you imagine a president under the current system not having the degree of authority to control this?  Can one show significant  examples where the athletics program has not been integrated into the school's education mission?  If there is an example, why is that not a case of a poorly-functioning college president and administration?  What current NCAA processes need to be changed in D-III to correct those deficiencies?)


A new division or subdivision could...

• Reduce contest maximums and the scope and length of playing and practice seasons to allow student-athletes greater flexibility to participate in a full range of co-curricular/extracurricular experiences.  (A smaller division could cut 1 week off the football season, especially for a 16 team playoff, but we have not seen any musings of cutting the post-season in other sports such as women's soccer or hoops to less than a 3-week playoff.)

• Establish a more limited recruiting process through such methods as recruiting calendars and limitations on in-person and electronic contact.
(This is a real distinguishing feature.)

• Establish a regular review of academic performance comparing student-athletes to the general student body.  (Isn't this being done in many schools or conferences already?  I know that the NCAA is conducting these efforts across all divisions.)

• Establish a regular review of the academic profile of entering student-athletes as compared to the general student body.  (Isn't this already being done?  What would be new or different?  Would it only be more stringent?)

• Establish authority for the Presidents Council and/or Chancellors and Presidents Advisory Group to identify key proposals adopted or defeated by the membership and forward them directly to all presidents for reconsideration.  (IMHO, this is just a code-word for those presidents who have chafed at losing on votes at the convention by the full division.  What is current D-III Presidents' Council doing now?)

A new subdivision...

• Current or reduced sport-sponsorship requirement (Less sponsorship?  Like the NAIA?)

• Common or separate championships (We have already seen concern about needing to hold joint championships in the "minor" sports.)

• Current or less restriction of student-athlete activities  (What does this mean?)

• Current level of institutional accountability

• Current level of presidential involvement

• No athletics-based aid  (Ditto)

• Shared philosophy statement (Ditto)

• Shared governance structure  (Ditto)

OR:

• Increased sport-sponsorship requirement
• Common or separate championships
• Increased restriction of student-athlete activities
• Increased level of institutional accountability
• Increased level of presidential involvement

[frank uible]

What would prevent or otherwise interfere with a college remaining in DIII but taking any of the actions, or imposing on itself any of the restrictions, particular to the new division?

[Ralph Turner]

What would prevent or otherwise interfere with a college remaining in DIII but taking any of the actions, or imposing on itself any of the restrictions, particular to the new division?

Good evening, Frank!  Those are my questions as well. 

On a conference by conference basis, D-III has allowed the individual conferences to maintain their autonomy.  For all of the quibbling that we do on these boards about NESCAC football, that conference has re-stated its  commitment to controlling the process and the nature of their intercollegiate athletic participation.

We see that commitment manifested in season length in the Midwest Conference, restrictions in recruiting in the OAC and the SCIAC, etc., and the efforts to secure the AQ in sponsored sports such as football and numerous other sports by multiple conferences.  The formation of new conferences has shown that Presidents are trying to enhance the student-athlete experience amongst peer institutions, e.g., the Landmark Conference, the North Eastern Athletic Conference, the New England Collegiate Conference.  (Doesn't that cover the diverse nature of D-III?  And yet it is working.)

I just want the Presidents to cut the "bovine excrement" about how they are going to be different.

If the divisions will work better with 150 schools in a more restrictive division, then let's make that the nature of the efforts in the split.  I really wonder if the most restrictive advocates can find 150 schools to go along with their vision of intercollegiate athletics.  I have tried to provide historical examples of how athletics was de-emphasized at Swarthmore.  Is this really what the change in institutional emphasis is about?

If we are maintaining the same 1:6.5 playoff access ratio that is becoming impossible with the increasing numbers of D-III schools, then good.  Let's make this work.  In the "smaller" sports, it may be prudent to have concurrent championships declared at the same venue.  However, mixing a D-III and a D-IV field is not the same thing.  The D-IV's have one set of governing principles, D-III another, if we comprehend what the "D-IV's" are proposing in the background documents.

I want to thank for co-contributors to this discussion.  I hope that similar discussions are occurring at the highest levels, because none of us want to hurt something that we believe is the finest example of amateur athletics among the most deserving participants, the student-athletes.

