Future of Division III

[Wydown Blvd.]

my posting-name is just to show my support for both the SLIAC and UAA (because I am a fan of both Fontbonne and Wash U.)

i saw a couple Wash U students at a Fontbonne-WashU games maybe 5 years ago with some "Wydown Showdown" shirts. Even the WashU v. Webster game was the "Battle of Big Bend"...

[frank uible]

I don't believe NESCAC is dissatisfied with DIII - in response to an October post..

[bbald eagle]

From a profile of San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich in today's Washington Post:

"The people who have known Popovich the longest say he could have remained the coach at Division III Pomona-Pitzer in Southern California for his entire career and been as content as he is coaching the Spurs."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901433.html

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Now the Pool system does away with the "good ol' boy" network of at-larges.  Is that the crux of the matter?  The Pool System has given fair and equal access to the playoffs for all 420 schools:  (1) Join a conference of peers. (That should be a good thing;  Wasn't that the reason for founding the Big Ten?) (2) Stabilize the conference (3) Earn the Pool A bid!  Simple!

Honestly, it all looks like the problem is perennially miserable teams of high profile D3 sports (among interested alumni)
read football and trying to take the pressure off the presidents.  Did I mis-read that one?

I respectfully disagree with this particular point, Ralph.  The new systems have certainly given equal access to all DIII schools, but there's a big difference between fairness and equality.  Every year, in every sport, VERY deserving teams are left out of the playoffs because of the AQ system and limited Pool B/C slots.  These slots are limited because of the deluge of teams getting in (for the sake of equality) from traditionally weak conferences.  I think it's also pretty hard to rationalize the current mileage restrictions on playoff participation with the fairness side of this argument.

I don't mind the equality--we need it.  But  we also need to expand the Pool C's to balance the equality with fairness--even if it's only theoretical fairness.

These two quotes seem to reflect one divide (what I see as the main divide) that is being masked by all of these other articles and arguments that keep popping up.

Some schools have traditionally been quite competitive.  In recent years more private schools have come to d3 with much lower tuition and much larger student bodies to compete for these championships.  The old school doesn't like this new challenge and seeks to label these institutions as anti-academics in some form.

However, we also have athletically dominant schools (both large and small, public and private) that continue to harp on the small conferences getting teams into the tournament.

If the point is to provide valuable extracurricular experiences for students, the "fairness" of the tournament should not be based on competitive ability.  Even the money-grubbing D1 tourney gives bids to every conference that meets criteria.  How much more should D3 institutions be supporting the ideal that every student-athlete have a chance to compete.  Pool B is a necessary evil, but no school should have to end their season with a win, but without a championship.

You can't divide it public and private, you can't divide it large and small, you can't even really divide it by the size of the endowment.  I think the basic solution has to be: get along or get out.

[Ralph Turner]

Here are some interesting issues on the NCAA web site.

One of the schools looking at D3 is Centenary LA, a D-1 in Shreveport and a great addition, probably to the SCAC.  (Centenary is a member of the Associated Colleges of the South)

There are also 2 schools in Northwest Georgia (one NAIA 1, one NAIA 2) that would help the GSAC get to 6 (one shy of the AQ without Fisk) and one in Central Kentucky (Berea, the 1999 NAIA-2 Final Four team) and one in Idaho (NAIA-2, 800 students, hmm,  Albertson?)

Working Group on Membership


(The very informative) Question and Answer Guide

Review of Discussion

[Ralph Turner]

My first thought is that the differences between current D-III and the schools likely to "self-select" to the new D-IV will be those for whom the more restrictive legislative agenda is the key issue.

My cynical side says that throwing in the larger number of required sports is to diffuse any criticism of "elitism".  There are two "peaks" of the number of sports sponsored across D-III.  One peak occurs at 12; the other at 18.

