Future of Division III

[Nonbiased Observer]

Here's links to an article and accompanying column, published July 31 in the Wooster (OH) Daily Record, regarding the potential D3/D4 split.

NCAA examines future of Div. III sports
Trying to reclaim original ideals

The reporter, Chad Conant, does an excellent job of summing up the issues, and did some research within the NCAC to illuminate some of the points.  He does choose to label what I might call the "traditionalist" schools as "the small schools," which may rankle some nerves (those sensitive to the "big/small" framing of the issue), but I don't think his intention is to actually define the split that way.  Anyway, there are so many tender nerves out there that there's probably no choice of labels which would not upset at least some partisans.  He does an excellent job of framing the NCAC's concerns with D3 as it currently exists, and that alone makes these articles a good read for those interested in this debate.

I'll go ahead and out myself. This package was me.

As for the "small schools" reference, i think David took it in a way other than what I'd intended. I was calling the group in general small schools because, well, it's the typical way of referring to the smaller division schools. I wasn't referring to the schools currently in D3 as big schoool or small schools. Hope I don't rankle too many feathers with that line.

To me, the NCAC focus was necessary for two reasons. First, the league is part of the group driving some of the debate. Secondly, I tried to tell my readers why they should give a darn. They should care because the impact of what that decision has on the College of Wooster.

And, by the way, the information that appeared in the graphic came from a chart I pulled from the NCAA Working Group for Membership Issues site. I had a couple readers e-mail me thinging those were my ideas.

[Ralph Turner]

Mr Conant,

I will assume that Pat Coleman has verified that you are nonbiased observer.

Thank you for the coverage that you provide to D3fans thru your local paper.

I also assumed that the "small schools" appellation was intended to present a friendly (albeit little guy takes on the system) focus for the story.  As we look at the schools requesting a new division, we see schools that pay their coaches more, spend more per athlete, place higher in the Directors' Cup, have larger endowments, etc.  These schools are the proverbial cream of Division III.  The references to Working Group document were active this morning.
I encourage you to share the links.

Post containing the Working Group document links

I hope that you can get some responses from the NCAA that address the accounting issues that may be driving this.  Will splitting into two divisions be more cost-efficient?

If the split is necessary because of irreconcilable "mission/vision" issues, then telling the truth is best in the long run.

We had 1:7.5 playoff bid ratio until 2005-06, and only increased the Pool C bids when the NCAA gave us the money.  We can go back to that ratio if costs demand it.

Once again, thank you for your contributions.  +1 

[Nonbiased Observer]

Well, if no one has verified I'm nonbiased observer, then someone else is using my work e-mail as a contact address ....

I'm going to take another look at this next spring at the latest, to see where it has gone and where it is likely to finish. The topic is quite interesting to me.

[joehakes]

If you have not done so already, I would look at the Working Group documents.  While they do not etch anything in stone, it is a truism in Higher Education that what gets written down has a good chance of becoming reality later.  In the article it seems that DIII and DIV (in the new structure) are reversed from perhaps the leading model for change.  DIV would actually become the more restrictive division, really going back to what DIII more originally was. 

There will be models presented to the membership this fall for the purpose of discussion at the January 2008 convention.  By the time spring hits, this will be a much more public story than it is now, because college personnel may need to start looking around to see where their colleagues are going to end up.  The present timetable calls for a vote on the issue at the January 2009 convention, and there will be a strong effort to make that vote happen.  It is hard to judge what people's feelings will be on this, because a lot of folks are not yet fully aware of this committee's work.

It will be very interesting and will blend the philosophical approach and the business approach.  No matter what happens, DIII will be changed somehow at the end of this process.

[Wydown Blvd.]

Didn't know where else to put this:

Fan sites offer D-II, D-III fans a way to stay involved

Keep up the great work!

[FootballFanatic]

Nice article. Congrats to all.

[Ralph Turner]

Four-year Division I Moratorium!

Does the Richter Scale go that high?

