Future of Division III

[Titan Q]

Titan, the AAU problem I think is also deep in the high school ranks as well. Coaches want players to go to as high a level as possible so they boost their own resumes in the process. I don't really know what can be done about that though, just a problem that will continue for Division III universities.

Has there ever been a legitimate push to try and expand membership in Division II? I would think that is an obvious solution for a lot of the problems. The much smaller DII membership is against change for their own good which is understandable, but could the NCAA mandate some change for the betterment of the entire system? If there were scholarship reductions helping budgetary contraints, I think it would be attractive to a lot of NAIA schools and some of the current DIII schools.

Or possibly, could DIII be split into divisions with one offering limited athletic scholarships and operating under scholarship rules concerning practice and redshirtiing. Regardless of the rhetoric being passed around right now involving the DIII philosophy and academics, it is apparent that much of the complaining stems from the huge difference in aid given in DIII.

Just last week, while discussing this issue with some people close to IWU's men's basketball program, I posed the following question:

Could the CCIW compete as a Division II league?

I think most of us agreed that there is no reason, with scholarships, that the CCIW could not compete with local D2's like Lewis and Quincy and that in time, it could become a decent D2 league.  But then someone asked a question which none of us could answer: Why would the Presidents of each CCIW school support a move to D2?  The schools are losing revenue by giving scholarships, so what would the selling point be? Certainly the Presidents don't care that the student-athletes coming in are bigger, stronger, and quicker...right?  So what is the selling point?

The ironic thing about all of this is that in the last 25 years, many of our current (D3) members have left the NAIA to find a better competitive fit.  Illinois Wesleyan, for example, was the last CCIW school to leave the NAIA, coming to NCAA D3 in the 1983-84 season.  IWU was a very good non-scholarship NAIA program, but even with Jack Sikma on the team (a 7-time NBA all-star) from 1973-1977, the Titans could not compete with the scholarship programs in NAIA.  The deepest they went in the NAIA tourney was the quarterfinals in 1977...

1975
Illinois Wesleyan 76, Montevallo 67 
Grand Canyon 66, Illinois Wesleyan 63 

1976
Illinois Wesleyan 100, Southwest Baptist 84 
Henderson St. 68, Illinois Wesleyan 66

1977
Illinois Wesleyan 87, St. Augustine 67 
Illinois Wesleyan 85, Hawaii-Hilo 74 (ot) 
Henderson St. 87, Illinois Wesleyan 73 


This was a problem faced by so many current D3 teams that were NAIA -- they were in a division they couldn't compete nationally in.  Now, many Division III schools seem to feel the same way.

[Ralph Turner]

I must respectfully disagree with Chris on the amount of aid going to the various D-III schools.  The NCAA has been monitoring this for several years, and the discrepancies are being identified.  If we are talking about the philosophical distinctions that may exist at a Earlham College or a Swarthmore versus a McMurry or a Mississippi College, then that is what I see as the core of this debate.

I read the background documents to imply a distinction between those academic institutions that have found a home for students who wish to continue in a formal athletic competition format.  I think that it is the role that athletics plays that is difference here.

On some campuses, the high concentration of student-athletes, e.g., Sewanee's one-quarter, or one student-athlete for every three student/non-athletes gives one dynamic.  The college experience is partially defined by the number of the athletic competition offerings that college offers.

When Swarthmore dropped football, wrestling and women's badminton to limit student-athletes to 15% or about one student-athlete for every 6 non-student/athletes, it made a philosophical statement about the role of athletics on the campus.

I also see the "claim on the name" D-III as another issue.  There are schools which wish to re-define the student-athlete experience, but do not want to be perceived as "de-emphasizing" student-athletics in the re-definition process towards more restrictive guidelines for participation.  (In my discussions on these boards, I have occasionally used D-IV to represent those who wish to form a new alignment, who wish to secede from D-III as it currently stands.)

As for D-II, it is neither fish nor fowl.  Every presidential keynote that I have seen about D-II delivered to D-II members is about defining itself and the community.  I see DI as very well-defined and something which now 300+ schools wish to attain.

I see D-III as something which is very well-defined and which nearly 450 schools are wishing to attain.  In those 450 are some who don't like how crowded the neighborhood has become, how many other schools are competing for the resources, and possibly who is in the neighborhood.  On the one hand the emphasis on athletics is too great for some.  On the other hand, the 1:6.5 access ratio that we have experienced in the past few seasons is quite desirable.  Someone is clamoring to keep the access to the playoffs via plentiful Pool C bids.

Where most schools are moving from is the NAIA, which is why they are in discussions with the NCAA.

[ILive4This]

Another comment of note, is that while its rare (I can only think of this one instance in recent years) but teams like Lincoln (PA) did leave D3 seeking a more competitive atmosphere for some of their sports, and the ability to give athletics scholarships as well. Aside from there notorious 200+ pt game last season, Lincoln is one of the most decorated names in D3 track and field.

