Future of Division III

[joehakes]

Yes Amherst spent 4 million compared to 20+ million, but that is also relative to the number of students at the school. When you look at how much money is spend per student at the school and then further more per student athlete, the differences are less so (albeit still large).

However take a look at a school like U Chicago (a former D1 school), with an endowment of over 6 Billion dollars, which is very similar to that of U Penn and other non-harvard Ivy's

This clearly shows that the financials are there, if the need to put the money into the athletics also became present.

But that is the point.  They don't wish to put that money into athletics and their campuses are not set up to be DI programs.  That is why DIII exists, for philosophical reasons, and it provides an arena for those schools who want athletes who are also students.  Are there examples of the "other" way of doing things in both divisions?  Yes, but overall everyone has found the level where they want to be.

Every college has a student-athlete to athlete ratio, by the simple use of mathematics.  And every school at the DIII level will be pretty aware of what percentage of their students are varsity athletes.  Just as they would know what percentage are in the natural sciences, humanities, sophomores, full-payers, etc.  Some schools do use the percentage to gauge how many programs they will run or what type of admissions "slotting" they might need to use.  I don't know of any schools that would turn a student away because they wanted to participate in athletics, but schools will limit the number of special admissions that athletics is allowed, as they do with other affinity groups.  The academically elite schools do this all the time, and several have very strong athletic programs.  There is really nothing evil-minded about it.

[smedindy]

I understand that Chicago left the Big 10 long long ago, however I am simply saying they have money available comparable with many like-minded d1 schools.

There is no question that all of the UAA schools could be like Northwestern, Rice, Stanford, Vanderbilt, or Duke and play D-1 sports (and succeed at some).

But they don't want to. It's not who they are.

Just like the Wisconsin branch schools could emulate the Minnesota schools like Mankato, Crookston, Bemidji State or Winona State and be D-2, but they'd rather not. They chose the D-3 model.

And a large endowment doesn't necessarily mean they have that extra money to spend on athletics.  Most endowment is restricted - usually to scholarships or other such programs. It's not something you can move around like annual fund money. And you can only spend so much of it per year - otherwise you self-immolate.

[Titan Q]

It seems to me there are 3 different types of schools currently in NCAA Division III.

Group A* - Regional Liberal Arts Schools
* Examples - Illinois Wesleyan, Wooster, DePauw, Lawrence, Wittenberg, Puget Sound
* These schools represent the largest % of current NCAA D3 membership
* Although many of these schools are ranked in the same "Liberal Arts" category as schools like Williams and Amherst by US News & World Report, they are regional.  Students (and student-athletes) tend to come from a 200 mile radius of campus.

Group B* - Elite National Universities
* Examples - Wash U, Williams, Amherst, Kenyon, Chicago
* A small % of current D3 membership
* Schools that have the reputation and financial resources to recruit nationally

Group C* - Public Universities
* Examples - UW-Stevens Point, William Paterson, Rowan, UT-Dallas
* A small % of current membership
* Most students come from within the state
* Cost is significantly less than schools in Groups I and II.

* My group names only.


Am I missing any obvious grouping(s)?

The philosophical split seems to be within Group A.  Many Group A members have the desire and ability to compete athletically with Groups B and C, despite perceived advantages (academic or cost) of B and C.  But many Group A members do not have the desire/ability to compete with other Group A members or Group B and C schools.  Even within current Division III conferences comprised of Group A schools, there appear to be splits.

[Knightstalker]

I have been reading about the lower tuition for public schools v private.  Tuition is lower for public universities but the aid offered, at least in NJ is nothing compared to what private schools offer.  I was accepted at NJCU and Moravian.  I chose NJCU due to the much lower tuition.  When I look back at it I should have chosen Moravian, I would have gotten more aid from Moravian and come out of college with a significantly lower debt.  My brother had the same issue, he attended the University of Scranton for two years then transferred to William Paterson.  He thought he would be saving our parents money, they ended up having to take out larger loans due to the lack of financial aid from WP.  The Public schools may have lower tuition but they also have much smaller endowments than most privates have.

I think financially the private schools have a bigger advantage than the public schools do.

[Titan Q]

That is not the case in the part of the country I live in, Knightstalker.  I'm very familiar with situations where a student-athlete from Wisconsin was recruited by a CCIW school and a WIAC, and the "out-of-pocket" expenses aren't even in the ballpark of each other.

