Future of Division III

[Ralph Turner]

Johnnie, I think that the NAIA will continue as its "shell".

In the Red River AC, the schools can pick and choose their porgrams.  The NAIA-1 College of the Southwest in Hobbs NM has no winter sports, 4 men and 6 women.

http://www.csw.edu/athletics/menssports.asp

NAIA-1 Northwood Institute in a Dallas suburb has 4 men's and 4 women's and no winter sports.

Imagine...no men's or women's basketball and they are happy doing that way.

I think that D2 will remain as it is.  The NCAA is giving D2 plenty of resources to define itself.  If there are strong conferences that will help their members, then D2 will have a reason to exist.  Also, you comment about being a haven for NAIA programs may be right.

UTPB has just accepted an invitation to join the non-football-playing D-2 Heartland Conference from the NAIA.  They were wanting to move from the NAIA-1 Red River AC.

http://www.utpb.edu/utpb_student/students/athletics/utpb_athletics_page_index.html

Also, Texas A&M International in Laredo TX is moving from NAIA-1 Red River AC  to the Heartland Conference in Fall 2006.

The Red River AC is also losing Langston OK University to D2.

This should be interesting down here.

[Flea]

Has anyone else heard about this idea?
NCAA Division I-A (keeps current status)
NCAA Division I-AA (keeps current status)
NCAA Division I-AAA (current NCAA Division II)

The present day 456 memeber NCAA Division III would split into . . .
NCAA Division II
NCAA Division III

criteria?
- academic standards
- enrollment
- comprehensive fees
- school's choice
- any other ideas?

[Warren Thompson]

Flea Shooter:

Interesting idea above.  Got a source for it?

[johnnie_esq]

I'd be surprised if the powers that be in D-1 would allow a *new* that they would have to fund.  There seems to be a real hesitancy about funding non-revenue programs/divisions more than they need to. 

I really see a divide in D2.  There was a big deal about decreasing the number of required scholarships a year or so which led to a lot of hard feelings within the division.  It has to be hard at the D2 level-- athletic departments have added costs (read: scholarships) without much, if any, added revenue (when MIAC schools outdraw D-2 NSIC schools for football and basketball, there is a major problem at that level).  Revenue producers at that level either have some D-1 program (hockey at SCSU, UMD, UND, Mankato State, UNO, NMU, Mich. Tech., BSU) or are a big deal in an area without big deals (Nebraska Kearney, Pittsburg State come to mind).  I assume, but cannot prove, that everyone else in the division likes the philosophy of giving some scholarships but do not see their revenue backing it up.

I think for many D2 schools, D3 would be an attractive setup-- less costs in the athletic department, yet the same or similar students may still come to those schools, with many D2 schools being public and having lower tuition than their generally private D3 counterparts.

So I'd like to see D1-AA as the melting pot of scholarship programs, with D-2 becoming a large-school/tuition under $20,000 division while D-3 is everyone else (except if a school opts into D-2).  In the Midwest, I'd see the NSIC (whose schools are public, tuition comparable to UW-XXX schools, and size comparable to UW-XXX schools) staying at D-2, while the NCC (most of whose schools sponsor at least 1 D-1 sport already) moves to D1-AA.   

Thoughts? 

[Flea]

Interesting idea above.  Got a source for it?

A coaching friend of mine from one of the top D2 schools in the nation heard from his AD at a recent staff meeting.

This would mean D2 and D3 with be non-scholarship (if I was not clear before).

[Warren Thompson]

Were such a scenario realized, it might destroy some current D3 conferences, with some members opting for D2 and others for D3. In other words, an unholy mess.

[johnnie_esq]

I understand the mess some realignment would cause; but any mess is unavoidable when you're dealing with such a topic.  But the huge administrative tent that is D3, under which anything that D1, D2 and the NAIA don't want to deal with, is really getting burdened.

Flea, I struggle with a split within D3 as to where to draw the lines.  A strict enrollment line is tough because the majority of D3 institutions have enrollments about 2000 students; so if you made the cutoff line around there, you may have a school of 2050 having to play against schools that have 10,000 students, while a school of 2049 is the big fish in a small pond.  So enrollment may not work.  And if you made the enrollment cutoff at, say, 5,000 students, then you have a really small D2 and still a big D3, unless you can keep some current D2ers home.

Tuition cost lines have more variance, but also allow more play in the rules.  We all know the real cost of college is not the sticker price; so penalizing an apparent low tuition school while a high tuition-high student aid school doesnt get pushed one way may be unfair.

I tend to believe a line on public/private is more fair.  Private schools tend to have high endowments but also have nobody backing them up; public schools have the state to help but have to wade through that red tape and wait behind the state's flagship institutions.  But even then, in current D3 there are only 100 public schools, so you'd need to keep some current D2ers to drop their scholarship programs to keep them home, otherwise you'd still have a very small D2. 

I only see opting between for conference purposes. But perhaps the mentality of the split should be akin to something like the Minnesota High School League purposes, which realigns its classes each year-- one year you could be A, the next you could be AA, depending upon enrollment.  Conferences stay the same-- just teams are eligible for different playoff systems at the end of the conference season.

[johnnie_esq]

By the way, Pat, b/c I didn't want to take the honor, could I convince you to make post number 10,000 on the MIAC board?

Your hard work and generous donation to all of D3 sports is much appreciated, and it's only appropriate that you take the post.

[Coach C]

It's essentially the "D4" proposal.  It's been out there a while, but I don't think it has any real support.  It would establish 2 non-scholarship divisions, one with non-traditional seasons, redshirts, etc, the other without those things.  (that's one idae for it)  theother ided for it is for less expensive schools and publics to do into a seperate division.  There are too many competing ideas to make it work.

C

[smedindy]

Wasn't part of D-4 also to eliminate championships and playoffs and just play the season?

[johnnie_esq]

Great series in ESPN.com regarding boosters and wealthy donors in college athletics.  Here is a link to Phil Knight (of Nike) and his relationship with the University of Oregon.

Tomorrow ESPN will name the top ten power broker donors in the country.

[Coach C]

smedindy -

There were those who thought that was a good idea.

I wasn't one of them, but some people though that participation was good enough, that competitions and championships were un-academic.

I think that we should also stop keeping score in the games and not keep records either.  And let everyone play the same amount of minutes.  That would make it all nice and fair.

C

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Nice article Johnnie

[Warren Thompson]

smedindy -

... some people thought that participation was good enough, that competitions and championships were un-academic.

C

Well, actually, Middlebury espouses that very outlook -- except for men's and women's ice hockey. 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

You know Middlebury's motto: It's hard to be a sore loser if you never do it.


That's a tough one to live up to if you compete in every post-season year in and year out.