[Knightstalker]

+K to Ralph for "Bovine Excrement"  I don't think I have ever heard BS so eloquently stated.

[Ralph Turner]

Well, a person whom I respect greatly thinks that "taurine" is more precise than "bovine".

I know that "taurine excrement" is highly profane for my usual postings, but there is much stuff being shoveled in the press releases.

Real differences that I can imagine that might be used to distinguish D-III and D-IV are:

--Not honoring a "red-shirt" year by a student athlete who has "moved up" from a D-II or D-I school.

--Variations in recruiting guidelines including those new guidelines involving electronic communication that will be voted at the January convention.

--Prohibiting schools from sponsoring D-1 teams.  The problem with this is that there are some desirable schools whom this affects, e.g., Johns Hopkins (Lacrosse) Colorado College (Men's Ice Hockey, Women's Soccer), Union, RPI, St Lawrence (Men's and Women's Ice Hockey).

--"Minimum number of sports" will require some schools to add programs, but that is probably the easiest change to implement.

[Ralph Turner]

I copied this article for my archives from the Times-Free Press in summer 2007.  Here is an insight into the impact that it might have on the SCAC, one of the putative conferences that has peers in "D-IV".

Division III dissension
Story Subhead
--
Sunday, June 10, 2007

By Darren Epps
Staff Writer

SEWANEE, Tenn. -- Demanding academic standards and an expansive selection of sports programs make the University of the South an ideal NCAA Division III institution, a model of genuine amateur athletics.

But the model is becoming blurred by universities with different interpretations of the Division III mission statement, and the school also known as Sewanee is watching membership and dissension swell.

The fractured membership could result in Sewanee and other traditional schools competing in a new division starting in 2009, possibly under the designation of Division IV or even Division V. Numerous presidents, athletic directors and administrators interviewed said a plan to split Division III, which does not allow athletic scholarships, is imminent when the group meets at January's convention in Nashville.

It's a case of multiplication forcing more dividing.

"It may go to two subdivisions or a fourth division, or potentially even both," NCAA president Myles Brand said. "I think what's happened is that Division III has gotten too big, and there's some philosophical differences within the division that we might do better at treating them separately."

The crux of Division III's civil war is indeed the rising number of universities, now at 450 counting the provisional schools. The influx of schools means a sweeping range of standards concerning admissions, financial aid and the vigor in which Division III programs are pursuing national championships.

Traditional schools like Sewanee want to align with academic peers. Other programs will pursue the athletic spotlight. And even more schools are resistant to change, unwilling to relinquish 80-year-old rivalries or accept a perceived demotion to a potential Division IV.

A poor recruiting season doesn't just affect wins and losses for some Division III schools. At Sewanee, more than 400 students participate in athletics, making up almost one-fourth of the school's enrollment. If student-athletes don't like the stigma of Division IV, the number of admissions at Sewanee -- and its reputation in the rankings of elite colleges -- could drop.

"But I don't believe anybody will think of it as a demotion," said Sewanee vice chancellor and president Dr. Joel Cunningham, who graduated summa cum laude from the University of Chattanooga in 1965. "It would actually join us with people more consistently focused with our values. That's not up or down; it's more of a tightly focused gathering."

Several coaches said they disagreed, and commissioner Steve Argo of Sewanee's league -- the Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference -- admitted a change to Division IV would be a "hard sell" in recruiting.

"From a coach's perspective, it's already hard enough to put that 'three' out there," Argo said, referring to Division III. "It's like you're third-best."

But presidents and coaches can agree that Division III's diversity prompts the need for change. The profile of the less traditional, more athletic-minded school includes offering fewer sports to direct more money into their programs, making more financial aid available and accepting athletes with heightened academic risks. Many are former NAIA programs.

"I don't want to sound elite," said Al Van Wie, the former Division III chief who believes the alliance needs to split, "but I really question how true some of these schools' commitments are to Division III principles."

And then there's Sewanee, with a tuition of $36,910, counting room and board, and a broad-based athletic program. The mountain stone architecture on this sprawling, 10,000-acre campus on the Cumberland Plateau houses 24 sports -- more than any other SCAC school -- at the cost of $3.4 million per year to the athletic department.

But the South's oldest football field isn't home to any winning seasons in the last six years, and the Sewanee women's tennis team recently claimed the school's first conference title in any sport since 2004.

