Future of Division III

[Mr. Ypsi]

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

Bravo for Adrian!  Note from the article that the academic profile of incoming freshmen has risen, as has student retention.  What's not to like?

I could easily foresee how a school could mess things up educationally with such an approach, but clearly Adrian is doing it right.  (+k to Stinger for the find.)

[Ralph Turner]

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

Quod est demonstratum...

You know that old MIAA.  They are notorious for using athletics as a "gimmick" to drive enrollment!       (+1 Stinger!)

The MIAA is one of the conferences that the "Southwestern/Earlham Alliance" is counting to join the more restrictive division.

I keep saying this, but where will the Southwestern/Earlham types find the 150 schools that are needed for a viable division?

Furthermore, semantically I object to the appellation of Division 2.5.  Division II is scholarship;  Division III was set up as non-scholarship.  The unifying fact across all 420 schools is the non-scholarship principle!  The MIAA and the NJAC are founding conferences of Division III.  They can claim the heritage for D-III as much as a relative D-III newbie like the Northwest Conference or the American Southwest Conference.

That is why the only solution to the division names is to leave D-III completely.

[Warren Thompson]

One prays that Adrian's doing it "right." (For what it's worth, they've instituted a men's ice hockey program -- currently featuring 17 Canadians -- that's doing quite well.)

At the same time, in recent years, other venues have increased enrollment by non-athletic means.

[smedindy]

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.

And why should they. They play by the rules.

[old ends]

Enjoy this on the link below.. It is a pod cast

http://centennialconference.blogspot.com/2008/01/diii-membership-issues.html

[Ralph Turner]

One prays that Adrian's doing it "right." (For what it's worth, they've instituted a men's ice hockey program -- currently featuring 17 Canadians -- that's doing quite well.)

At the same time, in recent years, other venues have increased enrollment by non-athletic means.

Hmmm, that is an increase in the number of international students that has statistically impacted the diversity ratios by nationality! 

That is another benefit to the increased emphasis in athletics under the current D-3 model.

[Ralph Turner]

Enjoy this on the link below.. It is a pod cast.

http://centennialconference.blogspot.com/2008/01/diii-membership-issues.html

Monday with Myles is the specific podcast.  Thanks and +1!   

"First chance to review the proposals?"     Perhaps this was the first chance to respond vociferously to them!

I like the euphemism "deeply engaged" that was used to describe "emotional"!   

They are counting on 150-200 schools who want to move in a different direction!

They re-affirm that the Division III members will each determine the course of their respective institutions.  "Nothing is carved in 'Indiana' limestone." 

They will re-visit the topic when they have the data from the (February) surveys. 

Excellent podcast from insidehighered.com talking with national SAAC members!  (Four stars!!  Thumbs up!)  National branding (D-III), impact on local rivalries, and impact by travel on classroom time are major concerns.

[fcnews]

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.

Given the vast difference in tuition, wouldn't this tend to put things on a level playing field.

[Ralph Turner]

In the insidehighered.com "Growing Pains" article I found this quote from President Doug Bennett of Earlham College instructive about the various opportunities (and institutional needs/obligations) of a  D-III student-athlete at Earlham, another college that looks to be "tuition-driven" using the student-athlete model.

Support for the Division IV proposal is coming in large part from colleges that advocate a more seasonal approach to athletics.

Doug Bennett, president of Earlham College and president of the North Coast Athletic Conference, has helped lead the charge. He says the philosophical differences among Division III members "make life increasingly awkward."

Bennett disagrees with the assessment that having two distinct groups within a division is healthy. He said in a co-authored letter to the Annapolis Group, a coalition of mostly selective liberal arts colleges, that "experience tells us that relying on conference standards alone is an imperfect solution; particularly in early season competition outside the conference, coaches and athletes want a level playing field and suffer when an opponent has practiced an extra week."

At Earlham, more than 25 percent of the 1,200-some students participate in varsity sports (there are 16 teams in total.) Other colleges in his conference have similar rates of participation. Well over half of students there study abroad, which increases the need for seasonal sports practice and competition.

"We need those same students to be resident advisers, to be in student productions (italics added  -- RT) ," Bennett said. "We want to keep athletics vital, but it's not the only thing students do."

[smedindy]

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.

Given the vast difference in tuition, wouldn't this tend to put things on a level playing field.

Yet, many D-3 schools compete on a cost basis with the privates thanks to financial aid.

[wilburt]

You know that old MIAA.  They are notorious for using athletics as a "gimmick" to drive enrollment!       (+1 Stinger!)

"We don't apologize for using athletics as one way to leverage enrollment here," said Adrian President Docking (quote from the Detroit News article you cited Dr. Ralph.

Furthermore, semantically I object to the appellation of Division 2.5.  Division II is scholarship;  Division III was set up as non-scholarship.  The unifying fact across all 420 schools is the non-scholarship principle!  The MIAA and the NJAC are founding conferences of Division III.  They can claim the heritage for D-III as much as a relative D-III newbie like the Northwest Conference or the American Southwest Conference.

