Future of Division III

[David Collinge]

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!

I doubt that; and if it should be true, it just makes your already first-rate posting on this topic that much more impressive.

Maybe I am a bit idealist, but I would rather see a Rhodes Scholar winner from SJU than a Gagliardi Trophy winner.

I like to pretend that SJU and my school (Wooster) and many others would celebrate a Rhodes Scholarship more prominently than a Gagliardi Trophy, but that may be a fantasy.  What is not a fantasy, however, and I think is beyond argument, is that a Rhodes Scholarship will serve the student for his/her entire life, while after a few years of having the Gagliardi Trophy collecting dust on the mantle, the winner probably tires of explaining what it was awarded for.  (And I'm naive enough to buy into the academic and service components of that award, making it more 'honorable' than, say, the Heisman Trophy.)

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.

While I agree with the first two clauses of your statement, I don't necessarily agree with the third.  That accounting depends on this assumption:

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.

But if this is just a numbers game, a way to attract a larger number of matriculants (mostly boys), wouldn't it be as effective and much cheaper to, say, offer free beer or no classes before 10am or all classes taught by topless female TAs?  (Can you tell I'm reminiscing about my own college career here? )  I realize I'm exaggerating to make a point here, but that point remains: if you recruit athletes, you'd better have athletics as a goal.  If the goal is academic, then you're mis-aiming your recruiting; and if the goal is financial, then there are cheaper (i.e. better) ways to achieve it.  Luckily (or perhaps sadly), I think most administrators understand this, and when they emphasize sports, it's because they want to succeed at sports.

[Ralph Turner]

As for scholarship among student-athletes, McMurry had a baseball player who received an NCAA post-graduate scholarship in about 2003 and this year, we have 2 strong candidates for post-graduate scholarships, including Tarra Richardson, the  strong candidate for the Jostens (Pre-season All-American and 3.90+ GPA Finance major).  We might have another student-athlete earn an NCAA post-graduate scholarship as well.

McMurry has a large number of student-athletes that want to coach and teach.  McMurry is known in Texas for having a very high percentage of graduates who are still in education 10 years after graduation from college.  Those "future coaches" are likely to matriculate as football and volleyball players, etc. 

We also have a large number of first generation student-athletes and students.  (The men's basketball coach counted 7 of 16 players as being first generation college-students!  That is a tremendous statement affirming our goals as an institution!)  Athletics is the entry point for these student-athletes.

Getting the student-athlete to accept when their athletic careers are over is one topic that we don't discuss much on these boards, but that aspect of the relationships that a student develops on the campus is part of the maturing process.  This process of accepting the extent of the athletic career happens more frequently at D-III than D-II or D-I

We at McMurry are not as glamorous as many of the other schools in D-III.  However, I love the student-athletes that I meet.  They are genuine, "salt-of-the-earth", "core of America-type" people.  I see humble greatness in them.  Do you recall the interviews with the real "Band of Brothers"?  Those men were so simple and so humble, until you realize what they did.  I find those same attributes awaiting to be developed by the faculty and coaches at McMurry.

That is why I believe in D-III.  As Augie Garrido, head baseball coach at Cal State Fullerton and now UT-Austin said,

In professional baseball, the people are used for the betterment of the sport. In college, the game is used for the betterment of the people.

If Coach Garrido can say that about D-1, how much more applicable is it in D-III?

(For me, it happened after the cross-country season of my first year at McMurry.  I was a walk-on to the track team that was NAIA-1 and had "athletic scholarship" athletes.  My first time trial of the late fall was only 4 seconds off my PR in the mile and I finished ahead of one of the "athletic scholarship" milers.  I was pumped.  However, injuries and awkward work-out times had as much to do with the decision to quit as my re-assessing "how much of which ends of the candle I wanted to burn" as anything!  However, I am grateful that I wore the maroon and white.  Besides, the picture of my cross country team at my medical school still hangs in the Student Center.  We ran against high schools, jucos, NAIA's, a D-III and even beat TCU that year.    )

 

[golden_dome]

johnnie, I think you are right in saying that the discussion on this board and the differing viewpoints expressed are obviously at the crux of the current Division III debate.  That is why Division IV or some other model has become a near reality. It is also obvious that the role of athletics is a very sensitive issue to many and nothing expressed here would change an opinion, but I personally would disagree with some here.

What is not a fantasy, however, and I think is beyond argument, is that a Rhodes Scholarship will serve the student for his/her entire life, while after a few years of having the Gagliardi Trophy collecting dust on the mantle, the winner probably tires of explaining what it was awarded for. 

