Future of Division III

[Mr. Ypsi]

As I understand it, two divisions (or sub-divisions, as the case may be) will be established with somewhat different rules, but which school goes where would be entirely up to their choice (not decreed, based on enrollment, endowment, or other such criteria) - true?

Now if the real question was which schools will choose which division, I'll leave that to Ralph for the best available guess, though I'm sure even he doesn't know for sure up and down the line.  My guess would be that a fair number of schools are not themselves yet sure.

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks for the props, but I also hope that Johnnie esq will jump in on this.

In some ways this whole D-IV vote seems more like a clique of junior high girls who want to have  "like the coolest party, you know," but cannot decide who is good enough to get an invite and are worried that the really important people whom they just need to attend, just may not want to come.  But how can they not want to come to this party, because all of the right people will be there?!?  And we really need all of the right people to be there, so they can help pay for this really nice party where all of the right people will attend.   

One of the background documents in that October 2007 agenda talks philosophically about increasing the participation by athletes in extra-curricular activities other than sports, by cutting back on time spent in sports.  I read the "Insider" blog by Jimmy Bartalotta.  It seems that the "Future of D-III Study Group" want Jimmy to spend less time on one his preferred "S's" (sports), and spend it on some other "S"  ("?stuff?")  that they must deem more contributory to the "DIIIB/D-IV"  philosophy!

(When I read Jimmy's "4 S's", I chuckled.  Back in my residency, we had the easy 80-hour/week rotations, the average 90-hour/week rotations and 110-hour/week rotations (Gynecologic Oncology).  When we were down to just work and sleep as priorities, we considered the "4 S's" as worth 1 REM cycle of sleep.  The four "S's"?  A shave, a shower, a shampoo and a defecation!  )

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ralph, loved your analogy to the junior high girls - perfect!  Since I'm retired, I don't have to read administrators' memos anymore (almost better than a pension! ), so I'm counting on you guys for the primary 'stuff'.

BTW, saw Archibald MacLeish's 'J.B.' Sunday.  Cast included UM qb Chad Henne and AA Jake Long.  Even prominent d1 athletes can have 'extra-curricular activities' outside sports if they so choose!

[old ends]

Ralph

I remembered the May 31, 2007 Membership meeting. Went back to that and looked at the NAIA enrollment figures, which starts at page 26. Before, we talked about a possible merge, may not be the reason for the latest DIV III subdivision or DIV IV banter.  A quarter of the NAIA schools enrollment is less than thousand while only 10% for DIV III. Then take a look at the locations of NAIA. Just a thought that is might be a way to entice some of those schools to NCAA if a small school div were set up. 

Again just a thought

[joehakes]

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye.  The choice to go to Division IV will be based on philosophy of program by each institution, although some conferences will likely go en masse.  The differences between the old guard DIII's and the ex-NAIAs that have come in during the past 12-15 years are very real.  When the membership moratorium expires in January there is some expectation that there will be significant inquiry into DIII membership from many of the remaining NAIA teams.  That not only skews the championship access, it also widens the gaps between the different opinions on how things should be run.

Some of that difference in philosophy can be measured in numbers (e.g. number of sports sponsored) and some in other ways.  While the impending split will change the landscape of non-athletic scholarship organizational structure, I believe that it will be a win/win situation in the long run.  The manageability of the current DIII is unwieldy at best.  I don't think that trivializing it as a junior high dance is fair.  Ralph Turner has a lot of insight into things and I won't disrespect him as I have read tons of good posts from him over the years, but this particular issue is pretty important and will affect a major change.

[Ralph Turner]

Joe, I got two different opinions on my "junior high" dance analogy from (CCIW?) veterans.  That means I must be somewhere close to right (in the middle).   

I used that analogy to depict the angst that this will set off.  What if the NCAC, the Centennial, the IIAC and the Midwest Conference go along with the WIAC and the SCIAC, but not the MIAC or the OAC or the UAA?  I have used the term "secession", because that might be the only way that they can get the funds for the new Division, if the "sub-dividing vote" fails.  What if "all" of New England goes D-IV, because they see themselves as peers of D-IV?  Do the NESCAC, the NEWMAC, Little East, MASCAC, CCC and Great Northeast AC all move as a block?   

The SCAC only had one school to "qualify as D-IV" and I have seen its budget allocations per student per sport, and they are not much different from the ASC schools.

Joe, I really wonder what will happen with this.  You have a good point about more NAIA schools moving into D-3 after the moratorium.  You are right about that impact on voting philosophy.  (The CCIW has been on the list of schools that might favor "D-IV" as well.)  I don't want to kill the NAIA, because there is a clear distinction in Texas and Oklahoma between D-II, D-III and the NAIA.  "Viva la distinction!"  And, the SCAC schools were lumped into the D-III schools for the most part by the study document.  I just cannot see the D-III less restrictive group adopting much of the NAIA theory.  Is there significant support in the some NAIA conferences for adopt D-III more completely?

I appreciate old ends' nuance!  This will be complex, and I don't think that we will have an answer in Jan. 2009, if the "D-IV "core" doesn't have what they collectively want.  It would not surprise me for the "D-IV core" to table the report and to re-submit the report back to committee to "look at it again"!

Thanks for the thoughts, all! 

I will acknowledge one thing.  If "splitting" helps increase or improve access to the playoffs, then I am for it.  The fact that that most recent document said that D-IV might not be able to support a playoff by itself, and would accept D-III in a joint playoff, means to me that they just don't like some of D-III.

[Knightstalker]

I will acknowledge one thing.  If "splitting" helps increase or improve access to the playoffs, then I am for it.  The fact that that most recent document said that D-IV might not be able to support a playoff by itself, and would accept D-III in a joint playoff, means to me that they just don't like some of D-III.