That is why the only solution to the division names is to leave D-III completely.

Ralph, it is clear that another Division should be set up.  The only issue is whether to create a Division IV (for more restrictive schools) or as I have suggested a Division 2.5 (for less restrictive schools).

[Ralph Turner]

Good morning, Wilburt! 

Sorry, if there is any confusion about that quote.  That is exactly what I wanted to convey.  Small liberal arts colleges, that are tuition-driven, are in a fight for their lives.  If they don't have the endowment of a Trinity Tx or a Southwestern (see my NACUBO citation for the 2006 list of endowments), then the number of student-athletes on a campus dramatically impacts the profitability of the institution.  Please look at the NACUBO document and try to figure how much tuition your institution needs to from student-athletes to stay afloat.  Most institutions are only drawing 3-5% of the endowment each year for their selective uses.

You know that old MIAA.  They are notorious for using athletics as a "gimmick" to drive enrollment!       (+1 Stinger!)

"We don't apologize for using athletics as one way to leverage enrollment here," said Adrian President Docking (quote from the Detroit Newsarticle you cited Dr. Ralph.)

Furthermore, semantically I object to the appellation of Division 2.5.  Division II is scholarship;  Division III was set up as non-scholarship.  The unifying fact across all 420 schools is the non-scholarship principle!  The MIAA and the NJAC are founding conferences of Division III.  They can claim the heritage for D-III as much as a relative D-III newbie like the Northwest Conference or the American Southwest Conference.

That is why the only solution to the division names is to leave D-III completely.

Ralph, it is clear that another Division should be set up.  The only issue is whether to create a Division IV (for more restrictive schools) or as I have suggested a Division 2.5 (for less restrictive schools).

Have a good day, Wilburt! 

[wilburt]

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you Ralph.  It appears that the Adrian model has worked for them on many levels.  All I suggested (perhaps in some harsh terms) is that where do you draw the line? Adrian may draw it further than an Earlham.  Or McMurry may draw it further than Adrian. 

As I stated earlier there are no absolutes, it is all a question of degree here.  I am very sensitive to the fact that liberal arts colleges are enrollment/tuition driven for much of their finances.  Fisk University (my alma mater) is no exception. But at what point do you figuratively sell your soul to the devil in exchange for the all mighty tuition dollar?

You too have an outstanding day my friend...

[Ralph Turner]

Wilburt, I think much of this furor on the campuses about athletics is an undeserved animus and virulence towards athletics.

Is there any competent president at a D3 college in the country who does not have adequate administrative control over the admissions processes and athletic department at his/her institutions?  Name 'em!

Are there any colleges who are blatantly admitting student-athletes that do not qualify in any way for admission to the colleges at which they play?  Name 'em.  How many articles have we read about the admissions processes at premier institutions that are concerned with trying to get the right mix or the right diversity of students at the university?

Scientifically, are there any randomized double-blind studies that have shown that  student-athletes are statistically incapable of doing the class work at D-3 institution to a p value of 0.05 or better?

If the admissions process at the institution in question does not have checks and balances and "best practices" analyses in place to change admissions procedures when statistical deviations from the norms have been recognized, then why is that the fault of the athlete?

Do I understand the president at Earlham needs his student-athletes to spend less time in athletics and more time as resident-aides or in dramatic productions?

Let's concentrate on principles that enhance the student-athlete experience.

Is the desired access ratio to the playoffs a 1:6.5 ratio?  Is the best and most efficient way to maintain that ratio (in light of growing membership) to move to 2 equal non-scholarship divisions that reflect the respective natures of the member institutions?  The "Roosevelt" and the "Myles Brand" Divisions that are both non-scholarship with separate cultures to the playoffs can work that way.

Can the "Myles Brand" and "Roosevelt" divisions provide the activities that their respective members want with adequate, equal and appropriate levels of funding?

Are the "more restrictive" proponents subconsciously afraid that their model of student-athletics, regardless of its name, will be considered less viable when compared to a less restrictive model, regardless of its name?  That might mean that those Southwestern/Earlham types might see fewer applicants of the quality that they desire.  We have shown that that impacts the bottom line.

I see that there are huge differences.  If we move from the D-III name, but keep D-III non-scholarship principles, then I see the split as helping to grow "D-III" as a concept!  (I also am happy with the post-season competitive opportunities for the ASC versus the rest of the putative members of "less restrictive" conferences.) 

[wilburt]

Wilburt, I think much of this furor on the campuses about athletics is an undeserved animus and virulence towards athletics.

I disagree with that Ralph.  The issue is what role do sports play in the larger educational process of any given liberal arts college.  Everyone concedes that they play a role in the educational process and respective college communities. The question again is to what degree?

At what point does a school sell its academic soul for the athletic tuition dollar?