Future of Division III

[Ralph Turner]

The March 2006 Division III Newsletter has been released.

There is good stuff involving the Championships Committee report discussing:

---Strength of Schedule
---Opponents' Opponents Average' Winning Percentage (OOAWP)
---Out of Region Contests
---Games during Institutional Breaks

It mentions the recommendaton to the Management Council for consideration at the April meeting  to include any contest with a school in the membership region (Bylaw 4.12) rather than sports' evaluation region as the definition of "in-region".  (See Page 3.)

The attachment to the newsletter includes the Division III AQ and Conference Realignment Guide.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Having a region from Maine to Maryland without New York and Pennsylvania seems silly.  Even if they did, like a 200 mile radius from the boundaries of your region, that might make more sense.  I don't know.  It's good that they're looking in that direction though.

[Knightstalker]

I sounds like they would expand the regions to the usual North, South, East and West regions for competition purposes but would also maintain the 200 mile rule for bordering regions.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Yeah, but in the NE, it would be wierd.  A trip to Scranton from Boston is not in region, but a trip to DC would be?  If they were going to go in that direction, they would have to do something to remedy that.

[Knightstalker]

It is a little bizarre but I think they did it to break the high number of schools that strech from the Mason Dixon line north in D-3.  Taking PA and NY out of that mix probably evens out the numbers for the other three regions.  Without looking it up I believe that the majority of teams in D-III come from the geographical Mid Atlantic and Northeast states and the Midwestern/Great Lakes states which makes for the slightly strange nature of the North, South, East and West regions.

[Knightstalker]

Yeah, but in the NE, it would be wierd.  A trip to Scranton from Boston is not in region, but a trip to DC would be?  If they were going to go in that direction, they would have to do something to remedy that.

It means schools like Gordon could play a school like Catholic or Rowan or John Hopkins and it is in region.  To me it is a step in a better direction.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Yeah, but in the NE, it would be wierd.  A trip to Scranton from Boston is not in region, but a trip to DC would be?  If they were going to go in that direction, they would have to do something to remedy that.

It means schools like Gordon could play a school like Catholic or Rowan or John Hopkins and it is in region.  To me it is a step in a better direction.

Yeah, but it still doesn't guarantee that they would.

[Ralph Turner]

Whether they do or not play those teams, it gets us closer to a a better QOWI, because Gordon is not in a vacuum.

In turn, we get closer to the OOAWP!  It is on the table!

My optimistic self tells me that they want to get it right for all sports!

[Ralph Turner]

My suggestion to the committee is to allow the 200-mile radius to apply to the membership regions and Sport Specific Evaluation Regions as well in all sports!

My second recommendation is to adopt the 200-mile radius venue rule.   A tournament would be consider in-region for all schools traveling a venue within the 200 mile radius.  All members in the region or within the 200-mile radius of the venue are considered in-region.

In this example, Elmhurst (Geographic Region 4) hosts a tourney with McMurry TX (Geographic Region 4) and Hope (Geographic Region 3).  Hope is within 200 miles of the Elmhurst venue.  In this scenario, McMurry travels to "in-region" Elmhurst and gets to qualify the game against Hope, which traveled less that 200 miles to the venue, as "in-region".


Here are the regions as designated in By-Law 4.12.1.1

The geographical regions are as follows:  (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/97)

(a) Region 1 - Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont; (Revised: 1/12/99)

(b) Region 2 - New York, Pennsylvania,; (Revised: 1/12/99)

(c) Region 3 - Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia; and (Revised: 1/12/99)

(d) Region 4 - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

From the database perpsective, this is quiet simple Boolean math.

The In-region games can be validated by:

a)  Sports Evaluation Region (the 8 we have now) OR,
b)  Geographic Membership Region (the 4 listed above) OR,
c)   200-mile radius OR,
d)  200-mile radius of the venue OR
e)  In-conference as we have now in the UAA or the NEAC or the SCAC.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Sounds good.  When can we vote you onto the committee, Ralph?

[johnnie_esq]

I saw this a few weeks ago in the NCAA News and forgot to post it.  My bad.  Interesting, however- I'll post some highlights:

(A)bout 86 percent of 430 institutions demonstrated statistically that the institutional gift aid they awarded to newly enrolled student-athletes during the 2004-05 academic year was substantially comparable to aid granted to the general student body. In other words, only 57 institutions' aid to student-athletes exceeded the aid awarded to the general student body by at least 4 percent, when comparing students with similar need...

Analyzed further, the data indicate that about 70 percent of Division III institutions awarded less aid on average to student-athletes than they awarded to other students....

An institution posting a variance of -3.15 percent — the Division III median — awarded an average of $432 less in aid to student-athletes than it awarded to other students. However, Division III schools' variances expressed in dollar terms range from negative $2,192, at the 10th percentile mark, to positive $847, at the 90th percentile mark, with the maximum variance reported at $2,878 (student-athletes received that much more on average than nonathletes at an institution at the top end of the range)....

Citing examples, Murphy said the committee reviewed cases where student-athletes tended to live on campus and attend classes during the day — factors that might justify more financial aid — while nonathletes tended to be commuter or night-class students...Student-athletes also may receive more aid than other students for a reason that everyone agrees is positive — because they rank among the best students on campus....

Names of institutions whose cases are referred to the enforcement staff will not be reported publicly, and findings of secondary violations typically are not publicly reported — unless a public release of information is made part of an institution's penalty in accordance with NCAA Bylaws 19 and 32...

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

That's pretty cool.  I'm glad extra aid to athletes is the exception and not the norm.

[diehardfan]

Thank you for posting that! It is indeed very interesting.

[Ralph Turner]

Future of D-III--increased supervision of the nature of student aid.

Let's keep an eye on the Management Committee and their late July meeting.

The distribution pattern that we saw below looked "awfully Gaussian" to me.

On the flip side, is there any call for advocacy of Student-Athletes who do receive much less aid than they might be entitled to?  How about this as a cause for the National SAAC to study?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

That's an important point, Ralph.  Have we looked into schools that are too skittish about aid to athletes than their athletes are actually offered less aid than they could get in they were not playing sports?  I know that in one of the reports on this study, there was some mention of how many schools give athletes less money, but I do not recall if there were many (or any) at the magical -4% mark.