Future of Division III

[smedindy]

I bet most of those endowment dollars are restricted, though. It's not free money to use as they see fit. I know everyone would love to get unrestricted endowments, but unrestricted scholarship endowments seem to be about the norm.

[Ralph Turner]

Yeah, you're right. I meant "median" and typed "mode". Sorry.

Sager, you better be glad that GrizzliesGrad caught that error in statistics before Ypsi did!       

[jknezek]

Honestly, I think it has to be a bit more rigid. I like the ideas, jknezek, but that is easy to beat. School comes for a year or two and then leaves, they never fullfill the idea. Conference can promise they will do it, but they are granted the AQ before they prove it (AQ in two years of existence). I feel they need to prove their worth as it where before that AQ is done. I like the one-round of playing every opponent in the conference each year. That allows each institution to have had to travel to the others at least once before the AQ is given up. That way institutions have to consider the costs of joining the conference - like most have to consider before joining a conference. It also keeps conferences from forming for convenience without any challenge that everyone else has to deal with (transportation and such).

How many free agent type schools do you think there are? I don't think you'd see a lot of join for a year then leave. That makes for even worse scheduling issues. If you mandate a significant part of the schedule has to happen in conference, then the ADs are probably going to be ok with the conference because it saves a scheduling hassle. If they can't do it because of travel costs, they aren't going to spend the time setting up an independent schedule 2 of every 3 years and then shutting out those partners for one year. It's not worth it. All you are trying to do is prevent gaming the system while also easing scheduling problems and travel costs for teams without a conference.

And per your larger conference idea, I don't think that would end up being realistic. I just can't see 20 schools coming together and forming a conference like the ACAA in Division III. In Division I, of course, but not in Division III. Yes, large conferences exists, but they don't necessarily start out as 20 schools. They grow into bigger units - i.e. the ODAC and USA South.

I wasn't thinking along these lines because I agree, it's not realistic. But whatever rules you set up to define an appropriate conference has to be applicable to all conferences, not just the ones that smell funny. So the point I was making was that the restrictions I proposed work for the ACAA problem but also work for something like the ODAC or USASAC. In other words, they don't negatively affect existing large conferences while helping solve the problem they are looking to solve.  It's why defining a conference as a conference with a complete round robin, let alone a home and home schedule, simply won't work.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Yeah, you're right. I meant "median" and typed "mode". Sorry.

Sager, you better be glad that GrizzliesGrad caught that error in statistics before Ypsi did!       

I'd already caught it, but occasionally choose not to say anything!

[Gregory Sager]

I bet most of those endowment dollars are restricted, though. It's not free money to use as they see fit. I know everyone would love to get unrestricted endowments, but unrestricted scholarship endowments seem to be about the norm.

I realize that, but the bigger the endowment, the greater the likelihood of unrestricted money in it. And $683m is a big endowment.

[Gregory Sager]

Honestly, I think it has to be a bit more rigid. I like the ideas, jknezek, but that is easy to beat. School comes for a year or two and then leaves, they never fullfill the idea. Conference can promise they will do it, but they are granted the AQ before they prove it (AQ in two years of existence). I feel they need to prove their worth as it where before that AQ is done. I like the one-round of playing every opponent in the conference each year. That allows each institution to have had to travel to the others at least once before the AQ is given up. That way institutions have to consider the costs of joining the conference - like most have to consider before joining a conference. It also keeps conferences from forming for convenience without any challenge that everyone else has to deal with (transportation and such).

How many free agent type schools do you think there are? I don't think you'd see a lot of join for a year then leave. That makes for even worse scheduling issues. If you mandate a significant part of the schedule has to happen in conference, then the ADs are probably going to be ok with the conference because it saves a scheduling hassle. If they can't do it because of travel costs, they aren't going to spend the time setting up an independent schedule 2 of every 3 years and then shutting out those partners for one year. It's not worth it. All you are trying to do is prevent gaming the system while also easing scheduling problems and travel costs for teams without a conference.

And per your larger conference idea, I don't think that would end up being realistic. I just can't see 20 schools coming together and forming a conference like the ACAA in Division III. In Division I, of course, but not in Division III. Yes, large conferences exists, but they don't necessarily start out as 20 schools. They grow into bigger units - i.e. the ODAC and USA South.

