Future of Division III

[wilburt]

Instead of Division IV they should have a Division 2.5.  That Division could be the hybrid between Division III and II which is really being suggested throughout the NCAA Convention.  Division 2.5 would have less restrictions on financial aid (that is being complained about now with certain schools), allow redshirting and the like.  Keep the current Division III as is.

Just a thought...

[frank uible]

Yes, they should, but....

[old ends]

Ralph:

Found more item on a Centennial Blog.. Some of it you have read before, I am sure, but keep scrolling down and look at some of the surveys..

http://centennialsaac.blogspot.com/

Enjoy!!

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph:

Found more item on a Centennial Blog.. Some of it you have read before, I am sure, but keep scrolling down and look at some of the surveys..

http://centennialsaac.blogspot.com/

Enjoy!!

Pre-Convention informational pdf.

Old ends, I thought this document was very instructive. Question #29 on page 9 of 11 addresses the time commitment in the traditional and non-traditional season, which is likely to be less.

That question also has the comment that the remaining members in D-III might vote to permit more time commitment in the traditional and non-traditional segments.

Operationally defined, how can the institutions desiring these changes not acknowledge that they have sought to de-emphasize athletics on the campus?

Thanks for posting and +1!

[Ralph Turner]

One other random thought about the health of "D-2", which is supposedly under review by the NCAA during this process.

Why does it take a D-III school a three-year provisional period to move to D-II  (two years exploratory with the school being eligible in the first of the these years in D-III)?

Are there any NCAA policies specific to D-II that could not be "mastered" by a full-member D-III school in good standing during a one-year provisional period?  It seems to me that the three-year provisional period from D-III to D-II is an obstacle, in and of itself!

[old ends]

Ralph:

Even thought we know the outcome of certain proposals from the recent NCAA meetings. Did you scroll down futher to see the results of some of the surveys??

[Ralph Turner]

Ralph:

Even thought we know the outcome of certain proposals from the recent NCAA meetings. Did you scroll down futher to see the results of some of the surveys??

Old ends, I am unclear as to what you are referring?

Thanks.

[old ends]

On the Centennial blog as you scroll down past the pre meeting info there are some results on the proposal the Centennial proposed.
try this:National SAAC Says Text Messaging Has No Place in Recruiting
The NCAA Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee supported the Centennial Conference's proposal that would eliminate informal methods of communication between coaches and prospective student-athletes at its July 19-22 meeting.

While the SAAC was concerned about the costs incurred by prospective student-athletes related to text messaging, the committee also believes the use text messaging, instant messaging and social networking sites are invasive forms of recruiting.

"It's impersonal and intrusive," said committee Chair Sameer Khan, a former golf student-athlete at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Florham. "With the traditional form of recruiting, prospects weren't bothered at all hours of the day. Text messaging makes them accessible all the time and we don't agree with that philosophy."

The committee also asserted that Division III shouldn't be in the habit of recruiting in such an informal manner — institutions of higher education should be held to a higher communication standard.

Read more in the NCAA News



Labels: Legislation


Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Results of NCAA Male Practice Player Survey
Results of male practice players survey released

April 17, 2007

After more than two years of debate — both inside and outside the governance structure — about whether to limit or even eliminate the use of male practice players in women's sports, the NCAA has collected data from athletics administrators and coaches in all three divisions to better assess both the extent to which male practice players are used and the effect they have on participation opportunities for female student-athletes.

Survey results show widespread use of male practice players in all three divisions — most prominently in women's basketball and to a lesser degree in volleyball and soccer — and most respondents said male practice players don't change how the non-starting members of a team are used in practice and don't affect the number of grants-in-aid schools award to female student-athletes.