[ILive4This]

So if name recognition is one of the issues, why not move UAA and NESCAC schools, all of which are ranked in the top 40 in their respective academic polls to Division 1 and create a subdivision of D1 with no scholarships. I am simply playing devils advocate here, but you could move the IVY League into this subdivision as well.

Everyone knows that as good as PENN is in the IVY league, when they played UNC this season they were going to get crushed even at home in the Palestra. Now Penn would most likely beat the likes of Amherst, Brandeis, Williams and Wash U pretty badly as it stands right now, but that is simply because they can boast the D1 status when recruiting. Academically schools like Brown and Cornell are no better than Wash U, Chicago, Williams, and Amherst. Yet recruiting with no scholarships is easier for the Lions, Tigers and Bears (sorry had to do it as soon as I realized all were in the Ivy League) because they can say hey good education + D1 basketball. Give it a few years (maybe a decade) and these conferences would be on a much more even playing field.

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph Turner's case in point about his School.

Administrators can change how the college looks at all sports. Some of the Centennial football games do not charge admission(Ursinus, McDaniel) or you can stand outside the fence and watch(Moravian). Then they claim that football is a drain or the Athletic Dept. budget. Other schools use ticket sales and or contributions to improve the playing field. Dickinson is putting up lights and a new turf from contributions, so is Muhlenberg( no lights).

So I think each college can be pro active with the sports teams or use the Swarthmore approach. OF course Swarthmore is in the Centennial Conference, hope it does not infect the rest.

Old ends, when McMurry decided to upgrade its football and track facilities, the utilization showed that 2/3's of the student body used the facilities as football, track and field and cross country athletes of course, but also for the marching band, intra-murals and physical education classes.  The improved facilities made it easier to host high school and junior high school events on the campus.

The vote to fund the improvements was made for the sake of improving the quality of the educational experience for the community.

I hope that the changes at Dickinson and Muhlenberg improve other aspects of the university community, besides football.   

[joehakes]

Last year, Amherst spent $4.27 million on athletics, which is a tremendous amount for a DIII.  Penn spent $25.6 million.  Apple and oranges.

Ralph Turner is nailing this to the wall for everyone.  There are real philosophical differences in DIII that make a new division make sense.  I was vague in my previous post about the name part of it.  What I meant to say is that there may be some new ways of referring to divisions that don't use, I, II, III and IV.  Some marketing company will make a fortune deciding that.  Maybe Pat can run a poll/contest to name the divisions if this all goes through. 

The recruiting dis-advantage is there if you allow it to be.  Non-athletic scholarship competition should not be presented as a lesser experience.  The long term values that are embedded in the DIII experience (when properly done) should be a selling point.

Also, the group that would be projected to self-select to DIV (or whatever it will be called) are not the weak sisters of DIII.  There are some very strong programs across the board that would seem to support the move.  This is all conjecture at this point, obviously, until everyone knows what the options are.  That will not be for a few months, at least.

[Ralph Turner]

IL4T, I think that you raise a good question.  The most prestigious members in D3 are the UAA's, the NESCAC's, etc. They have defined the model and have succeeded in it.

Maybe we are looking at the fruits of too much success.

As for Lincoln PA, their "returning" to the Central IAA in D2 is a return to its roots.  Unfortunately, they were one of the teams that was left out massive consolidation of independent schools in the early part of this decade, e.g., the NEAC. 

(Chowan is also exploring options, especially football with the CIAA, too.)

[Ralph Turner]

...
Ralph Turner is nailing this to the wall for everyone.  There are real philosophical differences in DIII that make a new division make sense.  I was vague in my previous post about the name part of it.  What I meant to say is that there may be some new ways of referring to divisions that don't use, I, II, III and IV.  Some marketing company will make a fortune deciding that.  Maybe Pat can run a poll/contest to name the divisions if this all goes through. 

...

I just hope that Pat has the necessary domains names when that comes!         

[Ralph Turner]

Just last week, while discussing this issue with some people close to IWU's men's basketball program, I posed the following question:

Could the CCIW compete as a Division II league?

I think most of us agreed that there is no reason, with scholarships, that the CCIW could not compete with local D2's like Lewis and Quincy and that in time, it could become a decent D2 league.  But then someone asked a question which none of us could answer: Why would the Presidents of each CCIW school support a move to D2?  The schools are losing revenue by giving scholarships, so what would the selling point be? Certainly the Presidents don't care that the student-athletes coming in are bigger, stronger, and quicker...right?  So what is the selling point?