Sounds like the NESCAC approach to the whole issue.  We're taking our ball home and are not going to play anymore.  As the game gets near the end, they come back.  Can we play now?

[joepieters]

It would seem to me that if splitting D-III into III & IV allows similarly situated (i.e., enrollment, funding of sports programs, and funding received from the state) and similarly minded (I mean that in terms of the school's philosophy on sports as a component of its overall mission) schools to compete against one another, and makes the prospect of post season playoffs a more realistic possibility for the members of those Divisions (principally because they are no longer playing in a Division of four hundred schools) that is a positive thing.

The thing that scares me about the whole process is that I never under estimate the propensity of a group of well intentioned people to take a good idea and screw it up.

[joehakes]

Ralph,

I don't know if all the schools in those conferences will move as a block, in fact, I would probably say that they would not.  The GNAC and the MASCAC are not on the list that I have of potential movers, and I would be surprised that the Little East would move.  I also believe that there will be financial support for post-season play as it exists in other divisions.  The access would be enhanced by the split.  

The logistics of geography, number of teams in a certain sport in a certain division, conference makeup and rivalries will all need to be worked out on this, and it will be a big task.  The timetable for implementation will need to recognize that.  The transition will be tough especially when some schools will be on their way out of the division for a couple of years.  But in the long run, I think that it will be the best for the whole of the group.

[ADL70]

The thing that scares me about the whole process is that I never under estimate the propensity of a group of well intentioned people to take a good idea and screw it up.

As Mark Twain observed, a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph,

I don't know if all the schools in those conferences will move as a block, in fact, I would probably say that they would not.  The GNAC and the MASCAC are not on the list that I have of potential movers, and I would be surprised that the Little East would move.  I also believe that there will be financial support for post-season play as it exists in other divisions.  The access would be enhanced by the split. 

The logistics of geography, number of teams in a certain sport in a certain division, conference makeup and rivalries will all need to be worked out on this, and it will be a big task.  The timetable for implementation will need to recognize that.  The transition will be tough especially when some schools will be on their way out of the division for a couple of years.  But in the long run, I think that it will be the best for the whole of the group.

Joe Hakes, thank you for the remarks.

I agree with the magnitude of the task, and also foresee, wailing and gnashing of teeth.  I share Joe Wally's apprehension of this thing not coming off the way that one might hope.  If one reads the fine print in the Supplement to the agenda, one sees the "escape clause" has been anticipated.  I just wonder what happens to good ol' D3 (unless that question is what prompted the whole initiative in the first place.     )

[Warren Thompson]

Ralph,

I don't know if all the schools in those conferences will move as a block, in fact, I would probably say that they would not.  The GNAC and the MASCAC are not on the list that I have of potential movers, and I would be surprised that the Little East would move.  I also believe that there will be financial support for post-season play as it exists in other divisions.  The access would be enhanced by the split. 

The logistics of geography, number of teams in a certain sport in a certain division, conference makeup and rivalries will all need to be worked out on this, and it will be a big task.  The timetable for implementation will need to recognize that.  The transition will be tough especially when some schools will be on their way out of the division for a couple of years.  But in the long run, I think that it will be the best for the whole of the group.

Joe Hakes, thank you for the remarks.

I agree with the magnitude of the task, and also foresee wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

Yes, it's likely there will be some "wailing and gnashing of teeth." (I wonder who will end up sitting in sackcloth and ashes as an act of full penitence ....)

[old ends]

There are people, like Ralph, who have a better handle on this than myself I only like to think outside the box once and awhile.

When I get back from being a snowbird, as they call us in FL, I will be out on the road again and see if I can get some insite from some of the college's I deal with. Use the old ask a question on a question thing.

[johnnie_esq]

Sorry to be late to the party-- it has been a busy week. 

I like RT's analogy, however cynical it appears.  I liken it more to a split among orthodoxy and progressives in a religious context, but there are a lot of similarities between the two anyway, so splitting hairs isn't necessary.

First off, I don't see the geographic issue as much of a problem since the existing D-3 has been dealing with geographic issues for most of its existence.  In that old report which showed the potential split schools, geography may be an advantage, since most  D4 schools are in and around the Great Lakes and New England (with another pocket in SoCal).

As far as conferences moving together, much will depend upon the conferences themselves and the composition of schools inside the conference.  The WIAC and IIAC and MIAC, for example, are made up of very similar schools to one another inside the conference-- all about the same size, all sponsoring similar number of sports, all similar in structure (private in IIAC/MIAC, public in WIAC) with consistent missions across the schools in the conference (e.g. MIAC schools are religiously affiliated).  By contrast, conferences that are more diverse or with less in common with one another may be pulled apart.

While I am not opposed to the split, I don't like it because of how they are doing it.  Instead of this being an NCAA-wide approach, it is a D3 only initiative.  We aren't addressing the true problem here, but we are bandaiding a proposed fix.  Going alone in this initiative, without bringing in D2 and D1-FCS and D1-AAA, means we are postponing a long-term fix and putting up administrative walls to making those fixes when those divisions are forced to address their issues. 

Not to mention, I think going down this road without a guaranteed funding mechanism is just spinning wheels.  Unless and until the other divisions agree to up the handout to the D3/D4 theory, this is just a lot of talk.

[joehakes]

The DIII Working Group on Membership Issues is working with an association wide Membership Issues group.  It is not strictly a DIII initiative and in fact will require a vote of the association to create a new division.   Again, the potential influx of current NAIA members will provide more than enough members to justify a new division, if we don't have those numbers already.

If the top brass of the NCAA want this to happen, there will be enough money to make this work.  It may be that dues have to go up.  The NCAA dues are really low and don't come near paying for what the Association provides.