Future of Division III

[smedindy]

Yes, but what he wants sounds exclusionary to me - and many institutions may want to strive for the D-3 ideal and would not be welcome by such rhetoric.

[cush]

I really don't get the big fuss over the term d3 or d4...if enough school' s want to go d4, than i think that term has value. Of course, you can play around with alot of names, say d3-aa for the folks that want to move. Or i'm sure they prez of SW types would like to break the ncaa down with, d1, d1-aa, d2, d2-aa, than have d3 for themselves.

[golden_dome]

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.

Ralph, you have followed DIII much longer than I have and might know the answer to this. I understand the differing philosophies regarding athletics that have created the division among DIII members, but it seems like many of the larger issues between the two groups have come from legislation in the last 5-10 years and not from historical DIII values. Issues such as redshirting and out of season practice, particularly football here in the south, have been curtailed in the last few years by legislation. I have read several presidents mention long-standing DIII values, but haven't many of the topics of debate been enforced in the last decade of competition?

[Ralph Turner]

Working Group Document

Chris, please start with this 185 page document to see some of the background material.

I don't know what to make of this movement to split.  Even the SCAC is split down the middle on some of the criteria (Trinity, Austin College, Millsaps and OU vs. the rest).

[Ralph Turner]

If "D-III" and "D-IV" are objectionable to the various members, and there are things that everyone of the 420 members want to accomplish that  are best accomplished in two smaller divisions, then let's philosophically abandon D-III and go to Division names.

The Teddy Roosevelt Division is named after the spiritual founder of the NCAA.  This can include the NCAC, the Centennial, the CCIW and NESCAC schools who have the most stringent voting records.

The Myles Brand Division can be the "D-III" Division that was created under his leadership.  This will be everyone else who doesn't join the "more restrictive" division.

If access ratios to the playoffs are critical at the 1:6.5 level, then we can do this better in the smaller divisions with hitting the limits of 32 and 64!

This is less pejorative (no D-III/no D-IV).

Or D-III Roosevelt and D-III Myles Brand Divisions.  We attempt to solve the semantics of the issue.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I suspect that I will never see Myles Brand and Teddy Roosevelt in the same sentence again.  Ralph, you have once again performed the impossible!

Of course, 'impossible' and 'desirable' are not necessarily equivalent.

[And this from someone who often supports Myles Brand.]

Cynicism and jokes aside, this is shaping up more and more (IMO) as a battle of elitism and money: "we don't need jocks, you do - go away".  Am I way off base here, or is this pretty close to the truth?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

So we can call them the "Big Stick" and the "Big Slick" for short?

[Ralph Turner]

I suspect that I will never see Myles Brand and Teddy Roosevelt in the same sentence again.  Ralph, you have once again performed the impossible!

Of course, 'impossible' and 'desirable' are not necessarily equivalent.

[And this from someone who often supports Myles Brand.]

Cynicism and jokes aside, this is shaping up more and more (IMO) as a battle of elitism and money: "we don't need jocks, you do - go away".  Am I way off base here, or is this pretty close to the truth?

I think that it is.  If we look at the football playoffs from the late 1970's and we hear the Hoopsville interview of Wabash head coach Mac Petty, who won the 1982 national championship, then it appears that this is the divide that is re-surfacing.  As a natural course in human events, the rise of competition in athletic endeavors is sullying the pristine fields of academia.

As we go back to 1973, we saw 240 schools who moved to D-III.  I appears that the winnowing process may not have been as thorough as needed, because to go back to 1973 principles may require the "de-selection" of some apostate schools who have left those hallowed principles, as new members have hewn to them.

[Mr. Ypsi]

My post of 8:58 could easily be misinterpreted - let me try to clarify.  I'm a retired college educator; I would certainly never favor athletics over academics.  But even though I taught at a d1 school, I can't recall ever seeing a real conflict (of course, I never taught Andy Katzenmoyer! ).

In my 30+ years I dealt with (more than) my share of both "jock lovers" and "jock haters" (probably a slight plurality of the latter), but I honestly think the great majority were neither - athletes were students like any other.  I treated athletic (time) conflicts the same as any others - if notified in advance, I'd try to accommodate nearly any problem (including helping a friend move, vet appointments, etc.); if told after the fact the excuses were pretty much limited to emergency surgery or a funeral (their own!).

Despite their protestations to the contrary, the 'vibe' I get from the articles by both the Southwestern and Earlham presidents is that 'really serious' athletes are not students, and 'really serious' students are not athletes.  Also (and probably more pertinent), 'my school is above attracting students through games'.  Well, OK, I wouldn't want to be associated with a school who only used athletic success as a recruitment tool (though I don't know of any that do), but is pride in athletic success somehow a sin?  Properly integrated, athletics is, IMO, a definite plus for a school, and if the faculty can't work around the occasional sports-related absence to still provide a full academic experience, I believe the problem is with the faculty, not the athlete.

[Warren Thompson]

Alright. If we end up with the Teddy Roosevelt (aka "Roughrider" ) and Myles Brand divisions, then perhaps D1 should be called the "Tarkanian [or "Police Blotter"] Division." 

[wilburt]

Despite their protestations to the contrary, the 'vibe' I get from the articles by both the Southwestern and Earlham presidents is that 'really serious' athletes are not students, and 'really serious' students are not athletes.  Also (and probably more pertinent), 'my school is above attracting students through games'. 

I think that is correct for the most part.  One has to wonder (or better yet question a school's priorities) if a school significantly uses their athletic department as a quasi admissions office to recruit a significant percentage of any incoming freshmen class.   There are no absolutes here.  It is certainly a question of degree which is what the Southwestern and Earlham Presidents have appeared to have eloquently stated.   Viva La Divisione 2.5 BULLY 

[fcnews]

How about moving the state schools up to the much smaller DII?

[Warren Thompson]

How about moving the state schools up to the much smaller DII?

Given how successful they've been in D3, the public venues would likely not put up with that.

[Stinger]

One has to wonder (or better yet question a school's priorities) if a school significantly uses their athletic department as a quasi admissions office to recruit a significant percentage of any incoming freshmen class.   Viva La Divisione 2.5 BULLY 

Adrian College....

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/SCHOOLS/704230366

[Knightstalker]

How about moving the state schools up to the much smaller DII?

I don't know about others but the NJAC schools could not afford to compete in D-II.  Plus the NJAC or it's predecessor is a founding conference in D-III.