The ironic thing about all of this is that in the last 25 years, many of our current (D3) members have left the NAIA to find a better competitive fit.  Illinois Wesleyan, for example, was the last CCIW school to leave the NAIA, coming to NCAA D3 in the 1983-84 season.  IWU was a very good non-scholarship NAIA program, but even with Jack Sikma on the team (a 7-time NBA all-star) from 1973-1977, the Titans could not compete with the scholarship programs in NAIA.  The deepest they went in the NAIA tourney was the quarterfinals in 1977...

1975
Illinois Wesleyan 76, Montevallo  (AL now D-II Gulf South Conference) 67 
Grand Canyon (now D-II Pac West Conference) 66, Illinois Wesleyan 63 

1976
Illinois Wesleyan 100, Southwest Baptist (MO, now D-II Mid-America IAA) 84 
Henderson St. (AR, now D-II Gulf South Conference) 68, Illinois Wesleyan 66

1977
Illinois Wesleyan 87, St. Augustine (D-II Central IAA) 67 
Illinois Wesleyan 85, Hawaii-Hilo (D-2 Pac West Conference) 74 (ot) 
Henderson St. (AR, now D-II GSC)  87, Illinois Wesleyan 73 


This was a problem faced by so many current D3 teams that were NAIA -- they were in a division they couldn't compete nationally in.  Now, many Division III schools seem to feel the same way.

Quod est demonstratum, QED!


I think that the CCIW is more prestigious in its current format!

[ILive4This]

Yes Amherst spent 4 million compared to 20+ million, but that is also relative to the number of students at the school. When you look at how much money is spend per student at the school and then further more per student athlete, the differences are less so (albeit still large).

However take a look at a school like U Chicago (a former D1 school), with an endowment of over 6 Billion dollars, which is very similar to that of U Penn and other non-harvard Ivy's

This clearly shows that the financials are there, if the need to put the money into the athletics also became present.

[golden_dome]

Ralph,   I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing in regards to financial aid. The NCAA does do a great job of monitoring campuses to make sure that athletics is falling in line with the rest of the student population regarding financial aid received. But there is a large difference in tuition costs and financial aid given at different universities which also creates an unlevel playing field.

I do understand there are major philosophical differences regarding the importance of athletics in Division III and schools wanting to align themselves with like-minded institutions, but I think one large component of that is the bottom line cost for student-athletes to attend which obviously is based on what the rest of the student population is receiving. One example being the public vs private schools.

[Warren Thompson]

However take a look at a school like U Chicago (a former D1 school), with an endowment of over 6 Billion dollars, which is very similar to that of U Penn and other non-Harvard Ivy's 

Not to pick any nits, but the University of Chicago got out of big-time athletics well before there were three NCAA divisions. Likely a good thing, too ....

BTW how does what Amherst spends on athletics compare to the rest of D3?

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph,   I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing in regards to financial aid. The NCAA does do a great job of monitoring campuses to make sure that athletics is falling in line with the rest of the student population regarding financial aid received. But there is a large difference in tuition costs and financial aid given at different universities which also creates an unlevel playing field.

I do understand there are major philosophical differences regarding the importance of athletics in Division III and schools wanting to allign themselves with like-minded institutions, but I think one large component of that is the bottom line cost for student-athletes to attend which obviously is based on what the rest of the student population is receiving. One example being the public vs private schools.

Yes, Chris!  The 800-lb gorillas lurking in the ASC are UT-Tyler and UT-Dallas.

[fossywriter8]

"On some campuses, the high concentration of student-athletes, e.g., Sewanee's one-quarter, or one student-athlete for every three student/non-athletes gives one dynamic.  The college experience is partially defined by the number of the athletic competition offerings that college offers.
"When Swarthmore dropped football, wrestling and women's badminton to limit student-athletes to 15% or about one student-athlete for every 6 non-student/athletes, it made a philosophical statement about the role of athletics on the campus."

I was surprised to learn some colleges have a student-athlete to student ratio. I never heard of such a thing, especially when I attended Central College (1991 graduate) and played football and ran track for the Dutch.
As with most D-III schools, we had a small campus with around 2,000 students. I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm sure close to if not half of our student body played a sport — many played two (and that includes treating the combo of indoor and outdoor track as one sport).
The ratio idea sounds like a big step backward to me.
Do Sewanee and Swarthmore turn away kids because they want to play sports in college, or do they admit more non-athletes they wouldn't otherwise let attend school just to meet the ratio?

[ILive4This]

I understand that Chicago left the Big 10 long long ago, however I am simply saying they have money available comparable with many like-minded d1 schools.

Amherst's Money is toward the very very top of D3 money spent over all, but I am not sure what it comes down to per student or per student athlete.

Williams spends about 4 million as well, both have football. NYU spends around 3 million I believe, they do not have football. Wash U is around this amount however with football.

The avg difference between a school with and without football is 400K