Future of Division III

[johnnie_esq]

I have felt for some time that D2 is the 800-pound gorilla in the room as far as the NCAA is concerned.  Everyone seems to note there is a problem with numbers in D-3, and the opposite problem with numbers in D2, but D2 refuses to acknowledge that they may need to do something about it.  Witness their "self-study" change group from a year or so, who was given the task of making recommendations about how to make D-2 a more attractive option-- their foundational premise was that they could "do no harm to D-2's structure".  So how can you make drastic improvements without the ability to change the structure of the division?

It is clear that D-2 is at a crossroads itself-- there was a vote regarding limiting football scholarships there about a year or so ago that was hotly contested and came down in a 45-55 split-- however, some of those that were on the 55 side have now left D-2 in favor of greener pastures (e.g. U of North Dakota-- pun intended), so if that vote was taken today things may be different.  But there is clearly an element of schools in D-2 that would love to limit the number of scholarships allowed; however, I don't know if limiting football to, say, 20 scholarships (instead of the 36 currently allowed) would still entice any D-3ers to join:  20 full scholarships at the U of St. Thomas would still cost almost a million dollars per year-- and that is just for football-- how many current D-3 schools would want that much capital outlay to hang with the crowd in D-2?

I think the D-2 lite is the way to think about the D-3/D-4 debate, which is probably why the group favoring fewer restrictions on athletics would remain in D-3-- so as you go past the divisions, you would see full scholarship D1, some scholarship D2, athletics-minded D3, and academics minded D-4.  Is this elitist?  You bet.  Is it true?  Well, there is quite a bit of truth in it, at least. 

But there is room for the D-2 model, and it does serve a very viable need.  It isn't irrelevant, but it does seem to be outdated.  But then again, so is the D-3 model too, and perhaps even the D-1 model.   

[Pat Coleman]

I would add one counterpoint here -- I think a lowering from 36 to 20 would still make D-II more attractive because it would make it easier to compete.

You don't HAVE to offer 20 football scholarships. Shoot, some offer none. But if you're offering, say, 10 scholarships in football in Division II, you're more likely to be successful if others are offering 20 rather than 36.

[johnnie_esq]

I would add one counterpoint here -- I think a lowering from 36 to 20 would still make D-II more attractive because it would make it easier to compete.

You don't HAVE to offer 20 football scholarships. Shoot, some offer none. But if you're offering, say, 10 scholarships in football in Division II, you're more likely to be successful if others are offering 20 rather than 36.

Good point-- and I don't even think it is a counterpoint.  What I was trying to do was illustrate that D-2 is being pulled apart at its seams too.  Don't forget, they have proposed having two football playoffs in the future too-- one with >20 scholarships, one for less than 20 scholarships.   

More than anything else, I was trying to get at how D-2's proposed reforms aren't likely to entice any D-3ers to come on board because the cost is still too high.  Shoot, even 10 scholarships can cost a half-million-- and that is just in one sport.  How many current D-3 schools could afford that additional expense and justify it entirely in their athletic departments?  If you draw 10k fans per game for 5 games, you'd need to charge $10 a ticket to break even on those scholarships, and that doesn't count the cost of running the program.  Not to mention your relative success level if you were only giving half the scholarships.  Sure, you could do well here and there (beating the Moorhead State's, but my guess is over the long haul the UMDs and St. Cloud States would kill you.)  Then what happens to that revenue?

So I don't think D-2's reforms are likely to be the cure for D-3's problems.

[Bob Eblen]

I've enjoyed reading about and following the whole D-III/D-IV debate (particularly this thread) over the past several months. As someone that has followed and covered the many issues surrounding D-II over the years, I decided I would like to register and add my two cents.

Firstly, I don't understand where people come up with the notion that D-II is not viable or shrinking. Similar to what happened in D-III, D-II went through massive growth in the 90's, gaining 88 members (most coming from the NAIA) from 1989 to 1999. Overall membership (active and provisional) stood at 209 in 1989 and peaked at 297 in 1999.

There was a natural retrenchment in the first half of this decade once the membership moratorium was enacted and overall standards as far as sports sponsorship and minimum financial aid commitments were put in place. Not to mention the fact that many prominent D-II schools left the division due to the fact that it had been overrun by schools that were not ready philosophically or financially to compete at this level.

