Future of Division III

[joehakes]

Wilburt,

By the same token, if an oboe player knows that they are not going to be a professional musician, should they be allowed to play the oboe in the studio as much as they want?  I am not an advocate for unlimited playing and practice seasons, but I do think (based on 28 years in college athletics) that there are some double standards being applied.

If athletics is such a wonderful thing that teaches character and values, then why do we limit it so much?  It is the balance that is important, not the imbalance.  Again, I have voted for legislation that is considered "restrictive" because it has been the right choice.  But there are some facets of this that we really need to look at with patient and logical eyes. 

One of the very difficult tasks that coaches and athletic administrators have is be able to find ways to be successful in all phases of our interaction with student-athletes.  Winning should be a primary program goal, but so should the development of students for the future in parallel with the mission of the particular instituton.

[johnnie_esq]

Good morning, Wilburt,
Please give us some specifics.

Well let me just say this. I think to a certain extent that the "powers that be" do think that athletics is lesser than other chosen pursuits.   As I have stated before what is the proper role of athletics in a college community?

Given that 99.5% of Division III athletes know they are not going to be professional athletes, but they will more than likely become "professionals" in their academic related endeavors (ie biologist, chemist, engineer, actors, educators) and for those who choose to go on to graduate or professional school (doctors, lawyers, PhDs etc.)  If that is the case, then why do we need "redshirting" all of a sudden in Division III?

Currently in the D-III of 2008, "redshirting" is not practiced.  The conference which seems to have been impacted most by this decision is the WIAC.  They are a putative "D-IV" by voting patterns, just like the MWC, the Centennial, the NCAC and the CCIW.

It could be argued that one of the conferences most affected by the redshirt rule has been the NWC.  Two of its members that practiced the routine redshirt were dominant in football in the late 1990s and early 2000s and have fallen back to mediocrity since (PLU anyone?  Linfield?).  While both have strong programs and will adjust, this transition has clearly hurt their competitiveness in the game. 

The WIAC should be most affected by the redshirt rule, but there is an internal conflict in that conference between the ADs and the campus Chancellors.  By way of note, the Chancellors were the ones that voted for that reform.

Why do we need extended seasons (practice or otherwise) in some sports for Division III?

Which season is too long for your liking now, in the D-III of 2008? How many weeks, how many games and how many playoff bids do you propose to cut?  Concerning playoff bids, the current playoff bid ratio is 1:6.5 so as to allow more Pooll C bids.  Do you wish to eliminate all Pool C bids?  (The D-IV's are complaining about how big the playoffs are with respect to bracket size since increasing the number of playoff bids in 2005-06.  I have not heard one "D-IV" president advocate cutting the access ratio, i.e., the number of bids, to the playoffs.)

The problem is that there is a push to extend the season through off-season practice and allowing extra games.  Some conferences limit these-- the MIAC and MWC, for example-- and the argument on the flip side is why should their competitiveness be hurt on the national stage because they want their athletes to concentrate on other things once the playing season is over?

Are these schools trying to enhance the athlete's athletic experience under the guise of trying to become more competitive in Division III competition? If so, to what purpose?  Is it as Ralph argues to compete for the athletic tuition dollar?

Let me re-focus the last question.  In Adrian's case and the case of so many other schools, it is the "tuition dollars" of students who wish to continue in D-III athletics.  "Half" of these are women, for which intercollegiate athletics as we see now did not exist in my days at college, pre-Title IX.  In Michigan, they can go to Eastern Michigan and not compete in non-scholarship intercollegiate athletics, or they can go to Adrian and "do D-III".  That is expanding choices for students.

Agreed as far as student choice, but that is merely restating the question.  The more interesting aspect is institutional choice for their educational component.  Are these institutions allowing athletics to drive the academic bus by being so tuition dependent on athletics?  If so, is that the mission of the school?  That question is the one that is the key one for this debate.

[Titan Q]

Given that 99.5% of Division III athletes know they are not going to be professional athletes, but they will more than likely become "professionals" in their academic related endeavors (ie biologist, chemist, engineer, actors, educators) and for those who choose to go on to graduate or professional school (doctors, lawyers, PhDs etc.)  If that is the case, then why do we need "redshirting" all of a sudden in Division III? 

The redshirting topic seems to come up a lot in the discussion of Division III's membership issues, but I have to believe the list of current D3 schools that would like to implement the practice is very small.  Private schools dominate D3's membership and I just don't see how redshirting is feasible at a private school (based on the cost).

