Future of Division III

[johnnie_esq]

And also in the process are foolishly asking scores-upon-scores of institutions to reach agreement on an outcome rather than merely 6 or 8 or 10 or 12.

Hence the reason for the D-IV discussion.  Smaller = more manageable.

The joy of D-III is that no two colleges are the same.  But inside a conference that means that, while these two schools may share geographic proximity to one another, they may market to an entirely different demographic group.  As a result, it becomes a difficult proposition to parse through all the data to tell who is cheating and who is not, especially when you have a sample size of 8-10 to compare off of. 

As found through that bell curve I posted, 30% of D-III schools gave more to athletes than nonathletes.  About 10% gave 5% more to athletes than nonathletes.  That means approximately 3 members of each conference need to be more closely examined, of which one has more than a 5% variation in is funding to athletes and nonathletes.    And we are scratching the surface just with those numbers.  Does it seem odd that some schools offer 55% less aid to athletes than nonathletes?  Perhaps there is a demographic reason for this. Who do you propose conduct these investigations?

It is a nice goal for self policing, but athletics has turned into a major money maker for schools-- both through alumni involvement and student recruitment.  As the number of college-bound males (where the money is) continues to decrease demographically, that competition is only going to get more intense.  So what is the check to ensure nobody is skirting these rules? 

I am all for less governance here-- when the NCAA starts legislating that "there must be a person certified in first aid, CPR, and an AED device at all contests", that seems to be a bit overkill and I would agree with you (which was wisely voted down in the convention).  But the non-scholarship principle is a foundational bedrock of D-III, so installing the first (and only!) check on this principle I don't see as overstepping its legislative powers.

[frank uible]

Why have any "rules" with respect to financial aid? A college doesn't need rules to determine its schedule. Each college should schedule only those colleges which it knows and of which it doesn't sufficiently disapprove as opponents from a financial aid standpoint. To do otherwise with or without rules is to lie down with dogs and then complain about the fleas. Why go to the great effort and considerable expense to construct and try to administer a Napoleonic Code of Financial Aid requiring the great difficulty of gaining the continuing concurrence of way too many colleges?

[johnnie_esq]

Why have any "rules" with respect to financial aid? A college doesn't need rules to determine its schedule. Each college should schedule only those colleges which it knows and of which it doesn't sufficiently disapprove as opponents from a financial aid standpoint. To do otherwise with or without rules is to lie down with dogs and then complain about the fleas. Why go to the great effort and considerable expense to construct and try to administer a Napoleonic Code of Financial Aid requiring the great difficulty of gaining the continuing concurrence of way too many colleges?

That is a good point.

But you tell me who the champion of the OAC is if, for sake of argument, Capital refuses to play Mount Union because they think Mount Union offers too much financial aid to athletes, and further refuses to play Ohio Northern because they think they use too much practice time.  Then, Mount Union won't play  John Carroll because JC allows medical redshirts.  So all four teams end up undefeated, as they fill their schedules with other NAIA and D-III patsies.  Who gets the OAC autobid? Who should get it?  That is life without "strong" conferences.  It wasn't so long ago that was the case-- the Big 10 did that up until the 1960s, even.

I am pleased the NCAA has started to look at financial aid-- not to say their manner is yet appropriate, but it is a start.  The "rumor mill" of so-and-so getting an offer from such school after another school offered a lesser amount, and oh by the way, so-and-so happens to play football, was getting a little too loud for comfort.  Since the only check on this was the honor system in the past, something more formal seems proper.

Your method puts a lot of responsibilities on each school themselves.  I don't disagree with that analysis, but I think it encourages less experimentation and fewer diversity within the division (if Bethel doesn't "trust" Northwestern (Roseville), they will not play them-- therefore, no games between the two, even though they are down the street from one another-- meaning, even though they are both D3 schools, until some objective standard is met, they remain cold neighbors).   

The financial aid program is not one that has been controversial or had major opposition to it-- and the opposition that does exist tends to be on concerns of the costs of data collection inside of the schools themselves, not on the NCAA's parsing of the data.  But isn't that concern restating the hypothesis?  Shouldn't a school be checking itself anyway that it isn't unwittingly giving more aid to athletes?  And if so, shouldn't this expense be expected as part of this process?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Beyond "who would get the OAC autobid", how long would there be anything to 'autobid' to if other schools began thinking that MUC was playing by OSU rules?  (Not tho pick on MUC; the same point would apply to UWW perceived as UW-Madison, or, for that matter, SJU seen as copying UMinn aid practices.)  Beyond the conference level, there can't long exist a national tourney unless everyone feels the playing field is at least in priciple a level one. 

