Future of Division III

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Yeah, it's true there is no competition out here.  NebWes and Grinnell I believe are the closest to me.  Although some of the SLIAC schools may be within three hours, now that I think about it.

They'd probably have to get the whole conference to swtich over if they were going to make it worth while.  And the more I think about it, the more I realize they need those partial scholarships to keep enrollment up.

[smedindy]

That's a shame. It's like athletics is wagging the dog.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

That's a shame. It's like athletics is wagging the dog.

It's probably not ideal, but it sure is a way to get paying students into the school.  I question where the line is drawn between recruiting athletes who can actually hack it academically or recruiting athletes who just want to play college sports at nearly any cost.

[Warren Thompson]

That's a shame. It's like athletics is wagging the dog.

It's probably not ideal, but it sure is a way to get paying students into the school.  I question where the line is drawn between recruiting athletes who can actually hack it academically or recruiting athletes who just want to play college sports at nearly any cost.

If I were a cynic, I'd say that there's a good deal of such "dog-wagging" going on in collegiate athletics.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Good thing you're not a cynic.

[johnnie_esq]

The St. Cloud Times had a few articles yesterday outlining the current D2 situation, and what is happening at that level.  They basically recap what we've discussed here, so not much new, but note that it is unlikely that more than one other NCC school is ready to make the jump to D1-AA at this time.   They also note that NAIA schools from the DAC will likely join D2.

[Ralph Turner]

The NCAC is expected to propose a formal cap of 459 active members at the January meeting.

419 currently active members plus
18   currently provisional members plus
18   currently classified as exploratory plus
4     current D1's and D2's which were declared  reclassifying to D3 by June 1, 2006.

(Reported at NCAA News on July 17, 2006.)

[Mr. Ypsi]

The NCAC is expected to propose a formal cap of 459 active members at the January meeting.

419 currently active members plus
18   currently provisional members plus
18   currently classified as exploratory plus
4     current D1's and D2's which were declared  reclassifying to D3 by June 1, 2006.

(Reported at NCAA News on July 17, 2006.)

WOW, I never realized the NCAC was that big!!  Yet Witt and Woo can still win every year in bball!;)

(Some typos are just typos - others are hilarious!)

[Pat Coleman]

The NCAC isn't that big. But it's proposing a cap on Division III, which is that big.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Not having an NCAA ID, I couldn't read the story.  You mean that wasn't a typo?

OOPS!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Maybe you should get an NCAA ID?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

A cap seems a bit ill-advised.  Perhaps a redoing of the non-d1 divisions might be better.  I like the idea of having as many schools as possible, so long as they maintain the d3 ideals.  If there needs to be a more competitive non-scholarship division, so be it.  I'd rather have d1 offering scholarships and that's it.  If schools want to offer partial, they should just go NAIA.  I know its not a popular position, but it makes the most sense to me.

[johnnie_esq]

Redshirting issues still are alive; from the NCAA news:

In Division III, two proposals deal with redshirting. One from the Minnesota Conference would specify that participation at any collegiate institution constitutes the use of a season of eligibility.

Another from the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic, the Great Northeast and the Northwest Conferences would permit student-athletes to practice during the nontraditional season without losing a season of participation, regardless of whether the nontraditional season is in the fall or the spring, provided that the student-athlete does not participate in competition during that period. The Division III governance structure has discussed supporting a similar effort.

There is also a proposal in D2 which has some substantial effect on the D2 issues:
Of the Division II proposals, one from the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and the Gulf South Conference would require a two-thirds majority membership vote when a reduction in scholarship maximums is proposed in any sport. The Division II Presidents Council is expected to sponsor a similar proposal for all Division II championship sports that covers instances in which either a reduction or an increase is proposed.

[johnnie_esq]

I agree that the NCAA needs to look again at its structure from top down.  The problem is that the current base philosophy in any comprehensive reform is, in part, to do no harm to Division II.  It's tough to develop a fresh analysis and suggest viable alternatives when your one firm rule is to maintain the current environment.

But as we all know, the NCAA is hardly a logical body.

This new proposal in D2 is really a forerunner to the real battleground.  The GLIAC proposal to require 66% of the membership to vote to decrease scholarship limits is an attempt to strongarm the growing momentum at D2 of decreasing scholarships into falling in line.  It is a good proposal-- it forces a supermajority of the membership to stick together as a core.   However, it has a possible effect, in the current 51-49-like status of the D2 camps, of holding the status quo for a short time, until budgets inevitably push more schools into a new supermajority, at which point the battle begins again, and forcing the schools that desired the higher scholarship caps to make a choice between D1 or a watered down D2.  At which point is a watered down D2 no longer viable?

I don't like caps.  Schools are flexible entities, and their student bodies change over time.  There are some current NAIA members who, if given the opportunity, I'm sure could be and would be better members of NCAA D3 than some that are in D3 now. 

D2's proposal to split into two football divisions doesn't seem to make sense to me.  While it would appear to save games (1 fewer game, I think, splitting one 24 team tourney into two tourneys-- a 16 and an 8 team tourney), I have to think that is compounded by increased expenses of sites and managements, since they would be run concurrently and independently, and promotion of two different champions.  But if the costs are less, I am shocked that D3 wouldn't consider the same thing-- 2 16 team tournaments should mean 30 games; 1 32 team tournament means 31 games.  The question comes down to: cost of cross-country travel for championships versus revenues from a playoff game.  If the latter is consistently greater than the former, the NCAA would be stupid for giving it up.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Yeah, that desire to preserve D-II just seems ludicrous to me.  I'm ok with splitting football up into divisions (as they've done) because of the immense costs of that, but why have a separate division just so teams can compete with less scholarships.

The NCAA is getting to be too much of a business.  At this point it seems like they care more about revenue and the number of participating institutions than they do about sticking with their mission statement.