I wasn't thinking along these lines because I agree, it's not realistic. But whatever rules you set up to define an appropriate conference has to be applicable to all conferences, not just the ones that smell funny. So the point I was making was that the restrictions I proposed work for the ACAA problem but also work for something like the ODAC or USASAC. In other words, they don't negatively affect existing large conferences while helping solve the problem they are looking to solve.  It's why defining a conference as a conference with a complete round robin, let alone a home and home schedule, simply won't work.

Plus, you'd think that the NESCAC would actively resist any attempt by the division membership to define conference status in terms of round robins. After all, if you can define conferences by whether or not they employ single round-robins, then what's to stop you from defining them by whether or not they employ double round-robins?

[jknezek]

Honestly, I think it has to be a bit more rigid. I like the ideas, jknezek, but that is easy to beat. School comes for a year or two and then leaves, they never fullfill the idea. Conference can promise they will do it, but they are granted the AQ before they prove it (AQ in two years of existence). I feel they need to prove their worth as it where before that AQ is done. I like the one-round of playing every opponent in the conference each year. That allows each institution to have had to travel to the others at least once before the AQ is given up. That way institutions have to consider the costs of joining the conference - like most have to consider before joining a conference. It also keeps conferences from forming for convenience without any challenge that everyone else has to deal with (transportation and such).

How many free agent type schools do you think there are? I don't think you'd see a lot of join for a year then leave. That makes for even worse scheduling issues. If you mandate a significant part of the schedule has to happen in conference, then the ADs are probably going to be ok with the conference because it saves a scheduling hassle. If they can't do it because of travel costs, they aren't going to spend the time setting up an independent schedule 2 of every 3 years and then shutting out those partners for one year. It's not worth it. All you are trying to do is prevent gaming the system while also easing scheduling problems and travel costs for teams without a conference.

And per your larger conference idea, I don't think that would end up being realistic. I just can't see 20 schools coming together and forming a conference like the ACAA in Division III. In Division I, of course, but not in Division III. Yes, large conferences exists, but they don't necessarily start out as 20 schools. They grow into bigger units - i.e. the ODAC and USA South.

I wasn't thinking along these lines because I agree, it's not realistic. But whatever rules you set up to define an appropriate conference has to be applicable to all conferences, not just the ones that smell funny. So the point I was making was that the restrictions I proposed work for the ACAA problem but also work for something like the ODAC or USASAC. In other words, they don't negatively affect existing large conferences while helping solve the problem they are looking to solve.  It's why defining a conference as a conference with a complete round robin, let alone a home and home schedule, simply won't work.

Plus, you'd think that the NESCAC would actively resist any attempt by the division membership to define conference status in terms of round robins. After all, if you can define conferences by whether or not they employ single round-robins, then what's to stop you from defining them by whether or not they employ double round-robins?

Well the ODAC can't do a double round robin in basketball and probably more than a few of the women's sports. There aren't that many games in a season. Same with the USASAC. And no football conference could have a double round robin, precious few lax ones either, so that is simply a no-go as a conference definer.

[Pat Coleman]

I was sure that once upon a time, a conference had to play at least 60% of its games as conference games in order to qualify for an AQ. I thought I saw that on a qualification form back in the 1990s. But I have not seen it documented in the internet era.

[sunny]

"The Championships Committee's primary goal is for the division to consider criteria that remove any incentive for conferences to form solely for the purposes of obtaining automatic qualification. "

I disagree with this entire premise. There are a number of single-sport conferences in sports that aren't sponsored evenly across the country that are formed very much for this reason - championship access. I think that's perfectly fine and no one has ever seemed to object to that. Are we to say that it's OK to do so in one sport but not as a full member?

Next, it's a slippery slope to try to define a conference based on how it conducts its regular season. For instance, there are a small number of AQ sports (golf and women's rowing spring to mind) where it's actually quite common to not have head-to-head dual competition during the season.  Would those sports be exempted? If so, on what grounds? Norms of the sport? The NCAA has granted conferences quite a bit of flexibility in determining their AQs, which is what ultimately impacts the NCAA Tournament - it would seem odd if they were now dictating regular-season conference competition.

Finally, in most Division III sports, Pool B is generally weak ... and the bids awarded in Pool B end up often going to sub-par teams on the basis of criteria that tends to be a little less indicative of quality when you're not applying it to top-end teams. I'd MUCH rather encourage those teams to be in AQ conferences - even those without full regular-season competition so that their path into the national tournament is clearer - win. your. league. Short of folding Pool B and C together in every sport, I'd prefer to see schools try to form their own paths to AQs, even through very shaky conference alignments.

