Future of Division III

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · January 09, 2006, 03:23:51 PM

There are some interesting proposals in there:

I like the one about making any play in a season cost a season of elligibility. That would prevent those basketball players with one year left from stretching that over two season by only playing in the second semester of each. That has always seemed wrong to me. Am I reading the intentions there correctly?

What are the chances the "in-region" criteria gets dropped from consideration?

The CCC is still harping on the free AQ to new conferences. I wonder if, instead of a split, the CCC might not be gearing up for a "super-conference" split a la the MAC. That free AQ qould certainly come in handy then.

They are also cracking down on fancy dinners for recruiting trips. That's just wrong. The kid is already going to have to pay their own way to school, the NCAA should at least let the coach take them out for a nice dinner while they're on campus. I know they shouldn't get special privilages, but regulating meals to being on campus and "on a scale comparable to normal student life?"

In the same spirit, can we pass the rule allowing occasional meals? Wait, so does this mean if the coach has the team over to her house for dinner before a big game that they are violating D3 rules? Ralph, help me out on this one.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · January 09, 2006, 03:35:20 PM

Do we know why the ASC hasn't attempted the "super-conference" split yet?

Warren Thompson · January 09, 2006, 03:50:34 PM

Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 09, 2006, 03:23:51 PM
I wonder if, instead of a split, the CCC might not be gearing up for a "super-conference" split a la the MAC.

It remains to be seen how long the MAC remains a "super-conference."

Pat Coleman · January 09, 2006, 04:08:14 PM

New items posted to both Daily Doses about today's voting results.
http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/?p=180
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=111

Ralph Turner · January 09, 2006, 05:42:55 PM

Hoops Fan, I wrote this on Page #20 of the ASC Men's Hoops Message Board.

------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCAA is considering legislation that will authorize a self-study period in 2006-08 that will allow some conferences to re-align without the loss of the AQ. That may be the time when we can get this done.

When UT-Tyler comes on board in 2007-08, the ASC-East will have the minimum 7 teams in:

1) Men's and Women's Soccer (Fall)
2) Men's and Women's Cross Country (Fall)
3) M & W Hoops (Winter)
4) Softball/Baseball (Spring).

ETBU's adding Men's and Women's Tennis and LC's adding Men's Tennis would give the ASC-East its 5th sport for men and a 5th for women. (D3 Tennis is considering adding the AQ for Tennis conference team champions.)

UOzarks and Louisiana College adding Volleyball would provide the 7 teams necessary for the AQ and would be a 6th (women's) team sport for the ASC-East.

An official conference must offer one team sport for men and one team sport for women in each season and five and five total. (Bylaw 3.3.2.2.3)

As for the West, HPU is adding M & W soccer in the 2006.

The West would have at least 7 teams in

Men's and Women's Soccer (Fall),
Volleyball (Fall),
Men's and Women's Hoops (Winter)
Men's and Women's Tennis (Spring),
Baseball/Softball (Spring),

The 6 football teams in the ASC-West qualify as an official conference and the addition of the 3 ASC East teams as affiliates would maintain the Pool A AQ. (This is actually pretty common in D3. The Northwest Conference is headed there with Menlo; the ODAC has Catholic as an affiliate; the MIAA is using Wisconsin Lutheran until Tri-State finishes provisional; Maryville is an affilliate in the USAC, etc.)

That is 5 men's and 5 women's teams with no additional teams necessary. That gives the ASC-West full status as a new conference and the accompanying AQ's.

-------------------------------------------------------------

With the NCAA requiring 6 sports for schools over 1000 students, the self-study (as passes by legislation today) would need to evaluate that.

This allows that schools to maximize AQ options, but you have no leeway with the minimum number of schools in some sports. One departure and you are in trouble, e.g. Austin College.

A year ago, Mississippi College was talking about moving to D2. On Pat Coleman's blog about the "Interstate 8" (and not the freeway in San Diego County

) he mentioned the potential of new conference in the southeastern US, the "Little SEC" for lack of a better term.

Austin College is going to the SCAC in August 2006. The ASC is not a super conference, just a numercially large one that contributes to the numerator for calculations for Pool C bids in D3.