I don't know if I would go that far to belittle the accomplishments achieved by student-athletes in athletic endeavors or previous Gagliardi Trophy winners. I would imagine the years of dedication, hard work and competition that went into winning the award would serve that particular student well in life. I have heard many student-athletes, who found success academically and athletically, talk about the life lessons learned from athletics being a foundation for future success.

But if this is just a numbers game, a way to attract a larger number of matriculants (mostly boys), wouldn't it be as effective and much cheaper to, say, offer free beer or no classes before 10am or all classes taught by topless female TAs?  (Can you tell I'm reminiscing about my own college career here? ) 

That might be true if athletics were just a numbers game, but athletics serves so many other purposes well beyond that. I know many will not agree with this, but athletics is an important part of the educational experience for many college students and in many cases teaches lessons not learned in the classroom.

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.

I don't know how money raised through athletics detracts at all from the academic mission of the institution. Obviously there is a lot of interest in SJU football due to their success, which is valuable to the university and their ability to recruit students. As I mentioned before, I would never have heard of SJU had it not been for their football team.

There are many aspects of the college experience for a student that are non-academic pursuits, so that is not solely attributable to athletics. While academics is the primary purpose of a university, there can be other other pursuits non-academic in nature that enhance the educational experience. The usual arguments that athletics rallies alumni and is a source of pride for the institution are valid in my opinion. But the relationships built between players and coaches are lifelong and in many instances spiritual in nature. Again, a non-academic pursuit but at the same time life-changing and of the utmost importance.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I obviously think athletics is a vital function of the university and does nothing to diminish the importance of academics. Striving for sucess in each is not a bad thing.

[johnnie_esq]

Great points, Chris-- I actually don't think we're as far apart as it may seem in our views.

I think it is a matter of line-drawing and on what side of that arbitrary line schools will fall.  It's not as though athletics are bad-- its that over-emphasis upon athletics is.  Sure, you know about SJU because of its football team, but what do you know about it other than its football team?  It's not as though the origins of Vatican II or the Monastic Manuscript Library or the St. John's Bible get carried across through having a good football team.  And if the average person isn't catching that knowledge, are prospective students getting that message?  If not, why are they matriculating then? To be sure, I wouldn't have a problem if football revenues went toward scholarships for the student body or to fund academic programs.  But from what I understand, that isn't where that revenue is headed.

I think it is possible to be a top notch athletic program and academic program, and I would be ecstatic if my school were able to accomplish that.  However, it takes a certain mentality to do it-- one which meshes a very focused academic program without overyielding to the athletic department's demands for more resources.  I don't see a lot of schools exercising this discipline.  To be sure, there are some-- schools like Carleton are a good example in the MIAC-- but I see those in the minority, unfortunately.

[golden_dome]

Great points, Chris-- I actually don't think we're as far apart as it may seem in our views.

johnnie, I think you're right about our views probably not too far apart. It is really difficult to convey actual opinions on message boards without typing out an essay, and on the flipside very easy to offend someone unintentionally.

I think it is a matter of line-drawing and on what side of that arbitrary line schools will fall.  It's not as though athletics are bad-- its that over-emphasis upon athletics is.  Sure, you know about SJU because of its football team, but what do you know about it other than its football team? 

There's no question it can be taken too far, but I think striving to be successful is a good thing as long as ethics are not compromised. It's funny you ask what I know about SJU other than football because I actually navigated through the website yesterday just out of curiosity. I was interested in publications and  the gameday atmosphere at football games, but ended up researching information about the school.

In regards to the athletics revenue being generated, I don't have any problem with that money being used to improve the athletics department. That money is available to athletics and otherwise would not be of benefit to the university. The success that SJU has experienced in athletics only enhances the revenue available.

I'm just very defensive about the role of athletics and in providing student-athletes the best support possible to be successful. Athletics played a very important role in my personal spiritual development and serves many vital functions on the campus of universities, particularly at schools with denominational affiliation. The relationships student-athletes develop with coaches and staff are usually not duplicated in the classroom setting.

[David Collinge]

I would imagine the years of dedication, hard work and competition that went into winning the [Gagliardi] award would serve that particular student well in life. I have heard many student-athletes, who found success academically and athletically, talk about the life lessons learned from athletics being a foundation for future success. [...] [A]thletics is an important part of the educational experience for many college students and in many cases teaches lessons not learned in the classroom.

Chris, just so you know, I agree completely with every word of this.  As I posted yesterday,

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. 

I further agree with you that

It is really difficult to convey actual opinions on message boards without typing out an essay, and on the flipside very easy to offend someone unintentionally.

This is especially true for me, since I find it very difficult to express what I mean verbally, so I tend to fall back on a wisecracking, exaggeration-riddled type of commentary.  I'm sorry if anything I posted offended you, or anyone else.