Or at least as level as feasible - there probably is little or nothing that can (or should) be done about differing admissions standards, tuition levels, endowments, facilities, crowd size and enthusiasm, etc.

[Warren Thompson]

johnnie_esq:

It ought not be a secret that many of the "rumors" you cite have a basis in fact. There are, indeed, some D3 venues "buying" athletes.

[frank uible]

If the very unlikely case cited should occur, then flip a coin to determine the conference champion. Don't let the tail comprised of deciding a conference champion wag the dog comprised of the educational mission of the college.

[Gregory Sager]

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.

This strikes me as being a little naive, Joe. Yes, we D3ers fervently believe in the virtues offered within the D3 student-athlete experience, but we are a tiny minority within American sports culture. What Q said last week about AAU programs, high school coaching resumes, and the jockeying of sub-D1 scholarship programs is very real -- and even more real is the stigma attached to D3 athletics among the masses who follow college football and college basketball. It's an unfair stigma that arises out of ignorance, of course, but it's a stigma nevertheless, and we would do well to take into consideration the concerns of those who have to recruit in an environment in which good high school players look down their noses at D3 competition because it's seen by and large as being nothing more than intramurals with fancy uniforms.

I've talked to lots of CCIW coaches, administrators, and student-athletes about the uphill battle involved in trying to overcome this stigma in the recruiting game. I don't think that I'm going out on a limb in saying that an affiliation shift from D3 to D4 would make a bad situation worse in terms of recruiting the caliber of student-athlete who traditionally has excelled in the CCIW.

I've found that the most enthusiastic adherents of the D3 student-athlete experience are those who are at the back end of that experience (upperclassmen and alumni), and that their enthusiasm is a magnitude of ten higher than that of those at the front end of the experience (high school athletes being recruited by a D3 school or schools). Yes, obviously some very good athletes are being sold on the virtues of an Augustana or a Wheaton or a North Central, whether it be from a wholistic student experience standpoint, a this-school-would-look-good-on-your-resume standpoint, or from observation on a campus visit that the competitive level is actually much higher than they had thought it would be. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this type of kid is anything approaching typical. The typical kid thinks that you're not really a bona-fide college athlete unless you sign a letter of intent and are awarded a scholie. D1 walk-ons are joke fodder, curiosities, and the subject of implausibly heroic Rudy tales. D3 student-athletes aren't even on the radar, which goes hand-in-hand with the fact that their schools, conferences, and their entire division aren't on the popular radar, either.

The recruiting disadvantage is already there for D3. It would be significantly worse for D4, and not because anyone would "allow it to be" -- rather, because in popular perception an already weak level of competition has been exchanged for one that's even weaker. The collective voice of us D3 enthusiasts simply isn't strong enough to drown out the cultural bias in this case.

[wilburt]

wilburt: Bring back Neil Craig!

I wish I could.

johnnie_esq:

It ought not be a secret that many of the "rumors" you cite have a basis in fact. There are, indeed, some D3 venues "buying" athletes.

Just as many D3 schools are "buying" or attempting to "buy" the limited number of 4.0 GPA students (non-athletes) and 36 ACT scores with outrageous "academic" scholarship offers.  We should not be a surprised that the same would hold true for athletes. 

[David Collinge]

johnnie_esq:

It ought not be a secret that many of the "rumors" you cite have a basis in fact. There are, indeed, some D3 venues "buying" athletes.

Just as many D3 schools are "buying" or attempting to "buy" the limited number of 4.0 GPA students (non-athletes) and 36 ACT scores with outrageous "academic" scholarship offers.  We should not be a surprised that the same would hold true for athletes. 

With the possible exception of Ohio State , colleges and universities are primarily in the business of academics (teaching and research), and thus the intense competition for the best available raw materials (students) is to be expected and perhaps applauded.  (It's for another day and another venue to argue whether colleges should cater to the academic elite.)  If a school goes to that much trouble and expense to acquire and maintain the raw material of sports, it raises a question of where that school's priorities lay, and whether they are misplaced.