This year D-II membership sits at 298 active and provisional members-- an all-time high. This is due to several factors, but the main reasons are that many of the schools with the immediate desire and wherewithal to move to D-I have already done so and D-II has finally started to do a better job of defining itself over the past the couple of years. Now granted, much of that "defining" is fluff like handing out "I Chose Division II" banners for schools to hang in their gym. But some of the progress made-- like entering into an agreement with CSTV to broadcast football and basketball each week-- is very tangible. D-II will almost certainly reach its stated goal of having ~ 300 active members and 25 conferences by 2011 or so.

The other issue I would like to address is that the football scholarship debate in D-II is over. The original proposal at the 2005 convention was to reduce from 36 to 24 scholarships and that failed by a wider than expected 2-to-1 margin.

From there D-II's Management Council asked the D-II Football Committee to take a look at splitting into two championships, one with 18 and one with 36 scholarships. I wrote a feature article on this subject for the 2006 D-II National Championship game program, so I covered this in great depth leading up to the 2007 convention. The impression I got at the time was that the split would fail, but that the vote might be close enough that it would be looked at again in the future.

Not only did the split fail resoundingly (29 votes for, 117 against), but Division II membership took it a step further by passing another legislative action that requires all future changes in scholarship levels in any sport to have a 2/3 majority. This action basically nuked any future scholarship reduction debate in D-II. I would surmise that it will be, at minimum, 15 years before anyone even brings it up again. In fact, the one conference that has been the impetus behind almost every scholarship reduction proposal in the past (the PSAC) has now lifted its self-imposed conference maximum of 25 scholarships in football and is now allowing it's members to offer 36. I bring all of this up because I firmly believe that a "D-II lite" in football is completely off the table for now.

Anyway, I really feel that the entire D-III debate going on right now will have a very limited impact on the future of D-II. This is simply because of the fact that D-III and D-II have more divergent philosophies than do D-II and D-I. (i.e. some athletic scholarships is more in line with full scholarships than no scholarships). Once a school makes the decision to offer athletic aid, it's much more likely to increase that aid and eventually move to D-I than decrease aid and move to D-III.

[Ralph Turner]

Bob, Greetings, and this fan welcomes you to D3football/sports.com!

Great Post!  +1!   

You have authoritatively eliminated some of the confusion around the major questions about D-II with excellent and timely historical perspectives.

Best wishes, and I look forward to your thoughtful contributions to our discussions.

[NYBB]

It's upsetting to me that some D3 schools don't report their teams' scores on their websites for often times, several DAYS after the games are played.

Case and point : Tonight's Polytech vs. SUNY Purchase game.  Unless i actually attended the game, there's no way for me to know who won and knowing these two schools, the scores won't be added to their website(s) until at least three days from now.

This isn't the only time i've encountered this and it seems to only happen with D3's and some JUCO's.  All D2 and D1's keep up to date stats and so do most D3's...just disappointing that several of them don't.

[johnnie_esq]

I've enjoyed reading about and following the whole D-III/D-IV debate (particularly this thread) over the past several months. As someone that has followed and covered the many issues surrounding D-II over the years, I decided I would like to register and add my two cents.

Firstly, I don't understand where people come up with the notion that D-II is not viable or shrinking. Similar to what happened in D-III, D-II went through massive growth in the 90's, gaining 88 members (most coming from the NAIA) from 1989 to 1999. Overall membership (active and provisional) stood at 209 in 1989 and peaked at 297 in 1999.

There was a natural retrenchment in the first half of this decade once the membership moratorium was enacted and overall standards as far as sports sponsorship and minimum financial aid commitments were put in place. Not to mention the fact that many prominent D-II schools left the division due to the fact that it had been overrun by schools that were not ready philosophically or financially to compete at this level.

This year D-II membership sits at 298 active and provisional members-- an all-time high. This is due to several factors, but the main reasons are that many of the schools with the immediate desire and wherewithal to move to D-I have already done so and D-II has finally started to do a better job of defining itself over the past the couple of years. Now granted, much of that "defining" is fluff like handing out "I Chose Division II" banners for schools to hang in their gym. But some of the progress made-- like entering into an agreement with CSTV to broadcast football and basketball each week-- is very tangible. D-II will almost certainly reach its stated goal of having ~ 300 active members and 25 conferences by 2011 or so.