I think perhaps my point in all of this, which johnnie_esq seems to express much better than I can, is that I'm strongly in favor of having intercollegiate sports on campus, encouraging as many students as possible to participate in them, and giving those students the best chance at success.  But I think there is a point where that a line can be crossed, where the success element can be overemphasized.  To my way of thinking, it is in the participation that of most benefit to the student is accomplished.  In other words, I think colleges should provide and encourage athletic opportunities for students, but am unsettled when it appears that they are instead providing and encouraging academic opportunities for athletes.  That's perhaps a fine distinction, but an important one to me.

It seems that part of the D-4 "movement" is to ensure that student-athletes are not so consumed in one sport that all but the most exceptional are unable effectively to participate in other activities, up to and including academics.  This is, I think, prevalent at the D1 level, and perhaps at D2 in the high-profile sports as well.  At D3, so far at least, I think we do a good job of structuring athletics so that the athletes can be effective students as well (in most cases, even "students first"), but are less successful in ensuring that they have the opportunity to participate in international travel or externships or even glee club and volunteerism.  Or, best of all, all four.  In my limited reading of the proposals, it seems that the D4 proponents want to set limits on athletics so that the student-athletes can be full-fledged members of the campus community, and in turn every full-fledged member of the campus community can particpate in athletics without compromising their other interests and pursuits.  Probably everyone would agree with these goals when expressed that way; the devil as always is in the details, in this case what those limits should be.

[golden_dome]

This is especially true for me, since I find it very difficult to express what I mean verbally, so I tend to fall back on a wisecracking, exaggeration-riddled type of commentary.  I'm sorry if anything I posted offended you, or anyone else. :-

David, I didn't think that at all. I know you have an appreciation for the role of athletics in the lives of young people or you would not be so active a participant on these message boards and so interested in Division III athletics.

I think perhaps my point in all of this, which johnnie_esq seems to express much better than I can, is that I'm strongly in favor of having intercollegiate sports on campus, encouraging as many students as possible to participate in them, and giving those students the best chance at success.  But I think there is a point where that a line can be crossed, where the success element can be overemphasized. 

I think at the heart of the entire DIII debate on athletics is that we all agree there is a line that can be crossed involving athletics, but we disagree on where that will be. I just hope everyone realizes that this is not an ethical question with one group labeled bad because they either place more emphasis on athletics or less emphasis.

It seems that part of the D-4 "movement" is to ensure that student-athletes are not so consumed in one sport that all but the most exceptional are unable effectively to participate in other activities, up to and including academics.  This is, I think, prevalent at the D1 level, and perhaps at D2 in the high-profile sports as well.  At D3, so far at least, I think we do a good job of structuring athletics so that the athletes can be effective students as well (in most cases, even "students first"), but are less successful in ensuring that they have the opportunity to participate in international travel or externships or even glee club and volunteerism.  Or, best of all, all four.  In my limited reading of the proposals, it seems that the D4 proponents want to set limits on athletics so that the student-athletes can be full-fledged members of the campus community, and in turn every full-fledged member of the campus community can particpate in athletics without compromising their other interests and pursuits.  Probably everyone would agree with these goals when expressed that way; the devil as always is in the details, in this case what those limits should be.

I think that is exactly why the potential realignment is much needed. There are obviously some philosophical differences that exist in DIII, which should be expected simply due to the number of schools participating now at that level. But I think it is more important to student-athletes making a decision on where they will attend school. I'm not referring to academics here, but some athletes really don't have an interest in all of the other on-campus activities and are looking for a school where they can just play ball and get an education. Some would be attracted to a place where athletics is less emphasized. The added clarification should aid student-athletes in making their decision.

But I don't think there is a way to avoid an even larger perception problem for those schools who drop to Division IV. Whether it is right or wrong doesn't matter because it will exist, and maybe even should exist to people, or media, who place more emphasis on athletics. And the people who stay in Division III will probably get a small boost just by telling recruits and media that we are members of the division which places more value on the role of athletics.

I can certainly respect the position of institutions wishing to de-emphasize athletics, but I have read some quotes where they do not want the added stigma of dropping down a division.  I just don't see how that can be avoided since they are making a choice to diminish the role of athletics, which is exactly why the perception exists in the first place.

[Warren Thompson]

I just hope everyone realizes that this is not an ethical question with one group labeled bad because they either place more emphasis on athletics or less emphasis.

Good point, but it might depend on the degree of "emphasis" on athletics. "More" emphasis could be to the detriment of athletics -- and then it will be an "ethical question."

[golden_dome]

I just hope everyone realizes that this is not an ethical question with one group labeled bad because they either place more emphasis on athletics or less emphasis.