Specifically, survey results show:

• Two-thirds of all Division I institutions reported using male practice players in at least one women's sport in 2005-06. Two-thirds of Division I women's basketball teams also reported use, about one-third of which said they used male practice players almost every day.
• About 35 percent of Division II schools and 40 percent of Division III institutions reported using male practice players as well.
• About two-thirds of Division I women's basketball and volleyball squads and more than 80 percent in soccer reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.
• Only two schools (one each in Divisions I and II) said they recruited fewer female players or provided fewer scholarships because of using male practice players.
• More basketball teams use male practice players in the championship segment than do volleyball and soccer teams, which concentrate use more in the nonchampionship portions of the playing and practice season.

The intent of the survey was to gain a more realistic assessment of the types of use on campus rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. Only Division III included philosophical questions about eliminating or limiting the practice, since that division is the only one to have considered legislative modifications so far. Division III delegates at the January Convention considered and subsequently deferred a proposal from the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to limit the use of male practice players to once per week during the traditional season and to no more than half the number of players required to field a starting team.

When asked about eliminating the practice, about one-fourth of the Division III membership indicated support. However, more than 90 percent of the schools that used male practice players in 2005-06 opposed a ban, and even of those schools that did not use male practice players in 2005-06, almost two-thirds said they would not want the practice eliminated.

The Division III survey did reveal interest in limitations, though, as about half overall indicated support for limiting both the frequency of use and the number of players that can be used. Even half the schools that used male practice players in 2005-06 agreed with that approach.

Governance vetting

The Divisions II and III Management Councils reviewed the survey results during meetings April 16-17 in Indianapolis. The Division I Management Council, which also met April 16, has asked its Championships/Competition Cabinet to study the results and make recommendations. A subcommittee of that group was briefed on the matter during an April 19 conference call. The full cabinet expects to review the issue at its next meeting in June.

NCAA Senior Vice President for Championships Joni Comstock said the comprehensive review was appropriate, given the number of years the practice has gone relatively unregulated. The Division I survey indicated schools have been using male practice players for an average of about seven years, and fewer than 16 percent of schools that used male practice players said they had formal policies governing their use.

"The use of male practice players has gone on for many years without formal review, and it is time to consider if the practice is in the best interests of women student-athletes," Comstock said.

With usage numbers now in hand, both the Division II and III Councils agreed to seek more feedback from their respective governance structures and coaches associations on the appropriateness of using males in practice situations. It remains to be seen whether that solicitation will lead to proposed legislation for the 2008 Convention.

Survey response rates were high in all three divisions, highlighted by the 95.4 percent response in Division I. Divisions II and III earned response rates of 86.8 percent and 77.1 percent, respectively.

"The response indicates that people have become engaged in the issue, which is a positive outcome," said Carolyn Femovich, executive director of the Patriot League and chair of the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet. "The survey is intended to get people talking at the campus level about the pros and cons and the management of the issue. That clearly has been accomplished. If you don't ask the question, you don't know what's actually happening on campus and why coaches believe it may or may not be an important issue."

The issue of male practice players emerged in October 2004 when the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics, in accordance with its mission of protecting and enhancing female student-athlete participation opportunities, began questioning whether the use of male practice players reduced opportunities for women athletes. The committee urged a three-pronged review to determine whether the practice was widespread, whether the membership was adequately educated about male practice player eligibility requirements, and whether legislative modifications were necessary.

Though several constituencies have been outspoken on the issue since then — including the Women's Basketball Coaches Association, which said it would oppose elimination of the practice — the NCAA did not take a position on the issue until research could inform a decision through the governance structure. The recently conducted survey represents the best opportunity for the NCAA membership to take that approach.

"With an issue of this nature, it is imperative to have a process in place that allows the issue to be well vetted in the membership," Femovich said. "We now have the research necessary to inform those discussions."




Survey highlights
Division I
• Of the 312 schools responding, 205 (65.7 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06.
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (61.2 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (16.4 percent) and soccer (10.3 percent).
• Usage was more frequent in basketball, as 20 teams reported daily use and 47 others reported using male practice players four to six times per week. In volleyball and soccer, most teams reported occasional use (one to three times per week or just a few times per month).
• Results show no meaningful statistical relationship between the squad size and the number of male practice players.
• Results show no meaningful statistical relationship between the number of grants-in-aid awarded and the number of male practice players.
• About two-thirds of women's basketball and volleyball squads and more than 80 percent in soccer reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.