[sunny]

I was sure that once upon a time, a conference had to play at least 60% of its games as conference games in order to qualify for an AQ. I thought I saw that on a qualification form back in the 1990s. But I have not seen it documented in the internet era.

Was that only in basketball or football? Because, you might play a double round robin in baseball and only be hovering around 50%. And a 9-game soccer, lacrosse, or field hockey conference schedule is likely not getting you to 60% either. 60% is a very high number outside of basketball (assuming a double round robin) or football.

[Pat Coleman]

"The Championships Committee's primary goal is for the division to consider criteria that remove any incentive for conferences to form solely for the purposes of obtaining automatic qualification. "

I disagree with this entire premise. There are a number of single-sport conferences in sports that aren't sponsored evenly across the country that are formed very much for this reason - championship access. I think that's perfectly fine and no one has ever seemed to object to that. Are we to say that it's OK to do so in one sport but not as a full member?

But those single-sport conferences also provide a set schedule of regular season games for their members -- at least the ones I have observed have. Perhaps in some sports (meet sports such as golf, XC, etc.) that's not a need. When a conference provides nothing but a postseason tournament and a ticket to the dance, I feel it's fair to question it and make sure we're being good stewards of a championship system that is already overloaded and often unable to expand.

[Pat Coleman]

With the passage of time, sunny, I don't recall. Sorry.

[sunny]

"The Championships Committee's primary goal is for the division to consider criteria that remove any incentive for conferences to form solely for the purposes of obtaining automatic qualification. "

I disagree with this entire premise. There are a number of single-sport conferences in sports that aren't sponsored evenly across the country that are formed very much for this reason - championship access. I think that's perfectly fine and no one has ever seemed to object to that. Are we to say that it's OK to do so in one sport but not as a full member?

But those single-sport conferences also provide a set schedule of regular season games for their members -- at least the ones I have observed have. Perhaps in some sports (meet sports such as golf, XC, etc.) that's not a need. When a conference provides nothing but a postseason tournament and a ticket to the dance, I feel it's fair to question it and make sure we're being good stewards of a championship system that is already overloaded and often unable to expand.

Anything can be questioned, but I'm not sure what this is "solving." I find it hard to reconcile the notion of having to legitimize conferences while still reserving bids for Pool B. If Pools B and C were folded together then, yes, I could understand this level of concern. But, they aren't. And we've all heard fans and coaches across all sports complain about Pool B (I'm not sure there is a strong Pool B sport anymore - there were years and years ago). Part of that complaining was "well, I can accept the weak AQ winners getting in because they won their league." So, some schools have decided to chase a weak AQ instead of a weak Pool B bid.

Bear in mind, some of these far-flung schools would have to spend quite a sum of money to put together a schedule conducive to a Pool B bid in some sports. They aren't ducking in-season conference competition simply because they want to - it's financial. I'd imagine the majority of these schools would much rather be in a nearby conference but that conference either a) doesn't exist or b) doesn't want them. What they are doing is essentially a last resort - and trying to regulate this is akin to demanding that they spend a ton of money on travel or continue to wallow in Pool B - and, often times, be put in a position where a Pool B bid-favorable schedule would be difficult to construct financially.

[sunny]

I also want to clarify that there are two conversations here. The one that's been mostly focused on conferences playing a regular season schedule is the one that most of these posts are about. I have given my reasons why I would not be in favor of that, but I understand there's an argument to be had. But remember this discussion is originally born out of this premise:

"The Championships Committee's primary goal is for the division to consider criteria that remove any incentive for conferences to form solely for the purposes of obtaining automatic qualification."

And that I wholeheartedly disagree with. Again, single-sport conferences generally exist wholly, or in large part, for championship access and the above premise would seem to take issue with that notion. Secondly, I don't think the NCAA should even broach the subject of "motivation" behind conference formation or membership. Since this isn't necessarily ONLY about regular-season competition, accepting the NCAA's premise opens up one obvious can of worms - the possibility of making single-sport conferences more difficult to form - and potentially opens up all kinds of other unforeseen issues.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Per my comment about "average" in terms of endowment, it was a general use of the term. From what I see in endowments when I have done my research, Colorado College's numbers come in around where most seem to fall or in the middle of the extremes. I am not doing the hard math to find that number, but in my observations their endowment is about average - thus in the middle or there abouts to most endowments I have seen. Thus my point is I don't think just because they have $670+ million dollars in endowment is the reason they can travel. I again point out that I have seen schools with far more money in endowments who can barely keep an athletics department up and running. I get all the reasons for those endowments not necessarily affecting athletics which strengthens my point that the size of endowments don't necessarily equate to athletic spending or success. Heck, I have seen some endowments FAR lower than I expected for an institution whose athletics teams are very successful.