Here are the current tuition + room/board costs per U.S. News & World Report:

WIAC
UW-Eau Claire: $10,438
UW-LaCrosse: $10,525
UW-Oshkosh: $11,110
UW-Platteville: $10,330
UW-River Falls: $9904
UW-Stevens Point: $10,719
UW-Stout: $11,847
UW-Superior: $10,153
UW-Whitewater: $10,410

(in-state tuition)

CCIW
Augustana: $33,717
Carthage: $32,000
Elmhurst: $31,784
Illinois Wesleyan: $37,780
Millikin: $31,055
North Central: $32,241
North Park: $24,350
Wheaton: $30,982

[Knightstalker]

Q, that may be the case with the CCIW, but I would contend that if they choose to, they could offer aid packages to students that would cover almost the entire cost.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The actual out-of-pocket cost varies so much from school to school and student to student that generalizations are both difficult and unwise, but the 'typical' case (if there is such a thing!) is somewhere between what KS and Q are saying. 

The 'list prices' are nearly irrelevant, since so few students pay full list price.  Usually (not always) private schools will be able to give more scholarship aid (and government or other third-party aid will generally be larger since the list price is higher), so the out-of-pocket differential is generally much less than first meets the eye.  However, I dare say that the out-of-pocket differential only fairly rarely disappears entirely (or, in KS's scenario, actually reverses) - bottom line, private schools will generally cost the student (or parents!) more, just not nearly as much more as the list price differential would suggest.

Because of this 'sticker shock' disadvantage, some schools (North Park as an example) have lowered their list price (with a corresponding decrease in available aid).  On the other hand, many schools wear their list price as a badge of honor - (subliminal message) we cost more, we must be better.

[Titan Q]

A huge difference from school to school in Division III is "academic money."  School A may be less selective than School B and willing to offer academic scholarships at lower levels (of academic credentials) than School B.  I am always amazed at the difference in price quoted from school to school to the same student...certainly not just the differential in "list price."

[ILive4This]

I understand that Chicago left the Big 10 long long ago, however I am simply saying they have money available comparable with many like-minded d1 schools.

There is no question that all of the UAA schools could be like Northwestern, Rice, Stanford, Vanderbilt, or Duke and play D-1 sports (and succeed at some).

But they don't want to. It's not who they are.

Just like the Wisconsin branch schools could emulate the Minnesota schools like Mankato, Crookston, Bemidji State or Winona State and be D-2, but they'd rather not. They chose the D-3 model.

And a large endowment doesn't necessarily mean they have that extra money to spend on athletics.  Most endowment is restricted - usually to scholarships or other such programs. It's not something you can move around like annual fund money. And you can only spend so much of it per year - otherwise you self-immolate.

See I do not think every UAA school could make it financially feasible, Brandeis' endowment is still well below 1 Billion, Carnegie Mellon's also below 1B but they have other money not counted I believe from the respective foundations. Case was nearly in bankruptcy recently having to dig into their endowment to save themselves.

[ILive4This]

Q, that may be the case with the CCIW, but I would contend that if they choose to, they could offer aid packages to students that would cover almost the entire cost.

Also I know many of the schools named in the UAA and NESCAC, or for the most part the "GROUP B" schools usually, have Total costs at over 40K, that being said usually 2/3 of students will get some form of aid (this gets pretty close to the percentage that need aid) and the average package is usually not much less than 30K. Therefore leaving the average student paying just over 10K to go to school including room and board usually. Making is as expensive or cheaper than many public schools.

These kind of statistics makes it much easier to "steal" a kid who will not get playing time at a D1 state school, or from a poor academic D2 state school.

[Titan Q]

Q, that may be the case with the CCIW, but I would contend that if they choose to, they could offer aid packages to students that would cover almost the entire cost.

Also I know many of the schools named in the UAA and NESCAC, or for the most part the "GROUP B" schools usually, have Total costs at over 40K, that being said usually 2/3 of students will get some form of aid (this gets pretty close to the percentage that need aid) and the average package is usually not much less than 30K. Therefore leaving the average student paying just over 10K to go to school including room and board usually. Making is as expensive or cheaper than many public schools.