"If you go to the convention, athletic directors are all over the board with what they do in terms of sponsoring sports and how they recruit and conduct nontraditional practice," Sewanee athletic director Mark Webb said. "Is it frustrating? You hear coaches talk about different admissions standards or selectivity or financial-aid policies.

"An athlete might say, 'Why should we come to your school when School B is offering $10,000 more dollars?' For whatever reasons, it's certainly not equal footing or a level playing field. But we have to deal with who we are and control what we can do at Sewanee."

In many instances, Sewanee's athletes are competing against players who couldn't get into their school, who wouldn't receive enough financial aid, who practice longer or who were recruited more heavily. Unlike in Division I, no NCAA clearinghouse exists for Division III. Colleges determine who's admitted and how much financial aid they receive.

An athlete who couldn't get into Mississippi State, for instance, could attend a Division III school with lax admission requirements. But not Sewanee.

"I don't want to come off sounding entitled," said new Tigers football coach Robert Black, a former Sewanee athlete, "but originally, NCAA Division III was about a small-college experience that had the kids' academic welfare at the front. I don't know necessarily if that's the case across the board now."

But who should move to the new division? The less traditional schools say they aren't forcing anyone to change and, therefore, shouldn't be the ones moving to Division IV. The traditional Division III schools, such as Sewanee, say they were there first when the NCAA created divisions in 1973.

"It's the other schools that should be in the other division," Black said. "I think we should stay where we are. We founded it. We were small-college football. The other ones can create their own division. Or just put academic requirements on it. If I were part of the debate, I would suggest a clearinghouse for Division III."

Administrators in Division III offered varying ideas, including the separation of divisions by the size of the school. But a large, elite school such as New York University would certainly object. Another idea is dividing the schools by the number of sports they offer. But there are numerous academic elites who offer fewer sports because of financial constraints.

And then there's the backlash against the Division IV moniker. Brand said one option is using Division III-A and Division III-AA. Or, following the lead of the former Division I-A and I-AA, the alliance can stray from numerical attachments and assign names such as National Division and American Division.

Yes, a lot has changed since Alex Guerry Sr. led the effort for Sewanee to resign from the Southeastern Conference in 1940 and commit to small-college athletics.

"Everybody is going to take a step back, look at each other and decide, 'Who do you want to be aligned with?' " Argo said. "It could be awkward."

E-mail Darren Epps at depps@timesfreepress.com

I do disagree with one statement, based on information from the background documents.  The more "academic prestigious" schools offer more sports not less than the "average in D-III".

Let me raise one other point about the hypothetical student who couldn't get into Mississippi State.

The only D-III schools that are anywhere near Mississippi State are Millsaps, Mississippi College, Louisiana College, Huntingdon and LaGrange.  I seriously doubt that there are many quality student-athletes who fit this profile.  I can imagine a student-athlete with dysfunctional learning processes that might benefit from a structured program to help him/her with the curriculum (and please the US Dept of Education academic "edu-crats" at the same time) who might strive diligently to earn a degree at some D-III.  That student is either responding to the brilliant teaching modalities as diagnosed, prescribed and developed for that student (which is a "core strength" at the institution) and is moving toward his/her degree, or the kid has "busted out" within a semester.

Besides, it is not "politically correct" to value one student over another student.

[ILive4This]

I had the opportunity to be briefed on this topic at the our League's SAAC conference this summer. I along with my fellow student athletes had mixed opinions on the matter, not that some liked and some did not, but that all liked pieces but did not like other parts of the issue.

First we were from a conference that would certainly stay in the higher of the two divisions if their is a schism of some kind. We liked the criteria that would be used for a split. i.e size, but also sports sponsorship and school philosophy. There is also a clear need as Div III is bursting at the seems, due to the NAIA getting closer and closer to being defunct, and most of these schools choosing D III rather than what I feel would be the more obvious D III.

The numbers were staggering, right now I believe 1/7.5 schools gets into the playoffs for basketball, this number in the next 10 years would go up to 1/8.5 and would not level off their (this number may be a bit off as the conference was in July but I think it is close). New conferences would be created, with new automatic bids. The tournament likely would not expand because of MONEY$$$$ (I'll get to that later), and length of season. This means that less Pool C bids would be awarded, and teams from the UAA, WIAC etc. with multiple top 25,25 or even top 10 teams would not make it into the tournament (scary thought).