Redshirting seems like a non-factor to me in this whole debate.  Am I wrong?

[wilburt]

1. Ralph:  Johnnie_esq has given you responses better than I could given the time frame that I have to do so.  His concluding statement echoes/emphasizes what I have being trying to say all along:

Are these institutions allowing athletics to drive the academic bus by being so tuition dependent on athletics?  If so, is that the mission of the school?  That question is the one that is the key one for this debate.

2. An example may be Maryville College in Tennessee.  In a 2006 article the Maryville AD says that 50% of any incoming class are athletes.   

http://www.thedailytimes.com/article/20061227/SPORTS/612270306

"The college is enrollment driven. Our budget each year is determined each year by the number of full time students," Maryville College athletic director Randy Lambert said of the $1.2 million portion of that budget that athletics spent for the 2005-06 fiscal year. "Other than tuition-paying students we're not going to generate much income. Athletic recruiting contributes close to 50 percent of our annual freshman class. If our incoming class last fall was 300 students we're bringing in close to 150 of those. That justifies athletics and our existence on campus within itself."

[golden_dome]

If that is the case, then why do we need "redshirting" all of a sudden in Division III?  Why do we need extended seasons (practice or otherwise) in some sports for Division III?  Are these schools trying to enhance the athlete's athletic experience under the guise of trying to become more competitive in Division III competition? If so, to what purpose?  Is it as Ralph argues to compete for the athletic tuition dollar?

Just a couple things I am not understanding regarding redshirting and extended seasons and the history of each in Division III. Both were changed "all of a sudden" in 2003 by the Division III Presidents' Council. Why was that necessary then? We are not talking about longstanding DIII principles. A lot of the current topics of debate have arisen from legislation passed in the last five years trying to diminish the role of athletics.

What is wrong with trying to become more competitive? What endeavor does anyone venture into not trying to be as successful as possible. Can we even fathom an administrator telling an educator that there is a level of success that is too much, which is in essence what some want to do with athletics. And what is wrong with bringing in athletic dollars if it positively affects academics, the institution and the individual? I think some of the rhetoric needs to be simplified in this discussion because we miss the point.

I just do not understand why we have to diminish the role of athletics to feel good about the quality of our academics. It is hard not to think that many of the topics of debate are more concerned with the amount of money invested into athletics rather than the status of academics. The Division III split will be a good thing, however, if some really believe supporting athletics diminishes academics. It would be nice to belong to a non-scholarship division that can see the benefits of both and support each accordingly.

[Titan Q]

What is wrong with trying to become more competitive?

Well nothing, unless those things aimed at increasing athletic competitiveness come at the expense of the student, or the school's educational mission.  Redshirting is one of those things in my opinion.  You take an average incoming college freshman and ask him to take 5 years to complete 4 years of course work, simply because athletically he's not ready to compete as a freshman.  To me, redshirting is the perfect example of a practice that falls outside of the spirit of Division III.

[golden_dome]

What is wrong with trying to become more competitive?

Well nothing, unless those things aimed at increasing athletic competitiveness come at the expense of the student, or the school's educational mission.  Redshirting is one of those things in my opinion.  You take an average incoming college freshman and ask him to take 5 years to complete 4 years of course work, simply because athletically he's not ready to compete as a freshman.  To me, redshirting is the perfect example of a practice that falls outside of the spirit of Division III.

First of all, why does everyone assume that striving to become more competitve in athletics comes at the expense of a student or is not exactly in line with the institution. There are examples of schools doing that, but they are far outnumbered by institutions who do it the right way.

Also, I would not assume that every coach pushes redshirting on anyone at this level. I think you would find that the vast majority of student-athletes would like the option themselves to choose from. Student-athletes take their athletic careers very seriously, they invest far too much of their time into it not to be. A huge majority of them would trade a freshman season where they did not contribute for one more season to be successful. The student-athletes are the ones affected by these decisions but I don't see much concern for their input.

Right now, the only option available to them is to sit out a full year without coaching or instruction in order to not burn a year of eligibility and are forced to improve themselves alone. I personally think that is more damaging than having them able to practice with coaches and supported by the structure provided by the team.

[smedindy]

At several D-3 institutions, though, there really is no red-shirting option because the academic programs are designed for 'four years and out'.