These kind of statistics makes it much easier to "steal" a kid who will not get playing time at a D1 state school, or from a poor academic D2 state school.

Illinois Wesleyan goes head to head with Wash U and Chicago every year on top notch recruits like Adam Dauksas (IWU '06), Keelan Amelianovich (IWU '06), and Sean Wallis (Wash U '08).  Despite Chicago's "list price" being about $47,000 and Wash U's just about the same, that "final price" for the UAA schools is never much higher at all than IWU (list price $37,000), and they're even lower quite often. 

I'm certainly aware that the "list price" is not the final price.  No question about it.

[golden_dome]

Here's a very good website to give you the averages at each school for tuition and also financial aid given out. These are just averages so it really does not show you the "best deal" a school can give out, but it gives you an idea.

http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/

I would agree with Titan Q about the "final price" though. Regardless of tuition costs, some schools will give out a certain number of "free rides" every year and some do not. But whatever scholarship system is provided for the general student body, it is provided for athletics.

[smedindy]

It seems to me there are 3 different types of schools currently in NCAA Division III.

Group A* - Regional Liberal Arts Schools
* Examples - Illinois Wesleyan, Wooster, DePauw, Lawrence, Wittenberg, Puget Sound
* These schools represent the largest % of current NCAA D3 membership
* Although many of these schools are ranked in the same "Liberal Arts" category as schools like Williams and Amherst by US News & World Report, they are regional.  Students (and student-athletes) tend to come from a 200 mile radius of campus.

Group B* - Elite National Universities
* Examples - Wash U, Williams, Amherst, Kenyon, Chicago
* A small % of current D3 membership
* Schools that have the reputation and financial resources to recruit nationally

I think Williams, Amherst and Kenyon  fit more in A. Honestly, a school like Wabash recruits nationally, and wants to have students from Texas, Mississippi, Arizona, etc. to diversify its student body, but no matter what they'll get mostly what's around there. In fact, I think A and B should be combined. Wabash has played Wash U. in several sports for years and Chicago and DePauw have faced off in several sports for years as well. They fit together nicely and attract the same caliber of student.

Even though schools like Kenyon, Oberlin, Amherst and Williams are more national than Wooster, they still will fit in with their small liberal arts brethren in philosophy and mission.

The split in A is the smaller schools, I think, that rely on students that pay the full freight, don't sponsor as many sports, and don't have the same rigorous admission standards.

Wabash left the HCAC because it didn't feel comfortable in competing with a school like Anderson. In fact, I think the issues that caused DePauw, Wabash, and Rose to leave the HCAC (though Rose is back) are many of the same issues of D3 / D4. It's not ironic that the president of Earlham, who refused to join the then-ICAC when it was being formed (that later became the HCAC) is one of the leading proponents for the D3/D4 split.

Private schools with large endowments have an advantage. Most endowment is tied into financial aid, and so they can compete for students even if they're $30,000 'over' the tuition of the publics. This is where endowments come into play. For those schools, sometimes the trick is to convince a student that they can continue their athletic career and afford the education at a small private than blending into the large public and being an IM star.

[Ralph Turner]

As Smedindy outlined in the previous post, I believe the challenge for these "A" and "B" schools is to find 150 colleagues to create the new division.  They were the ones that were identified in the background documents. 

[roocru]

I am at John Wayne Airport waiting for my flight home and thought I would post about what I heard at the AFCA convention about the D3/D4 issue.

1)  The schools wanting D4 want to have more restrictive control over the athletic programs in the areas of  a) less recruiting emphasis, b) smaller and less well paid staffs,  c) resticted playoff opportunities ranging from a smaller playoff for just their members to no playoffs at all, d) greatly resticting the access of coaches to athletes when not in-season, e) playing teams like those that fit the above criteria only and f) a more restrictive environment that de-emphasizes athletics

2)  The D4 proponents are finding out that they do not have anywhere near the base they thought they would have and are indeed a small minority in the overall current D3 structure.

3)  While it is admiitedly a small sample (10-12), every coach I spoke to was not in favor of the D4 model.

4)  There was not any talk by any of my sources about forcing entire conferences to make decisions but instead it would be a school by school decision.

As stated above this was a small sample but did include several regions of the country.  The overall feeling I got was that there would be no wholesale exodus of teams to the D4 model.