Future of Division III

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

It is true.  The membership allowed the other schools in and now they all have a vote.  Maybe they should have been more discerning in the past?

[scottiedoug]

I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the decisions as to admitting applicants were made according to some criteria someone established and agreed to. so the lack of discernment may have been at the criteria-establishing stage, not the admitting stage.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Either way, the original members of d3 had to be the decision makers at some point.

[smedindy]

I do think there's a lot of posturing and chest-beating, but in the end, I don't think there will be a D-4. And if there is, then it will be a disaster.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Essentially a d4 is kind of a loose conglomeration of schools where athletics is a secondary concern, right?

I would think this would translate into something like what we have now, only with less parity.  The top schools will still be able to attract athletes just because they're good schools and the stragglers at the bottom will continue to get the same athletes because there's not much recruiting going on anyway.

[johnnie_esq]

It's hard to know what D4 will be when they haven't decided on a split yet, or if there will be a restructure to deal with the problems of D2 as well.  Is there interest in some D3 schools if they could give say, 4 scholarships for sports (one per year?), they would do it?  Some schools would say no way, but some may say that sounds possible and a good selling point regarding costs of education today (and could increase that desire for diversity that all educational instiutions crave).  Perhaps it could be split on sports sponsorship; perhaps it could be split on public/private grounds.  Perhaps it could be a football-only election.  What people are getting hung up upon is the name-- what about going traditional and calling it the D3 University division and D3 College division?  The stigma is reduced...

I don't think a separate division is necessarily a disaster.  It could be a positive for some schools who struggle currently given their resources-- for example, some conferences don't allow any spring football practice (at least, what the NCAA allows for D3 spring football), which arguably puts them at a disadvantage.  What is disheartening for these schools is being forced to play for the same championship as a conference whose students pay less in tuition and these advantages and wondering whether the championship is indeed on the same playing field.

I'm not about giving every kid an opportunity to play in a state tournament (like the MN State HS League, which adds a new division every 5-10 years to make sure kids can all go to state), but I am about ensuring there is a level playing field.  When the Division is as big as it is, the diversity of institutions, while such can be a positive experience, is economically dis-leveling the playing field.  When the membership is tapped in terms of its agreement capacity (read: the tent is as big as it can get), it's time to change the fundamental premise (get a new tent or make two tents).

[Warren Thompson]

I don't think a separate division is necessarily a disaster.  It could be a positive for some schools who struggle currently given their resources--

Off the top of my head, I (think I) agree. It depends on how the possible membership falls out. However, it should be fairly clear that there's a wide gap in D3 between the "haves" and the "have-nots," though, admittedly, many of the latter may be content with their status.

In sum, I don't truly have an answer, but I'm convinced the status quo in D3 isn't all that healthy.

[K-Mack]

This discussion is also going on under General Football, Press Coverage (articles about D3)

I agree with some of the recent posts.

And if anyone should be complaining, it's the Menlos and Principias of the world who don't really have the student body size to compete in a lot of sports on a consistent basis.

Copied:

Here we go again:

Nerds vs. DIII Athletics

Yeah, I came by to post this one. Just to clarify, it's a D4 story ... wanting D3 to split into two subdivisions, from the New York Times, pretty sure it's the same writer that did the admissions thing with Shenandoah and Utica (for which I was admonished for leaving out of year in review) last summer (and NBC picked it up in the fall).

Title is Division III Seeks Harmony Between Field and Classroom, FWIW.

Haven't read it all yet, but feel free to chime in here if you have.

Its all crap.  We can't or don't want to compete, so let's change the rules and inconvenience everyone else.

This is equivalent to every little kid getting a trophy no matter where they finished.  Ties.... no winners or losers.  Yuck!

JT I couldn't agree with you more....The Nerds have intramurals please leave D3 Athletics alone......

Well,
I don't like any more than you two, but I see it a little differently. I'm not sure creating a Division IV wouldn't bring about as many problems as it creates.

And what exactly is so wrong about the current Division III? It seems to allow flexibility so that conferences can localize their choices about who they play, how much they emphasize athletics, etc.

It really only becomes a problem in postseason competition, but there's not much to suggest that small private colleges aren't just as successful as Division III public state schools. It varies from sport to sport, but even if Division III splits into two, there's going to be diversity within those groupings as well.

I'd be interested to see what the models for realignment are. And I'd hate to see how we have it change, I think teh diversity is a real asset, especially beyond football. The No. 1/No. 2 example in basketball was a really good point.

First thoughts, anyway.

[K-Mack]

I don't think a separate division is necessarily a disaster.  It could be a positive for some schools who struggle currently given their resources--

Off the top of my head, I (think I) agree. It depends on how the possible membership falls out. However, it should be fairly clear that there's a wide gap in D3 between the "haves" and the "have-nots," though, admittedly, many of the latter may be content with their status.

In sum, I don't truly have an answer, but I'm convinced the status quo in D3 isn't all that healthy.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument for how these so-called problems are going to be solved.

And when III and IV show up, in 10 more years, will an unhappy contingent develop and branch of into D5 and D6?

At some point, non-similar institutions are going to have to coexist.

[Knightstalker]

I am not sure about other sports but in basketball we figured it out one off season that the percentage of championships won by state schools and by private schools very closly mirrored the percentage of state and private schools in D3.  I really don't think there is a distinct advantage either way.

I figure that MUC, SJU, Rowan, Linfield, UWW and a few other schools will have to have several bad seasons in a row before they stop attracting the best players to their programs.  State or Private does not give an advantage, coaching, recruiting and continued success give a program an advantage.

Just my stupid opinion.

[Gregory Sager]

My impression is that the schools that are pushing for more restrictive rules -- the so-called D4 teams -- aren't necessarily the have-nots. They're more like the super-haves, in fact: NESCAC schools, NCAC schools, MWC schools, all of them quite financially comfortable and highly selective in terms of admissions.

[Ralph Turner]

My impression is that the schools that are pushing for more restrictive rules -- the so-called D4 teams -- aren't necessarily the have-nots. They're more like the super-haves, in fact: NESCAC schools, NCAC schools, MWC schools, all of them quite financially comfortable and highly selective in terms of admissions.

+1!  They are the super-haves.

If they went to a D4, would the Super-Haves participate in the Directors Cup? 

[Warren Thompson]

My impression is that the schools that are pushing for more restrictive rules -- the so-called D4 teams -- aren't necessarily the have-nots. They're more like the super-haves, in fact: NESCAC schools, NCAC schools, MWC schools, all of them quite financially comfortable and highly selective in terms of admissions.

Trying to understand the reasoning of the NESCAC people is an exercise in futility.

[frank uible]

I don't believe that NESCAC is advocating any change.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I always thought it was the NCAC driving this thing.  I'm not hearing too many NESCACers getting riled up about it.