I still wonder about the desire of UT-Tyler with very nice, new, state-funded facilities remaining in D3 or moving to the D2 Lone Star Conference.

I no longer see the ASC splitting into 2 conferences, unless there are significant guarantees and commitments to new expenditures for programs and facilities made amongst the 15 members of the 2 divisions/new conferences.

mizzou_mafia · January 10, 2006, 10:17:57 AM

An article/interview with the chairman of the President's Council, recapping some of the recent voting and some the Council's philosophy.

http://www.dnronline.com/sports_details.php?AID=2419&CHID=3

Ralph Turner · January 10, 2006, 10:32:55 AM

I believe that I have detected a discrepancy between Pat's report and the DNR interview.

Did the measure on the Redshirt year at other classifications fail or did it pass?

Pat says that the measure failed 203-199 and 3 more nay votes would have swung it.

The DNR report suggests the opposite, that D3 will refuse to permit a student-athlete who was redshirted by his coach the opportunity to compete in all 4 years of his eligibility.

I agree with Pat on this one. The Presidents Council failed to comprehend the real dynamics of redshirting at other levels of intercollegiate athletics.

Please clarify, altho' I am inclined to believe Pat Coleman over Joe Lemire.

Ralph Turner · January 10, 2006, 10:47:07 AM

The NCAA Web site has not updated its "Voting Results" section, nor did I find a press release concering the voting.

Pat Coleman · January 10, 2006, 02:35:27 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2006, 10:32:55 AM
Please clarify, altho' I am inclined to believe Pat Coleman over Joe Lemire.

Thanks, although I am inclined to believe an outgoing member of the presidents council over my source, unfortunately.

If so, it's a sad day for Division III. We just became a lot more isolationist.

Knightstalker · January 10, 2006, 02:44:07 PM

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say it appears that some institutitions/conferences are trying to force a showdown and possibly a split among the D-III ranks. OK I have to get back to the grassy knoll now.

Pat Coleman · January 10, 2006, 03:04:53 PM

I have been told that the DNR report is incorrect on the result of the vote regarding restrictive redshirts. I can't say more without outing my source but the explanation I received leaves me confident our report is accurate.

Still will wait for the NCAA site to load for the final word but I'm alright with it for now.

Ralph Turner · January 10, 2006, 03:19:14 PM

Should the "redshirt" proposal have passed, then the next strategy would be to appeal thru the SAAC.

The students could plead that case very effectively...

Betty Jones is looking at a D1 basketball full ride at State U vs. a nice academic/merit-based financial aid package at local private D3. She gets chooses to take a chance at State U, the coach redshirts her! Bingo! She loses a year of eligibility.

Pat Coleman · January 10, 2006, 03:22:14 PM

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/01/10/ncaa

Rejecting a Presidents Council recommendation, however, the membership voted 203-199 not to subtract a year of eligibility from an athlete who redshirted in Division I or II and then transferred to Division III. "I'm not too upset about that one," (Bridgewater, Va., president Philip) Stone said. "Even people who voted for the redshirt ban were sympathetic in this case."

Thanks to Coach C for picking that out.

mizzou_mafia · January 10, 2006, 03:47:42 PM

Ralph,

I just skimmed the voting part of the DNR article after reading the results that Pat posted on the blog. I didn't notice the contradiction until later this morning when you pointed it out. I was guessing the reporter's source was Stone, but maybe not...or maybe he got it mixed up over the phone call.

In any case, thanks for following up and staying on top of it Pat!

johnnie_esq · January 10, 2006, 05:12:46 PM

The vote turning down the re-establishment of redshirts at the D-3 level, based upon its numbering, seems to have been roughly divided on public/private grounds. If I were to join Knightstalker on the grassy knoll, I'd want to examine that a little closer. In one of the articles posted above the Rhode Island Prez talks about getting a group to represent the interests of the D3 public schools. Not to say he shouldn't, or doing so would be bad, but I will say that such a group may have big implications in the future.

I'm personally of the opinion that the three levels of the NCAA need some juggling again-- D2 is the smallest of the 3 and not growing (if at all) even close to as fast as D3, which is talking now about capping membership altogether. Given that the NAIA is a mere shell of its former self, I'll bet a bunch of NAIA members explore moving over in the next year or face the possibility of being "forced" to D2.