The other issue I would like to address is that the football scholarship debate in D-II is over. The original proposal at the 2005 convention was to reduce from 36 to 24 scholarships and that failed by a wider than expected 2-to-1 margin.

From there D-II's Management Council asked the D-II Football Committee to take a look at splitting into two championships, one with 18 and one with 36 scholarships. I wrote a feature article on this subject for the 2006 D-II National Championship game program, so I covered this in great depth leading up to the 2007 convention. The impression I got at the time was that the split would fail, but that the vote might be close enough that it would be looked at again in the future.

Not only did the split fail resoundingly (29 votes for, 117 against), but Division II membership took it a step further by passing another legislative action that requires all future changes in scholarship levels in any sport to have a 2/3 majority. This action basically nuked any future scholarship reduction debate in D-II. I would surmise that it will be, at minimum, 15 years before anyone even brings it up again. In fact, the one conference that has been the impetus behind almost every scholarship reduction proposal in the past (the PSAC) has now lifted its self-imposed conference maximum of 25 scholarships in football and is now allowing it's members to offer 36. I bring all of this up because I firmly believe that a "D-II lite" in football is completely off the table for now.

Anyway, I really feel that the entire D-III debate going on right now will have a very limited impact on the future of D-II. This is simply because of the fact that D-III and D-II have more divergent philosophies than do D-II and D-I. (i.e. some athletic scholarships is more in line with full scholarships than no scholarships). Once a school makes the decision to offer athletic aid, it's much more likely to increase that aid and eventually move to D-I than decrease aid and move to D-III.

Great post, Bob-- thanks for clarifying my take on the situation!

Don't forget that the loss of the NCC has changed the dynamic as well, forcing its remaining members to join an expanded NSIC and accept the lower scholarship numbers allowed by it.  The issue there is the DAC-8 (at least, as it was formerly known) was rumoured to join NSIC en masse (like U of Mary did).  But in gaining the NCC members, the remaining DAC members may be forced to stay put in the NAIA-- which appears to be a loss of 8 prospective schools (not to mention with UND going D-1, an actual paper loss for D-2). 

While this in no way makes it an unviable division in its current form, if D-3 is going to survive its membership problems, that divide between D-2 and D-3 will need to be bridged. But it doesn't appear that D-2 has shown any interest in doing that.

[Ralph Turner]

Good morning Johnnie,   

Respectfully, I don't think that the divide between scholarship and non-scholarship is the "divide".  Bob Edlen seems to have assuaged concerns that D-II is in the throes of demise.  It seems that the leadership in D-II is taking constructive action to strengthen the identity of the Division. 

Respectfully, I think that the divide is between de-emphasizing inter-collegiate athletics to "club" status (for example, so as to allow students to participate more fully in other aspects of campus life) and to continuing a variation of the same as we know in D-3.  I think that we have read a refutation of those recommendations for the new division or the new sub-division, and point-by-point analysis has answered every principle that has been put forth for a new D-IV.

In some cases, I think that the votes that are being prompted annually are strategically intended to drive a wedge between the members of the division.  IMHO, this is being promulgated by an ideological minority.  "They" don't want "us" in D-III.

IMHO, the problem is that "they" cannot find enough other members to join them to make a division of 150.  If there had been that "groundswell" at the convention, then that action would have gone forward on schedule and the "quake" would have occurred.

We have had no "puff pieces" about the convention since its adjournment.  What was being driven by someone, either from the management council or "them" or from the NCAA bureaucracy, was so thoroughly rejected that they are trying to "spin" the next press release.

Surveys are being sent to each institution in February as to the next step as to where to proceed.  I think that we have 420 members who like being D-3 and that is growing.  We have seen no data to show precisely that the variable cost of the next (421st) member joining D-III would be more expensive than the combined budgets of a D-III and a D-IV that are both growing.

Have a good Sunday!   

[Pat Coleman]

"They" don't want "us" in D-III.