However, the reason that was presented to us at first was not what I just mentioned, it was money. The argument was that currently D III gets 1.5%?? of the overall NCAA budget. My argument back was, if the division was to split, the budget will not grow, that same 1.5% or otherwise small amount of money will be split among the two divisions as it would if it stayed as a whole.

Summary, something needs to be done, but perhaps the bigger issue is money, and rules/structure. If we are worried about tournament expansion, perhaps less conferences get automatic bids. Maybe make the auto bids, on a regional basis like in Cross Country. If we are worried about money, well I am not sure what to do, because How many sponsors want to get little to no advertising for their dollars. Finally, Good in Thought, but needs to be worked out better before it actually gets passed.

[frank uible]

Why do we need more (rather than fewer) rules about what a NCAA member college must or can't do? So that money can be shifted from one set of member colleges to another? What folly!

[ILive4This]

As i contemplate this topic more and more I view the eventual fall out of the NAIA as a buyout of the NAIA by the NCAA. I look at the possibility of 4 divisions this way. Div 1 and 2 to me are already the same concept with just one difference. The schools give out scholarships, go through the clearinghouse, the main difference usually comes from philosophy of the school, which I think corresponds to academics and number of athletic teams supported. If I am not mistaken Harvard which is usually 1 or 2 in the academic rankings sponsors more sports than any other university in the country.

Now we see a possible D 3 and 4, both will not have scholarships for athletics. so there must be a split, and this will come from again Philosophy which can in many cases spill over to/from, size of school, academic and athletic reputation. The interesting thing is, that the split will not be done on a school by school basis but rather a conference basis, or so that is how I have understood it. The higher academic schools, larger schools which are not always the same, but usually both have more sports sponsored will be brought to the bigger division. This means UAA, NESCAC, WIAC etc. while smaller school conferences, such as CCC, MASCAC etc will more than likely go to the smaller of the divisions. This also has to do with money in many cases, schools like NYU and Williams with budgets at 3 million or larger (NYU with no football team has a 2.9 M budget). will carry schools like Case Western with smaller budgets (1.4M with a football team).

[Knightstalker]

I don't think the NAIA schools will all join the NCAA, many do not want to deal with the NCAA.  My nephew coaches at an NAIA school and they want nothing to do with the NCAA.  The NCAA is too restrictive with many of their scholarship rules for athletes.  The NAIA is less restrictive on how the money can be used and on allowing scholarship athletes to work part time jobs.  The NAIA may have to restructure but I don't think it will disappear completely.

[frank uible]

Why should one college want to "carry" another athletically?

[ILive4This]

To comment, on the last two posts, first, the NAIA, is loosing schools and they are coming to the NCAA, some to D2 and others are attempting to come to D3, even though it has for the time being closed its doors. So clearly they have no problem coming to the NCAA. (In certain sports NAIA schools must pay their own way to national championships, if they can not afford to get to the location, they do NOT compete).

Next the school is not really carrying the other in a total sense, conferences are set so that in one way or another each school is pulling its weight. I will give for example the UAA since I know it the best.

Teams = NYU, Rochester, Wash U, Emory, Chicago, Case Western Reserve, Brandeis and Carnegie Mellon.

Academically, all are top notch schools but Wash U and Chicago are the cream of the Crop.
Athletically in terms of National Titles, Wash U and Emory are the leaders
Brandeis offers more sports in League competition then the other seven
NYU is by far the largest, and also spends the most on Athletics.
The others fit in nicely and fall around the average in the categories listed above

Under certain criteria for the new division, some of the schools might not get in because of their size, or other characteristics, but because of the league as a whole and the Philosophy they will all move to D3.

[smedindy]

The NAIA has been losing members, and because of the migration of former NAIA members to the NCAA we're now with a very large Division III, and a very large Division I, with a smaller division in the middle. I feel that many of the schools who are D-1 should actually be D-2 but still many schools are feeling the D-3 model is the way to go. Perhaps if the NAIA were to reform a bit and add a non-scholarship division, that would help thin out the ranks, perhaps?

Not to say that the ranks really need thinning, but I bet that would help the perception.