Future of Division III

[Ralph Turner]

Warren,

Thanks for the chuckle of that proverb... and I think your correct.

Also, I recall something about being careful what you ask for, as you may get it.

I would bet that some schools may want to rethink their decisions a year or two after making it.

Yes, how many schools were voting in opposition to the legislation that will re-assess their position and move with the group that wishes to secede? 

[K-Mack]

This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. 

[Bob Maxwell]

But it will be interesting...

[Ralph Turner]

A loud clear voice of sanity from our friends in the MIAC is found in this letter, Supplement No.6, from the Working Group on Membership Agenda for the October 11, 2007 meeting.

It is interesting in Supplement No 2 how the larger schools/more restrictive policy crowd does not wish to be scene as "seceding".  Rather it seems that they wish to "relegate" the smaller athletic programs with less restrictive criteria to Division IV.

Supplement No. 3 outlines some of the budgetary concerns that the "New Division" will have.

Supplement No. 4 and Supplement No. 5 try to charter a philosophical course for the existence of the new division that will be distinctive from what is currently espoused in Division III.

Supplement No. 7 is the Timeline between now and Jan 2009.  Does anyone else get the impression that this will be ultimately voted down by the entire convention in Jan 2009?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Maybe D3 should institute championship and bowl subdivisions.  I can't think of something that would make more sense.

[Bob Maxwell]

I think that this will be voted down in the convention...

The supplement 6 letter is very interesting and I think they hit the nail on the head with the third point for many schools.  Also, the fourth point is very true, creating a fourth division will cut back the D-III administratie costs, but will create a whole other set of administrative costs...

Good thought provoking reading...

[johnnie_esq]

I go back to the last paragraph of the MIAC's letter, indicating that D3 is bearing the brunt of D1's moratorium on membership additions, and D2's ongoing process for divisional identity.  The consequence is that D3 is left holding the bag while everyone else figures out what they want to do. 

In that sense, perhaps asking for a D4, along with increased funding from the other divisions is not a bad idea, as we are in a position to "need it," regardless of a D3/D4 split actually occurring. 

At the very least, it should give an incentive to the other divisions to figure things out quickly so that we can begin to re-normalize operations again.

The "funding" issues addressed in the supplement are not very well addressed.  They simply note that they could request additional funding from the top divisions (likelihood of success = small) or the institutions that join D-4 could pay their way (likelihood of desire = less than small).  Schools seemed to leave the NAIA for two main reasons:  1.) marketing of the NCAA is very good compared to the NAIA, and 2.) they don't have to pay their way for access to championships.  If we discard one of those, does that eliminate the desire to stay in the NCAA?   

[Ralph Turner]

...
  Schools seemed to leave the NAIA for two main reasons:  1.) marketing of the NCAA is very good compared to the NAIA, and 2.) they don't have to pay their way for access to championships. If we discard one of those, does that eliminate the desire to stay in the NCAA?   

May I add #3.  Access to the insurance pool that provides very favorable rates on catastrophic coverage.

Even NAIA-2 schools offer some athletic scholarships.  Going to the pure D-3 model has been much easier in our part of the country.

+1 johnnie_esq

[Ralph Turner]

Football at Harvard and Yale.

Interesting article that describes the academic composition of football players in the Ivies.

Mentions Amherst, Williams and Davidson moving to "no loans".

Freshman footballers at Yale score higher now than the average Yale student 10 years ago.

[frank uible]

Even if the average SAT score of the football team at any of these institutions becomes 100 points greater than that curent for the general student body, you know that there will continue to be many who advocate the elimination of inter-collegiate football there. I can only guess why.

[Jonny Utah]

Football at Harvard and Yale.

Interesting article that describes the academic composition of football players in the Ivies.

Mentions Amherst, Williams and Davidson moving to "no loans".

Freshman footballers at Yale score higher now than the average Yale student 10 years ago.

That 50K a year thing is bogus too.  If you live in Boston and you have kids and you are making less than 75K a year in combined income.....you are in trouble.

That number should be increased to 75-100K for two parent families.

[old ends]

Just the way the supplement's read, sounds like a done deal. Div  III will be split up.
Questions that come to mind.
1. will they go on overall student population or split male/ female by percentage for each sponsored sport ?
2. If a conference has a mixture of large and small athletic programs what to become of the conference ?
    a. small programs forced to find a new conference ?
    b. Why would a large program help to pay for a smaller program to find a new home?
3. Now I wonder if they will pick all-star teams within the conference to play for a championship vs other conferences
    to keep it competitive?

I am sure that the powers to be are trying to keep someone happy.

[Ralph Turner]

Agenda, October 2007 Meeting of the D-III Management Council

Here is some recent information on the progression to a new Division or Sub-division.

If you look at page 7, the new division has a whole set of problems about having sufficient teams to hold a championship.  Therefore D-IV might need to combine with D-III in some sports.

There are also major questions about (1) conferences that have split memberships, (2) funding, (3) staffing at the NCAA.

[joepieters]

Help me out here.  Looking at the NCAA docs that have been attached, I see a great deal of discussion about the philosophy and intention of the programs, but no real description of what the fault line is going to be within the current Div III.  Are they intending to split the current Div III membership according to the size of the student population or $$$ spent on the program, or fill in the blank.

And I apologize at the outset, if there is a document that lays out the intended split, I missed it.

[Warren Thompson]

Help me out here.  Looking at the NCAA docs that have been attached, I see a great deal of discussion about the philosophy and intention of the programs, but no real description of what the fault line is going to be within the current Div III.  Are they intending to split the current Div III membership according to the size of the student population or $$$ spent on the program, or fill in the blank.

I, too, would like to see the "fault line." If anyone can winkle it out, that person is Ralph Turner (he's supernaturally adept at figuring out the true meaning of the NCAA's turgid prose).