How many free agent type schools do you think there are? I don't think you'd see a lot of join for a year then leave. That makes for even worse scheduling issues. If you mandate a significant part of the schedule has to happen in conference, then the ADs are probably going to be ok with the conference because it saves a scheduling hassle. If they can't do it because of travel costs, they aren't going to spend the time setting up an independent schedule 2 of every 3 years and then shutting out those partners for one year. It's not worth it. All you are trying to do is prevent gaming the system while also easing scheduling problems and travel costs for teams without a conference.

The ACAA is basically a free-agent conference. It has been formed with exactly the expected result that its members will move on when they find more suitable conference situations for themselves. That could be after a year or multiple years. Each institution doesn't care about the schedule until they are into a more stable/local conference. Remember, the ACAA is NOT scheduling conference games. There is no impact on schedule what-so-ever whether a team comes or goes. They just want easier access to NCAA tournaments without having to do anything more than play a few games at the end of the season to earn it. And they aren't hiding that fact.

If you look at the list of ACAA schools, they nearly all have been in conversations with other conferences in the last few years looking to try and find a home. They nearly all continue to talk to conferences about a new home.  The ACAA does not have a penalty for leaving, last I was informed, to ease the ability to leave when they need to for another conference (almost immediately if necessary).

... whatever rules you set up to define an appropriate conference has to be applicable to all conferences, not just the ones that smell funny. So the point I was making was that the restrictions I proposed work for the ACAA problem but also work for something like the ODAC or USASAC. In other words, they don't negatively affect existing large conferences while helping solve the problem they are looking to solve.  It's why defining a conference as a conference with a complete round robin, let alone a home and home schedule, simply won't work.

I am not sure what you think won't work. What I am saying is that conferences need to mandate at least one trip through the conference opponents. Maybe you are indicating that larger conferences like the ODAC and USA South can't accomplish that due to size. I understand your point, but I don't agree. They are all already playing every conference opponent once even if they aren't playing everyone twice.

Basically, I am proposing that for a conference to maintain an AQ, they have to play everyone at least once. Maybe the exception to the rule (and there are always exceptions) is sport-based. We all know that playing everyone once in sports like football in a conference that is big enough is nearly impossible (look at the MAC next season). In that case, put in a percentage like 70% or more or something. It is something other conferences are already doing mostly out of necessity. I just feel it is something that can be easily added to the AQ mandate. I would even go further to say that the schedule does not get a grace period like membership has. Controlling membership numbers can be far harder than scheduling (especially with low numbers of conference opponents). So while conferences get a two-year period to fix membership numbers, they don't have any grace period to make sure they are playing the appropriate number of games in conference.

Sunny - I do not honestly think single-sport conferences are the main target of the Championships Committees focus. There are darn good reasons for single-sport conferences and they all seem come together for the obvious reasons: no conference affiliations, their home conference doesn't sponsor the sport, need of more scheduled games, etc. I can't think of a single-sport conference (team wise, can't speak for individual sports) who don't come together for any other reason. The ACAA and the old GSAC women's conference are, and where, multi-sport conferences. They are multi-sport conferences with no conference schedules. I can't think of a single-sport conference that doesn't feature a schedule against conference opponents.

I will also say, the committee's interest to make sure conferences are in it for the right reasons and don't try and cut corners to an AQ is valid. I don't feel they are saying any conference only in it for an AQ should be eliminated or not formed. However, I do feel they are saying that those conferences need to do more than just come together to have the right number of teams for an AQ and nothing else. That's why I think the old GSAC women's and the current ACAA are the target and the reason for the decision not single-sport conferences.

Maybe the wording from the committee isn't quite right. We all know that ALL conferences formed do so with a purpose of obtaining an AQ. However, the criteria is rather simple: have the right number of institutions (besides some red tape stuff). I feel the Championships Committee is considering what can be done with the criteria to make sure the conferences are doing more than just having a post-season tournament to reward an AQ (or rewarding one without any teams playing each other, period, which is certainly possible). I feel that is certainly fair in the grand scheme of things.