[Ralph Turner]

Division III Presidents Council to support 6 amendments at January 2008 Convention.

Yes -- to restricted male practice players.
Yes -- to banning the use of Text Messaging.
Yes -- to ending the Division III Moratorium.

Full report to be published in NCAA News on August 27th.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Four-year Division I Moratorium!

Does the Richter Scale go that high?

wow.

[FootballFanatic]

Four-year Division I Moratorium!

Does the Richter Scale go that high?

wow.

Incredible news!!!

[johnnie_esq]

WOW.  This is a bad policy move but may be enough to bring the real issues to the forefront.  From Siouxsports.com (a U of North Dakota message board) they list the following as not affected:

Exploratory year 2007-8
SIU-E
UND
USD
Seattle
Houston Baptist
Bryant
New Haven

4 more years:
Florida Gulf Coast
South Carolina- Upstate
NC Central
Presbyterian

3 more years:
Cal State-Bakersfield
Central Arkansas
Winston-Salem St

Two more years:
Kennesaw St
N Florida
Utah Valley
NJIT

One more year:
NDSU
SDSU

And the following who had expressed interest but had not applied yet are stuck: 

W Georgia
Valdosta St
Tarleton St
N Kentucky
Bellarmine (Ky)
Indiana Pa
Wayne St (Mich)
Harding (Ark)

The moratorium also seems to prevent DI move from schools outside the NCAA, so these schools may also be affected:

Oklahoma City U (NAIA)
British Columbia

This is a huge change, especially since it apparently prevents single-sport reclassification.  That isn't a good thing for D1 hockey, since one of the 6 conferences will likely be forced to disband as a result (CHA). 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

This is a huge change, especially since it apparently prevents single-sport reclassification.  That isn't a good thing for D1 hockey, since one of the 6 conferences will likely be forced to disband as a result (CHA). 

I think it's banning any new single sport reclassification, so if the hockey teams are already D1, they'll get to stay.

[johnnie_esq]

The problem with D1 hockey is that one of the six conferences has only five members (CHA).  Given that the NCAA requires six schools for an autobid, the purpose for the conference is  in doubt.  Since the CHA consists of less name recognition and less overall competition than the WCHA or the CCHA who are near the CHA's geographical footprint, there is no incentive for any existing hockey school to move over.  And if you were to start up a new hockey program at an existing D1 school, it doesn't make sense to go through all the time and expense only to put yourself playing against Alabama-Huntsville in your conference (though playing against Michigan or Minnesota would be worth it).   So this really hurts hockey, especially since there were talks about U British Columbia looking at joining for hockey.

How does this affect D3?  By capping D1, D2 schools are now pinched.  Schools that would have liked to go D1 now will be forced to stay at D2, meaning the bottom may start to drop out of D2.  This could mean further expansion and drifting apart of D3, since an influx of former D2 members may further complicate the already mushy D3 philosophy.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Again, it seems like perhaps they should just scrap D2 and start over, increasing the gap between d1 and d2 while lessening the gap between d2 and d3.  Why create a new division, when there's a dying one out there to be reformed?

[Ralph Turner]

Again, it seems like perhaps they should just scrap D2 and start over, increasing the gap between d1 and d2 while lessening the gap between d2 and d3.  Why create a new division, when there's a dying one out there to be reformed?

Follow the money...

Tarleton State was a charter member of the Texas Intercollegiate Athletic Association (TIAA) as were Austin College, McMurry, Sul Ross State and Trinity when the TIAA formed in 1976.

None of those 5 schools are in the NAIA now.  Tarleton now sees itself as a peer of Sam Houston State, Texas State-San Marcos (Southwest Texas State) and Stephen F Austin State, against whom Tarleton played in the Lone Star Conference in the early 1970's.  (McMurry and Sul Ross State were also in the Lone Star Conference in the early 1970's.)

These schools are trying to grow to "Major" college status.  I am sure that the same case can be made for everyone else on that "wannabe D-I" list.