[Ron Boerger]

Bingo, David.  +1. 

The primary job of a college is to EDUCATE.  And in Division III, even moreso. 

[johnnie_esq]

Bingo, David.  +1. 

The primary job of a college is to EDUCATE.  And in Division III, even moreso. 

Agreed.  The primary purpose SHOULD be education. 

But for many schools not named Harvard/Yale/Stanford, athletics bring in alumni dollars and draw students (there were some numbers awhile back regarding male enrollment at schools with a football team and those without-- and there is quite a disparity between the two). 

As an SJU alum, while I have to admit the recent athletic successes have been nice, it feels at times that the school has focused much of its development dollars on athletic endeavors instead of academic ventures because dollars flow back relatively quickly and tangibly in return for investment in the former.  Thus, it appears that the tail is unfortunately wagging the dog.  The scary thing is that it appears SJU is not alone in doing this. 

[Ralph Turner]

Bingo, David.  +1. 

The primary job of a college is to EDUCATE.  And in Division III, even moreso. 

Agreed.  The primary purpose SHOULD be education. 

But for many schools not named Harvard/Yale/Stanford, athletics bring in alumni dollars and draw students (there were some numbers awhile back regarding male enrollment at schools with a football team and those without-- and there is quite a disparity between the two). 

As an SJU alum, while I have to admit the recent athletic successes have been nice, it feels at times that the school has focused much of its development dollars on athletic endeavors instead of academic ventures because dollars flow back relatively quickly and tangibly in return for investment in the former.  Thus, it appears that the tail is unfortunately wagging the dog.  The scary thing is that it appears SJU is not alone in doing this. 

And yet, as I stated in the "McMurry case study", every one of the 19 athletic programs that we offer contributes to the university's "bottom line".

[David Collinge]

Bingo, David.  +1. 

The primary job of a college is to EDUCATE.  And in Division III, even moreso. 

Agreed.  The primary purpose SHOULD be education. 

But for many schools not named Harvard/Yale/Stanford, athletics bring in alumni dollars and draw students (there were some numbers awhile back regarding male enrollment at schools with a football team and those without-- and there is quite a disparity between the two). 

As an SJU alum, while I have to admit the recent athletic successes have been nice, it feels at times that the school has focused much of its development dollars on athletic endeavors instead of academic ventures because dollars flow back relatively quickly and tangibly in return for investment in the former.  Thus, it appears that the tail is unfortunately wagging the dog.  The scary thing is that it appears SJU is not alone in doing this. 

And yet, as I stated in the "McMurry case study", every one of the 19 athletic programs that we offer contributes to the university's "bottom line".

I'm not suggesting that sports are bad or do not contribute to the academic mission of a college; in fact, I feel quite strongly the opposite.  I've said before that my biggest regret in life is that I didn't participate in sports in school; I'm quite certain that I'd be a different and much better person if I had.  As for quantifying how sports enriches the school, however, there are probably as many different answers to this as there are schools.  Some, like Antioch, eschew intercollegiate sports altogether, while others, perhaps like Ohio State or Miami (FL), segregate sports (and athletes) almost completely from academics, treating the sports as an entity unto itself, like a minor professional league of sorts.

My personal feeling is that the attribution of enhanced enrollment and/or finances of the university as a whole due to sports is usually a false accounting.  Schools like to make the point that high-profile sports helps in name recognition and helps attract enrollment, especially among boys.  I suspect that's how the McMurry panel determined that each sport contributes financially: the tuition paid by the athletes, who might otherwise have gone elsewhere, more than offsets the costs of the program.  But, even assuming that's a correct premise (that they'd have gone elsewhere), is that really the appropriate way to recriut students?  If you're recruiting students because they can and want to play football, then you're recruiting football players, who might or might not also want to be students.  Now, if your goal is a well-rounded first-year class, one that has matriculants of all varieties who collectively represent the rich panoply of life, that's great, I find that admirable, provided you work just as hard to enroll musicians and foreign students and mathematicians and nudists and anarchists and atheists.  But if your goal is to enrich your academics (or, more cynically, to improve your incoming GPA/SAT scores to impress US News), then recruiting football players starts to look like a play for tuition, and if your goal is merely to increase enrollment (and/or tuition), then why not target students who don't engage in high-cost activities like sports?