Good point, but it might depend on the degree of "emphasis" on athletics. "More" emphasis could be to the detriment of athletics -- and then it will be an "ethical question."

Warren, good point and I should have clarified. It certainly can involve ethical questions, but the "value" of athletics is not an ethical question on its own. Some schools are committed to being successfu in athletics becaue they value its importance to the school more than others. I think it only becomes ethical if departments stray outside the rules of the NCAA.

[johnnie_esq]

It's funny you ask what I know about SJU other than football because I actually navigated through the website yesterday just out of curiosity. I was interested in publications and  the gameday atmosphere at football games, but ended up researching information about the school.

Yikes!  Looks like I have a bit of crow to eat!  Usually when I tell people in the Twin Cities I graduated from SJU, the response is about the football team-- and no mention of its other academic treasures.  So I was doing the assuming thing with the appropriate ass-u-me result, I suppose!

I said earlier that I think the perception thing is really a red herring.  D-III is already the "bottom rung" when it comes to public perception of athletic competitiveness; it's not as though you can fall much farther in population's eyes.  The strength of D-III's public perception has always been its academic focus-- the Middleburys, Macalesters and MITs.  That won't change by creating a D-IV.  Furthermore, don't you think they were worried about the perception thing in 1973 when they made the current setup from a pre-existing "University" and "College" divisioning?  Seemed to work out ok, as 35 years later the "low rung" is the most populous member. 

[Bob Maxwell]

We also have a large number of first generation student-athletes and students.  (The men's basketball coach counted 7 of 16 players as being first generation college-students!  That is a tremendous statement affirming our goals as an institution!)  Athletics is the entry point for these student-athletes.

I for one think this is a terrific statistic... thanks for letting us know that Ralph!

Getting the student-athlete to accept when their athletic careers are over is one topic that we don't discuss much on these boards, but that aspect of the relationships that a student develops on the campus is part of the maturing process.  This process of accepting the extent of the athletic career happens more frequently at D-III than D-II or D-I

This is a point that is not made often enough... but it is absolutely the essence of what college and for most, college athletics should mean... Preparation for the rest of your life!

We do lose sight of this far to often...


Very interesting discussion here...

[David Collinge]

We also have a large number of first generation student-athletes and students.  (The men's basketball coach counted 7 of 16 players as being first generation college-students!  That is a tremendous statement affirming our goals as an institution!)  Athletics is the entry point for these student-athletes.

I for one think this is a terrific statistic... thanks for letting us know that Ralph!

This is a whole separate question, one that I find intriguing and hinted at the other day.  One very great value of intercollegiate athletics, to me at least, is that it opens doors to a college education for students that might not get that chance elsewhere.  That's a Cliffs Notes version of the film All the Right Moves, where a gifted student chooses to focus on football as the best means of assuring that he can get a college education, then has a personality conflict with his high school coach, thereby threatening his entire future.  Of course, a lot of that revolves around athletic scholarships, which we don't have in D3.  But the basic point is still valid: is it right that schools openly discriminate in admissions on the basis of academic aptitude? 

Statistics show again and again that a college degree enhances one's earning power many times over; without a degree, in our society, you have 2.9 strikes against you right from the start.  There are schools, like Oberlin or Chicago (to say nothing of Caltech and MIT), where the intellectual ability of the students is absolutely crucial to the academic mission, but there are others (which I shall not attempt to name, for fear that it would be taken as an unintended insult) where the academic mission is more aligned towards teaching, the imparting of knowledge from professor to student, where the active classroom participation of the class is not an essential element.  Why should such schools openly prefer applications with higher GPA and SAT scores (leaving aside the societal issues that these raise), if those students are just going to be expected to sit quietly and take notes?  Why not prefer someone who has shown a willingness to work hard and a strong desire to succeed?  Someone like, say, an athlete?

Lest you think I've strayed too far off topic, maybe this is a potential dividing line between a D3 and a D4.  The D4 could cater to the academic elite to foster a collaborative intellectual experience, while the D3 focuses on providing the best possible education to the widest possible spectrum of students?  Just a thought that is far from fully-formed in my own head.

[frank uible]

This matter is not about ethics; it is about politics; it is about who gets what resources!

[Warren Thompson]

This matter is not about ethics; it is about politics; it is about who gets what resources!

At risk of coming across as a public scold, let me say that the only folks who think "politics" can be divorced from "ethics" are politicians -- elected, appointed, and all others who roam the halls of power. (If politics ain't ethically relevant, nothing is.)

[End of homily .... ]

[speedy]

Anybody have any information as to what happened at the NCAA convention regarding the formation of D4 (or something like it)?? I know that they were not to make decisions at this meeting but I thought we would get some notion of level of interest and likely direction coming out of this meeting . . .