As I look at the conferences with which I have the most familiarity, the SCAC might be inclined to "self-select" to D-IV, but that would push Oglethorpe and Austin College to add several more sports to get to the "18".  In the ASC, McMurry offers 19 sports, but would not likely want the travel hassles of the SCAC, from Abilene TX  to Colorado Springs CO  to Greencastle IN to Sewanee TN.  Conversely, McMurry's lacking a Phi Beta Kappa chapter might also be a "mission/vision" issue for the SCAC members.  So McMurry might be one of the schools offering the most sports in the re-formated D-III.

Thus, it all comes down to more restrictive legislative agendas.  If you want to join the proponents of the new D-IV, then add the sports to get to 18 and join in.  Austin College surely does not wish to relinquish the hard earned membership in the SCAC over the lack of a few sports.  So, we will see Austin College add Men's and Women's Cross Country and Golf and either T&F or Lacrosse to get to 18.

As for Oglethorpe, the document says that 2 northwest Georgia schools that are currently NAIA are exploring D-III.  Oglethorpe can move to the GSAC, which then gets access to the AQ, and the Stormy Petrels do not have a conference game farther than Montgomery AL, just an easy 2 hr 37 minute road trip as the GSAC moves to 7 men's schools. (But no one drives the speed limit from Atlanta to Montgomery on I-85!  Make that a 2 hour road trip once you are on the interstate.   )

[joehakes]

Ralph,

Good job in posting those links to the documents regarding the Future of Division III.  They really are essential reading for folks that want to weigh in on this issue.

It is interesting to know that votes that we have cast during the last five years have been used to determine our philosophy of athletics.  This is one of the things used to identify the divide among the membership.  In casting those votes, I never once looked at them as overriding philosophical statements, rather what was good for our school at the given moment.

The correlation between between the number of sports sponsored by an institution and the desire for more restrictive/less restrictive rules seems to me to make a judgement that I am not sure is there.  I think that discussions around most campuses will center around where the institutions are going that a member most wants to identify with.  Living with the restrictions or adding/dropping programs will most likely be a function of desired compatibility over philosophy. 

In some areas, (like New England because of the number of DIII members in a small area) there is likely to be a shifting of conference membership.  In other areas, where the members are more spread out, some programs may have to make a choice that they don't particularly want to make.

I think that the diversity of Division III has been a great strength rather than an obstacle.  It will be interesting to see a Division that has boasted of its philosophical superiority divide over what really amounts to access to championships.

[Ralph Turner]

Chattanooga Times Free Press article about Sewanee.

The reference to the "...demotion to D-IV" is interesting. 

Thanks to WLU78 on the ODAC board for the citiation.

[Warren Thompson]

Ralph (and other knowledgeable folks):

In your heart of hearts, do you believe this split will happen?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think that the diversity of Division III has been a great strength rather than an obstacle.  It will be interesting to see a Division that has boasted of its philosophical superiority divide over what really amounts to access to championships.

Well said.

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph (and other knowledgeable folks):

In your heart of hearts, do you believe this split will happen?

Good morning, Warren!

I think that the votes may tell us more about the personalities of the schools than anything that we have seen in the last few years.

The schools at the top of the Directors' Cup don't need the legislation to demonstrate excellence in the student-athlete model.

If this is solely because a school cannot get a Pool C post-season bid in a 1:6.5 ratio scenario, in which 50 of the bids are allocated to Pool A and Pool B qualifiers, then are we not overemphasizing athletics?

I hope that it fails!  I just wonder about the motives of the conferences sponsoring the votes.

[joehakes]

Warren,

I do believe that a split (or some form of reorganization) is inevitable.  I hate to say that because I think that the three divisions can provide something for everyone.  The more we dilute the product of college athletics the less meaningful the competition becomes.  At some point, it is not about winning championships, or even about winning.  Winning is a part of the experience for some and striving to win is a part of the experience for others. 

Isn't that the way life is?  We have always said that athletic participation should prepare people for life, but we keep trying to create this mythical "level playing field" that doesn't exist anywhere else.  Is that really preparation for life? 