We went through this at Tulane while I was there.  They were (ostensibly) trying to decide whether to remain D1, especially for football, or to "downgrade" the athletics programs.  The decision was to remain D1, and the benefits enumerated to justify the decision were that D1 sports improved worldwide name recognition which in turn improved both enrollment and diversity.  But it's always seemed to me that they could have achieved these goals by focusing on these areas of recruitment without focusing on football, and probably spent a heck of a lot less money doing so.  (And an effort to return Tulane to the academic stature it enjoyed 50 years ago would do more for worldwide name recognition than the football team could ever hope to achieve.)  Claiming they are improving academics by recruiting based on football seems specious to me, and that's being kind.

Now, I have nothing against football players, and many of them--especially at the D3 level--are also excellent scholars who can and do contribute to the scholarship of the university.  But some aren't, just like some scholars don't contribute to the football team's success.  Unless your goal is football success, recruiting football players because they play football will only result in achieving your goal (whateve it may be) by happy accident.

[golden_dome]

Agreed.  The primary purpose SHOULD be education. 

But for many schools not named Harvard/Yale/Stanford, athletics bring in alumni dollars and draw students (there were some numbers awhile back regarding male enrollment at schools with a football team and those without-- and there is quite a disparity between the two). 

As an SJU alum, while I have to admit the recent athletic successes have been nice, it feels at times that the school has focused much of its development dollars on athletic endeavors instead of academic ventures because dollars flow back relatively quickly and tangibly in return for investment in the former.  Thus, it appears that the tail is unfortunately wagging the dog.  The scary thing is that it appears SJU is not alone in doing this. 

johnnie, I would agree that the primary purpose is education, but school administrators also have a responsibility to make sure the school is financially viable, and athletics certainly helps that bottom line at the Division III level.

I won't go into the different areas that athletics benefits a university, I am sure those have been expounded on here ad nauseum, but I personally think they are numerous and valid. At the very least athletics brings in hundreds of student-athletics who otherwise would not be enrolled, choosing rather to find another quality education that allows them to compete.

In Division III, student-athletes usually make up a very large percentage of the on-campus population and tuition costs for those students go a long way to fund both athletics and academics. In my opinion, athletics provides a great opportunity to publicize the academic record of the school, and that platform is often much larger for successful athletic departments such as SJU. I would never have known about the school had it not been for the football program.

As long as athletics operates within the rules of the NCAA, I don't see why we necessarily have to choose to be successful in either academics or athletics, both can be beneficial to the other.

[johnnie_esq]

David Collinge, thank you for stating your experience and understanding the point I was trying to get at-- only your experience and breadth on the topic is far more comprehensive than mine!

Don't get me wrong-- I am in no way a Swarthmorian who believes athletics detracts from the academic mission of the school; rather, I agree that athletics is a net positive to the academic curriculum.  The competitive aspect combined with teamwork and discipline is a viable and important quality that should be encouraged, especially from a student development standpoint.

My concern is that schools are moving beyond the student development aspect into institution development-- and thus elevating themselves beyond their core purpose.  I think it is great that SJU has 200 people on their football team because it allows 200 people to share in the educational component.  I think it is sickening that SJU has touchdown drives sponsored by Orville Redenbacher's Popcorn and "Red" sponsored by Target Corporation, since their connection to the school is geared toward moneymaking and non-academic pursuits.  While some schools may be doing this right-- using that athletic revenue to pay for academic pursuits (e.g. the "Notre Dame way"), I fear this method has been "MBA-ified": development officers eager to show a short-term profit to justify their existence at a long-term expense of the institution.  The expense:  the educational emphasis of the institution.

Maybe I am a bit idealist, but I would rather see a Rhodes Scholar winner from SJU than a Gagliardi Trophy winner.  But a school's emphasis on football/basketball/insert sport here, if that emphasis is not carried across to the academic arena as Mr. Collinge suggests, will be bound to yield more of the latter than the former.

In essence, this debate is part of what the D-III/D-IV conflict is all about: schools that wish to use athletics as a development tool for the school versus schools where athletics is a mere development tool for the student. That's why this debate will be personal and a difficult one, since no college president would openly like to admit they are in the former category.