[golden_dome]

At several D-3 institutions, though, there really is no red-shirting option because the academic programs are designed for 'four years and out'.

Smedingy, I understand that completely. But I still don't think the decision should be taken out of the hands of the student-athlete. Individual institutions can choose not to allow it if necessary, giving student-athletes an option to attend elsewhere if need be.

But for the record, I love the Division III philosophy of non-scholarship athletics. But I think there has been a move in Division III the last five years to change the Division III philosophy with many legislative changes to lessen the importance of athletics and we inch closer to intramural athletics with each one.

[Ralph Turner]

...
But for the record, I love the Division III philosophy of non-scholarship athletics. But I think there has been a move in Division III the last five years to change the Division III philosophy with many legislative changes to lessen the importance of athletics and we inch closer to intramural athletics with each one.

Chris, I think that you have suggested an interesting change in D-III with your assessment of the legislation.

I think that the last two groups of "strong institutions" to join D-III were the NWC and the ASC.  IMHO, the majority of the independents that have joined piece-meal since then have not been as strong as those two conferences.

The brutal truth about college economics is that 80% of Division III private schools are tuition driven.  If the colleges don't hit their targets for enrollment (and retention of those student-athletes whether they are engaged in athetics beyond their first year or not), there are catastrophic budget implications.

Please refer to the NACUBO enodowment document and find your school.

I cannot stress this enough as to the economics that face the Maryville's, the McMurry's, and even the Earlham's, and possibly the Sewanee's.

If your school's endowment is over $200M, and your proportion of "athletes to total student body" is less than 10%, then you can probably de-emphasize athletics in manner that some would want.

However, the budget implications of another 1-2% increase in the student body is tremendous.  (Two per cent improvement in enrollment/retention on 1500 students is 30 students at conservatively $13,000 per year provides another $390,000 per year!  On a $20,000,000 annual budget, that is almost 2%.)

[Ralph Turner]

1. Ralph:  Johnnie_esq has given you responses better than I could given the time frame that I have to do so.  His concluding statement echoes/emphasizes what I have being trying to say all along:

Are these institutions allowing athletics to drive the academic bus by being so tuition dependent on athletics?  If so, is that the mission of the school?  That question is the one that is the key one for this debate.

2. An example may be Maryville College in Tennessee.  In a 2006 article the Maryville AD says that 50% of any incoming class are athletes.   

http://www.thedailytimes.com/article/20061227/SPORTS/612270306

"The college is enrollment driven. Our budget each year is determined each year by the number of full time students," Maryville College athletic director Randy Lambert said of the $1.2 million portion of that budget that athletics spent for the 2005-06 fiscal year. "Other than tuition-paying students we're not going to generate much income. Athletic recruiting contributes close to 50 percent of our annual freshman class. If our incoming class last fall was 300 students we're bringing in close to 150 of those. That justifies athletics and our existence on campus within itself."

Wilburt, thanks.   

The role of the institution is to help the portion of those 150 athletes who cannot compete at the D-III level to enjoy the educational experience that they find at Maryville!  I re-emphasize that role of the D-III institution as well.

[Titan Q]

First of all, why does everyone assume that striving to become more competitve in athletics comes at the expense of a student or is not exactly in line with the institution. There are examples of schools doing that, but they are far outnumbered by institutions who do it the right way.

My experience with redshirting is that Player X comes to campus 6-7/190 and is asked to spend a year becoming 6-7/205, so as a "redshirt freshman" he's ready to compete, and by the time he's an upperclassmen he's a real beast.  The decision has absolutely zero to do with academics.  It seems like a situation where an athletic decision is completely driving what should be an academic situation.

[Bob Maxwell]

But what if the "kid" graduates in four years and... 1) stays to get a post graduate degree while participating in athletics during that fifth year? or 2) he just moves on with his life as most others who graduate do?

Aren't both of those positives?

[Titan Q]

But what if the "kid" graduates in four years and... 1) stays to get a post graduate degree while participating in athletics during that fifth year? or 2) he just moves on with his life as most others who graduate do?

Aren't both of those positives?

Absolutely.  If that happens, it's very positive.

[smedindy]

But what if the "kid" graduates in four years and... 1) stays to get a post graduate degree while participating in athletics during that fifth year? or 2) he just moves on with his life as most others who graduate do?

Aren't both of those positives?

How many D-3 institutions have post-graduate work available?