Accomplishing goals that are progressively set lower and lower don't serve the student-athlete, the institution or the community at large in the long run.

I would like for my institution to have a chance to win a national championship as much as anyone else, but there are so many other good things that occur that it is well worth the effort.

[wilburt]

I must say that the culture of Division III has changed since I was student in the 1980s.  Back then D3 athletics were considered more of a co-curricular activity at most D3 schools, now that has changed since the influx of a number of NAIA schools.  It (D3 athletics) has become more of an enrollment driver than ever before.  If many of these D3 schools had to shut down their athletic department many of them would literally have to close down due to low enrollments.   So what is one to do?

I also agree that the split is inevitable...

[johnnie_esq]

I agree with RT in noting that the real issues here are the schools/conferences looking for more restrictive regulations versus those who desire fewer regulations.  I also appreciate RT pointing out how the sports sponsorship requirement can "mask" these issues into a much more politically correct split.

I think joehakes is right on in believing that a split is inevitable.  There is a certain portion of D3 that is unhappy and will require some split at some time.  Whether or not it will improve the overall product is debatable, but in the next ten years, as the demographics of fewer students kick in (children of baby boomers vs. children of gen-xers), and fewer males going to college on average than before (who are often the driving forces behind athletics on campuses), the competition to procure enrollment from these males will become far more fierce than we have currently.  This, in turn, will force schools to either use athletics as a recruiting tool (meaning, pushing and promoting successes) or a strong educational tool (in the co-curricular environment).  So the D-IV movement may be spearheaded by schools looking ahead and choosing their approach for this coming demographic event.

I'm really mixed on the D-IV proposals.  I do appreciate the diversity that D-III currently holds, but I can certainly understand the overwhelming nature of the schools that have invested so much in their athletic programs versus those who see it as a continuation of the educational curriculum.  Little Macalester playing football against SJU just isn't right;  both employ far different philosophies as to the role of their athletic departments.  Add WIAC schools to the mix and you have more students and a smaller proportion of athletes to the student body as a whole.  Not that either way is better, but can we really blame the Macalesters of D3 for looking to find a more suitable home?

Yes, getting the shaft is part of life; but continually and repeatedly getting it from your neighbors usually means you find a new neighborhood, and that's what may be occurring here.  You don't often see the small shack on the same block as McMansions, and in terms of athletics spending, we're beginning to see that now. While that can make things interesting within the division, nobody wants to be the guy who lives in the shack, whose lawn is jammed with dandelions, who doesn't shovel his sidewalk, etc.  It's pretty easy to mask funding within a college (Vandy, for example, doesn't even have an athletic department), so it's difficult to split divisions based upon that; but the amount of rules and regulations, and the contents of those policies can also give things away. 

I have no idea where my alma mater would end up under these proposals.  They spend far more resources on athletics than most of their MIAC siblings; however, SJU is a charter member of the conference and probably wouldn't give up the tradition of rivalries in Moorhead, St. Paul, and St. Peter, so it's not that I have a strong opinion on either side of the mythical fence here.  But I do see both sides at work in my own backyard, and can see strong arguments to doing it.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Honestly, this is going to be petty and selfish, but I wish d3 would do away with football or at least split out the football.  That seems to be where all the trouble is.

I come from a school without football and a region of the country where it's just not important, so I know I don't have the total grasp of how great football is for schools, but isn't this where all the problems arise?

Football is where the disparity appears more and more egregiously than any other sport.  I love the d3 basketball landscape.  I love the small schools that will never have a chance at national prominence and the big schools that battle it out every year.  There is much the same feel in a variety of sports.

I agree that a tiny school should not have to get spanked 88-0 on the football field by a giant school with a huge athletic budget.  This is the best argument I've heard.  All those elite schools that are calling for a split are just masking their desire to win championship more easily behind a rhetoric of academics.  It's not right.

I say just split the division up for football, maybe even throw the "more competitive" schools into D-1AAA.  I like my d3 just where it is.  But of course, I'm just being petty and selfish.