Division II
• Of the 257 schools responding, 89 (34.6 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06. 
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (24.8 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (10.4 percent) and soccer (6.8 percent).
• Frequency of use was reported primarily as occasional (one to three times per week or just a few times per month) in basketball and volleyball.
• About 75 percent of respondents reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.
• Only one institution reported an impact on financial aid decisions.

Division III
• Of the 337 schools responding, 136 (40.4 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06.
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (26.2 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (12.4 percent) and soccer (6.6 percent).
• Almost all respondents reported frequency of use as one to three times per week or just a few times per month.
• For the most part, the role of non-starting team members went unchanged when male practice players were used; however, there was a slight increase when compared to the starters in the number of instances of being relegated to the bench or implementing the visiting team's offense.



Also read this:  http://www.landmarkconference.org/information/Conference_news/lc_institute_1_22_08
and think how you as the student-athlectic rep for SAAC  sit and listen as they talk outside the realm.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Here, here.  I'm not sure why the NCAA allows these forms of invasive recruiting at all.

I know, were I a prospective student athlete, I would write off any coach who kept bothering me like that (although I assume many athletes don't ask them to stop).

[frank uible]

No recruit will be bothered if he trashes or turns off his damned gizmo!

[Spence]

One other random thought about the health of "D-2", which is supposedly under review by the NCAA during this process.

Why does it take a D-III school a three-year provisional period to move to D-II  (two years exploratory with the school being eligible in the first of the these years in D-III)?

Are there any NCAA policies specific to D-II that could not be "mastered" by a full-member D-III school in good standing during a one-year provisional period?  It seems to me that the three-year provisional period from D-III to D-II is an obstacle, in and of itself!

Good point, but I'm not sure it is going to matter.

I think D-II is dying a slow death. D-II IMO is the worst of all worlds; you don't draw the crowds the D-I schools do or get the quality of athlete, so either you have an inferior athlete or an inferior student. At the same time, you're still giving scholarships for same. Sure there are non-scholarship recruits but it's still IMO different than D-III in that way.

I realize there is an issue with travel time for some in the south but I think eventually a group of schools will fix that problem together, or at least mitigate it.

Depending on the configuration of the more competitive, athletics-centric division that is formed (if D-III is split), I think it could end up having a lot of D-II schools and perhaps even finish off D-II. Good for colleges' bottom lines, bad for felons who want to go to school for free.

[Pat Coleman]

I do often wonder about Division II's role in this. One would think a II-AA, with lower scholarship totals, might be attractive to some Division III members.

[Spence]

I do often wonder about Division II's role in this. One would think a II-AA, with lower scholarship totals, might be attractive to some Division III members.

D-II is close to being unviably small as it is. I don't think it would take very much to tip it over the edge, and I would be surprised if there aren't people looking at the size of D-III and the size of D-II and wondering "hmmm, how can we balance this up?"

If I were a D-II president in this environment, I'd be wondering why the heck I'm offering scholarships and not getting any more back out of it than the D-III schools that aren't offering them and use their non-scholarship programs as a tool to boost enrollment and application revenue.

[smedindy]

I have been at a client recently who is building a new basketball arena with an eye for an eventual move from D-2 to D-1.

D-2, from what I observe, is mostly the smaller state schools that are regional in nature and scope. They're caught as they need athletics to boost enrollment, but they're also at the mercy of the state for funding. Many don't have top-notch development programs. I think D-2 school are going to have to make a choice soon on what they are and what they want to be. Perhaps the D-2 model can be shifted to greatly reduced scholarships and lower costs.

[Pat Coleman]

There are 282 Division II members plus 11 provisionals. I'm not sure that's THAT close to being unviable. I know it's shrinking but I think it would take a while before this truly became a problem.