Funny you should mention that. That's exactly what I got when reading this column by Southwestern's president.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/18/0118schrum_edit.html

Keep NCAA Division III for those who got there first

[Mr. Ypsi]

Yikes!  The presidents of Southwestern and Earlham certainly seem "two peas in a pod", but the pod apparently doesn't hold 148 more peas!

[smedindy]

Holy cow! "We don't want your kind in here!!!"

That's gonna backfire.

[johnnie_esq]

"They" don't want "us" in D-III.

Funny you should mention that. That's exactly what I got when reading this column by Southwestern's president.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/18/0118schrum_edit.html

Keep NCAA Division III for those who got there first

Wow. That certainly takes the cake.

I was going to respond to RT's well-written post by questioning the 150 schools aspect.  But statements like that from the President of the College are not constructive to the cause.

What I was going to address was whether it can be said that there aren't 150 schools that wish to join in.  Part of the problem is that the time to decide has not yet come, since, in many ways, D3 is currently a compromise between proposed D3/D4.  It's hard to know who would go where when there is no requirement to choose yet, and all schools are operating in compromise.  What is essentially being proposed is an elimination of that compromise.

The other problem is that geography can hurt these issues, specifically in the upper Midwest.  For football in the upper midwest, most of the inter-conference games took place between the MIAC/WIAC/IIAC/MWC-- four conferences that were slated to be D4.  Since this would not affect how schools in these conferences schedule and act, what is their incentive to take a stand on the D4 movement?  And by keeping these schools together in inter-conference games, it effectively isolates the UMAC conference-- one that could stay D3.

There is a long period of discussion yet to happen, but statements like that from the proponents won't help their cause.  In places like the South and the Northeast, where there is more diversity between D3 and D4, this issue will result in far more controversy.

[Ralph Turner]

Thank you Johnnie for the well-considered perspective from your part of the country.

Dr Schrum's institution is the only "D-IV" by the most restrictive criteria in this part of the country.  My paternal grandfather, a very non-traditional student of very humble beginnings, was a 1925 grad of Southwestern and held an academic appointment of Instructor during his time there.  (I went to McMurry instead Southwestern, because McMurry gave me a better academic scholarship than Southwestern.  )

Southwestern began its meteoric climb in prestige, prominence and endowment in the early 1980's when a friend of mine and McMurry alum, Dr Roy Shilling, became president.  He (and Dr Schrum) tapped into Methodist money in Houston and San Antonio, including the families of Brown and Root (Halliburton) in Houston and Red McCombs among others from San Antonio.  (Cynics and haters are rolling their eyes in disbelief of the generosity that these families have committed to building Southwestern.)  Southwestern's endowment has probably grown 10-fold (1000%) in the last 28 years under his leadership and that of Dr Schrum.

Here is the NACUBO document that may give us the Rosetta Stone as to what divides D-III and D-IV.  If you are a tuition-driven institution that needs students to pay the bills, then offering athletics is one way that you can bring students to your institution.  If you are a generously endowed university that can set your price and have students flock to your door, then you don't need "gimmicks" like sports to do this.

D-II has recently released a white paper about the financial impact of partial scholarships.  This tells me that D-II is looking at the other side of this issue.


Division II Partial Scholarship White Paper

johnnie_esq, thank you for your continued contributions to understanding the issues in this debate at the highest levels of the NCAA.

[wilburt]

"They" don't want "us" in D-III.

Funny you should mention that. That's exactly what I got when reading this column by Southwestern's president.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/18/0118schrum_edit.html

Keep NCAA Division III for those who got there first

I agree with the Southwestern President wholeheartedly.  Leave Division III alone and set up a Division 2.5 (rather than a Division IV) for those that want fewer restrictions or in other words to be more like the Division II schools in terms of regulations.   

[Bob Maxwell]

I like that idea too... put anything new in the middle of the present D-II and D-III and once the parameters are set up, let schools migrate into it.  I would think that anyone who wants fewer restrictions and doesn't want the expense of a large number of scholarships would move into this level...

That way D-III stays as it is... which I think is a great model for full student developement... and the "perception" of  moving downward is avoided by not using the tag of Division IV (for anyone).

That may be why these fellows have become presidents becuase they know what they are talking about.